CAR_Public/170330.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Thursday, March 30, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 64



                            Headlines

A & D INTERESTS: Faces "Henderson" Suit Over Failure to Wages
ALASKA: Prisoners' Rights to Enforce Final Settlement Reinstated
ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: May 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Gella" Suit in Fla. Over FLSA Breach
ASJ CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Lopez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

B&H NEW: "Ridenour" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Class Action Over Pre-Election Ad
CANADA: Law Firms Seek to Authorize Highway 13 Snow Storm Fiasco
CCS COMMERCIAL: "Rosenberg" Civil Action Removed to W.D. Wash
CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS: June 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

CLAYTON WILLIAMS: "Poms" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal
CONNECTTO COMMUNICATIONS: "Greenfield" Alleges Privacy Invasion
ENERGY PROTECTION: Faces Class Action Over Labor Code Violations
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Sued for Violation of FCRA in Va.
ETSY INC: New York Court Dismisses Securities Class Action

FERHATI LLC: "Salto" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
FERRARA CANDY: Faces Class Action Over Slack Fill Claims
FIELD ASSET: Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment in "Bowerman"
FINANCIAL CREDIT: Accused of Violating TCPA in Cal.
FIRSTMERIT: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $15.975MM

FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Patient Data Theft Class Action Can Proceed
FMM ENTERPRISES: Faces "Glass" Suit Over Non-Payment of Wages
FTD COMPANIES: Faces Class Action, May 19 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
GOOGLE INC: Judge Rejects E-mail Scanning Class Action Settlement
GRAND CELEBRATION: Faces "Alan" Suit Over TCPA Violation in Fla.

GULFSTREAM PARK: Faces "Dietz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
HAKKASAN LIMITED: Faces "Gardner" Suit Over Labor Code Violation
HERTZ CORP: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in "Moretti" Denied
HOWROYD-WRIGHT: Cal. App. Reverses Counsel DQ in Workers' Suit
HU HOLDINGS: Tapia, et al. Allege Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law

I.K. HOFMANN: Faces "Fortune" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
INVENSENSE INC: "Rollins" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal
JEFFERSON COUNTY, AL: Sales Tax Constitutional, High Ct. Rules
JIMMY CHOO: Customer Objects to FACTA Class Action Settlement
JTNU INC: "Dyer" Alleges Violation of FLSA's Tip Credit Provision

LAKE COUNTY SECURITY: Garcia Files Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
LENDINGUSA LLC: Faces "Grabar" Suit Under Junk Fax Prevention Act
LL TRANSPORT: "Pou" Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursements
LRR ENERGY: Delaware Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
MACHINE ZONE: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Game of War Suit

MDL NO. 2672: Class Counsel Awarded $175MM in Fees, Expenses
MICROSOFT CORP: Supreme Court Sympathetic in Xbox 360 Suit
MILLICOM AMERICAS: Sent Illegal SMS Ads, "Reyes" Alleges
MLM REMODELING: "Gomez" Suit Alleges Non-payment of Overtime Work
MODERN APPEALING: Class Action Alleges "Unfair Competition"

MOLYCORP INC: June 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
NATIONAL AUTO: Faces "Frost" Suit in Fla. Over TCPA Violation
NIMBLE STORAGE: "Huston" Files Suit Over Sale to Hewlett Packard
OAKLAND CAR: Faces "Coleman" Suit in Fla. Over FLSA Violation
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Default Servicing Class Action Dismissal Upheld

PACIFIC GATEWAY: Faces "Lim" Suit Alleging Violation of FACTA
PNC BANK: "Marino" Sues Over Unauthorized Consumer Report Access
PPI INC: Faces "Faeldonea" Suit Over Illegal Tip-Credits
RELIANT CAPITAL: "Hodges" Alleges TCPA, FDCPA Violations
REMINGTON ARMS: Rifle Owners Eligible for Trigger Replacement

RIVER CAFE: July 31 Trial Set in Waiter Pay Class Action
RUSHMORE LOAN: "Cedre" FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Soto" Sues Over S5 Phone Explosion
SANTA CLARA, CA: Class Settlement in Suit vs. HACSC Has Final OK
SEVIER COUNTY, TN: Wildfire Survivors Mull Suits vs. Park Service

SUNGEVITY: Next Class Action Hearing Scheduled for April 12
TRXADE GROUP: Class Settlement in TCPA Suit Has Final Approval
ULTRATECH INC: Faces Investor Class Action Over Veeco Merger
ULTRATECH INC: Faces "Letter" Suit Over Sale to Veeco
UNITED STATES: Court Finds USCIS Regulation for H-1B Reasonable

WESTERN EDGE: "Hamman" Suit Alleges Non-payment of Overtime Work

* Fate of FICALA 220 to 201 Bill Uncertain in Senate
* Some Provisions in FCALA Bill Controversial, Attorneys Say



                            *********


A & D INTERESTS: Faces "Henderson" Suit Over Failure to Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frankie Henderson, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. A & D Interests, Inc., d/b/a Heartbreakers
Gentlemen's Club, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00096 (S.D. Tex.,
March 21, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Henderson worked as an exotic dancer at Heartbreakers.

During the relevant time period, it was Heartbreakers' policy
and/or practice to treat dancers as independent contractors, not
pay dancers a statutory minimum wage of at least $7.25 per hour,
and not pay dancers one and one-half times their regular hourly
rate for hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek, says the
complaint.

A & D Interests, Inc., is an adult entertainment club located in
Galveston, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew W. Reed, Esq.
   G. Scott Fiddler, Esq.
   Fiddler & Associates, P.C.
   1004 Congress, 3rd Floor
   Houston, TX 77002
   Tel: 713-228-0070
   Fax: 713-228-0078
   Email: areed@fiddlerlaw.com
          scott@fiddlerlaw.com



ALASKA: Prisoners' Rights to Enforce Final Settlement Reinstated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Alaska Supreme Court reversed an order and remanded
proceedings in the case captioned, JAMES E. BARBER, Appellant, v.
STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee. BILLY JACK
WIGLESWORTH, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, Appellee. MATTHEW M. MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE OF
ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee, Case Nos. S-15645, S-
15655, S-15836 (Consolidated), No. 7159 (Ala).

The case began in 1981 as a class action brought against the state
by Alaska prisoners challenging prison conditions.  The plaintiffs
formed three subclasses: pretrial detainees (subclass A),
sentenced prisoners in state owned or operated correctional
centers (subclass B), and prisoners held by the state in federal
facilities (subclass C). Although the state and subclass C settled
in 1983, litigation continued with the remaining subclasses until
the parties entered a comprehensive settlement, which the superior
court incorporated in a consent decree in 1990.

In 1999 the Alaska Legislature enacted the Alaska Prison
Litigation Reform Act (APLRA), Alaska Statute (AS) 09.19.200,
which established standards for terminating prospective relief
under the Final Settlement Agreement and any other litigation
challenging prisoner conditions in Alaska. In 2000 the Department
moved to terminate the Final Settlement Agreement pursuant to AS
09.19.200(c). The plaintiffs opposed that motion and argued that
the APLRA was unconstitutional. Judge Andrews ruled that the APLRA
was constitutional provided that it only terminated the
prospective effect of the Final Settlement Agreement and not the
Agreement itself. She concluded that prospective relief under the
APLRA is limited to remedy violations of state or federal law.

Beginning in 2013 a number of pro se prisoners moved for the
superior court to enforce the terms of the 1990 Final Settlement
Agreement and Order in the Cleary case, a class action by inmates
regarding prison conditions.  In 2014 Superior Court Judge John
Suddock dismissed the prisoners' motions, concluding that the
Final Settlement Agreement was unenforceable because it had been
terminated in 2001 when Superior Court Judge Elaine M. Andrews
found that the requirements for termination had been met.

In an Opinion dated March 17, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/RxcgMj  from Leagle.com, the Supreme Court found
that the Order overlooked the constitutional concerns Judge
Andrews had noted in her order that terminating the Agreement
itself would present grave constitutional concerns. Prisoners may
bring motions to enforce the Final Settlement Agreement provided
that they exhaust their administrative remedies, they allege
violations of the Agreement and of a state or federal right, the
violations affect the entire class, the relief requested utilizes
the least intrusive means, and the court considers the adverse
effects on public safety and the criminal justice system because
the superior court did not make sufficient findings to reverse the
law of the case.

State of Alaska Department of Corrections is represented by:

      John K. Bodick, Esq.
      Craig W. Richards, Esq.
      ALASKA ATTORNEY GENERAL
      P.O. Box 110300
      Juneau, AK 99811-0300
      Tel: (907) 269-5100


ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: May 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP regarding the In re: Altisource Portfolio
Solutions, S.A. Securities Litigation, Case 14-81156 CIV-WPD (S.D.
Fla.).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

In re: Altisource Portfolio Solutions, S.A. Securities Litigation,
Case 14-81156 CIV-WPD

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF
SETTLEMENT CLASS, and PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT
HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:   All persons or entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. ("Altisource") common
stock during the period from April 25, 2013 through December 21,
2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby
(the "Settlement Class"):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, that the above-
captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class
action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain
persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by
definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency
of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed
Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award
of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Lead Plaintiffs in the Action, on
behalf of themselves and the other members of the Settlement
Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for
$32,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement").  If the Settlement is
approved by the Court, it will resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on May 30, 2017 at 1:15 p.m., before the
Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas at the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, U.S. Federal Building
and Courthouse, Courtroom 205B, 299 East Broward Boulevard, Fort
Lauderdale, Florida 33301, to determine (i) whether the proposed
Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated February 8, 2017
(and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed
Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and
(iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Altisource
Securities Litigation, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10361, Dublin, OH 43017-
5561, by toll-free phone at (888) 320-9983, or by email at
info@AltisourceSecuritiesLitigation.com.  Copies of the Notice and
Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by
the Claims Administrator, www.AltisourceSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than July 11, 2017.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not submit a
proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than May 9, 2017, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of
the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, must be filed with the Court
and delivered to Lead Counsel and Representative Settling
Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than
May 9, 2017, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Altisource,
or Defendants' counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about
this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims
Administrator or Lead Counsel.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

          Altisource Securities Litigation
          c/o GCG
          P.O. Box 10361
          Dublin, OH  43017-5561
          (888) 320-9983
          info@AltisourceSecuritiesLitigation.com
          www.AltisourceSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

          Hannah G. Ross, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          (800) 380-8496

By Order of the Court


AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Gella" Suit in Fla. Over FLSA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Gabriel Gella, individually and on behalf of all other
employees of Defendants similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American
Financial Freedom, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, d/b/a
Globelend Capital, Alexander Roshko, individually and Oliver
Salmeron, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21068-FAM
(S.D. Fla., March 21, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages
and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and
costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a lending company in Miami-Dade County,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Santiago J. Padilla, Esq.
   Fowler Rodriguez LLP
   355 Alhambra Circle, Suite 801
   Coral Gables, FL 33134
   Tel: (786) 364-8400
   Fax: (786) 364-8401
   Email: spadilla@frfirm.com


ASJ CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Lopez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
LIDIO LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. ASJ CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC and ALFONSO
SANCHEZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02241 (E.D. La., March 17,
2017), alleges that while working for the Defendants, Plaintiff
was not paid one-and-a-half times his regular hourly rate for all
hours worked in excess of forty hours a workweek, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

ASJ CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC is a commercial and residential
construction company that specializes in home elevation,
remodeling, restoration, leveling, and other general construction.
Plaintiff was employed as a general construction laborer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
     William H. Beaumont, Esq.
     Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
     BEAUMONT COSTALES
     3801 Canal Street Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 534-5005
     E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com
             whbeaumont@gmail.com
             emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com


B&H NEW: "Ridenour" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------
Jackey Ridenour, Plaintiff, v. B&H New & Used Auto Parts, Inc. and
Charmie Polansky, Defendants, Case 1:17-cv-00763 (D. Md., March
20, 2017) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
Maryland Wage and Hour Law and Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

Defendant is engaged in the business of buying and selling second
hand automobiles and parts, Plaintiff worked as a general
maintenance provider for a number of the facilities owned by the
Defendant. Defendants allegedly failed to compensate Plaintiff and
others for all hours worked.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Spicer, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Telephone: (410) 244-7005
      Fax: (410) 244-8454


BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Class Action Over Pre-Election Ad
---------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hager, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that two
Vancouver criminal lawyers are suing British Columbia, on behalf
of its citizens, in an attempt to stop the government's pre-
election advertising, which they allege unfairly benefits the
incumbent Liberal party.

Paul Doroshenko and David Fai say their proposed class-action
suit, filed in B.C. Supreme Court on March 20, is an attempt to
get the BC Liberals to pay taxpayers back some of the roughly $16-
million the government expects to spend on ads in the current
fiscal year, which is roughly double what it first budgeted.

Eventually, they said at a news conference on the steps of the
courthouse, a trial is needed for a judge to rule on how many
radio, TV, print and social media spots veered from spreading
public awareness into partisan propaganda. In the meantime, the
pair say they are seeking an injunction stopping any further non-
essential advertising from the government.

"If you look at the message in that advertising, it's not
necessary and it's basically designed to promote the BC Liberal
Party," Mr. Doroshenko said.  "That money that they're spending?
It's your money, it's my money, it's money that could be spent for
a legitimate bona fide reason."

Plaintiff David Trapp, a retired IT professional, said he
approached the two lawyers, his friends, about bringing the
lawsuit forward after being inundated with a government ad blitz
while at home recuperating from colon cancer treatment last year.

He said the tag line "Your opportunity is here" that ended each
commercial did not square with his recent experience in the
health-care system.

"That's the kind of thing that rubs me raw the whole time," he
said at the news conference.

The lawyers say any B.C. taxpayer could join the lawsuit if it is
certified. The pair say they are working pro bono and trying to
crowdfund $30,000 online to pay for filing fees and court costs,
but will cover any remaining costs themselves if they fall short
of their goal.

None of the allegations has been proven in court.

Andrew Wilkinson, a Vancouver MLA and the minister in charge of
government advertising, said in an e-mailed statement that the
lawsuit is political in nature.

"The issues should be addressed in the election and not in the
court room," his statement said.

It said the government has worked with the province's Auditor-
General to make sure each information campaign is fact-based and
informs the public about important government programs and
priorities, such as British Columbia's response to the opioid
overdose epidemic and potential changes to medical premiums.

Emile Scheffel, head spokesperson for the Liberals, who are also
named as defendants in the suit, declined an opportunity to
comment on the legal challenge on March 20.

NDP Leader John Horgan said his party has had legislation rejected
by the governing party that would force any taxpayer-funded ads to
be vetted for partisanship by the auditor-general if they run in
the four months before an election.

"I support citizens that are standing up and saying, 'This is
gross waste of money,'" he said in a phone interview.

Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver said this latest lawsuit shows
how the province lags behind others in policing campaign financing
rules.

Norman Ruff, an associate professor emeritus at the University of
Victoria who has studied B.C. politics since 1968, agreed, saying
the constant repetition of the government message helps the ruling
party.

"There's a sort of double irony to the situation," he said. "Not
only have the Liberals managed to amass a huge war chest, because
of the lack of restrictions on party financing, they have the
audacity to supplement it with public funds."


CANADA: Law Firms Seek to Authorize Highway 13 Snow Storm Fiasco
----------------------------------------------------------------
CTV Montreal reports that two separate law firms have filed
documents asking the court to authorize a class-action lawsuit for
people caught in the mess on Highway 13.

The first collective action was filed on March 16 for all those
who were stuck overnight on the highway, some without food or
access to a washroom.

At that time, lawyers said they were seeking $ 2,000 for victims,
but that was amended on March 20 to add a claim of $500 per person
for exemplary and punitive damages.  This means each victim will
now claim $2,500.

Physical damages are also being sought, but it varies according to
what each person has undergone: this includes wasted gasoline,
breakage of automobiles, loss of wages or cargo, among other
things.

Complainant Marlene Berman told CTV on March 16 she spent 10 hours
trapped in her vehicle and despite repeated calls to emergency
services, no one came to help.  She said she feared for safety.

"We have charter rights that guarantee our security of our person,
and this wasn't there that night," said her lawyer,
Joey Zukran.

A second lawsuit is seeking $2,500 per person who was stranded on
the highway.

Gilles Beauchamp is now a named complainant.  Mr. Beauchamp said
he was trying to go home on March 14 following a sports injury.
He was not able to go home until around 3 a.m., leading him to
suffer because he had no painkillers with him, he alleged in the
proceedings.

As many as 1,000 people could be involved in the claims.


CCS COMMERCIAL: "Rosenberg" Civil Action Removed to W.D. Wash
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Ayanna Rosenberg, individually, and on behalf
of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CCS Commercial,
LLC, (d/b/a Credit Collection Services Commercial), and
Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No. 16-2-
23429-1, (Wash. Super., September 28, 2016), was removed to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on March 23, 2017, and assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00476.

The Plaintiff filed this civil action against Defendants CCS and
Progressive over debt collection-type notices from the Defendants
attempting to recover a subrogated interest in the form of an un-
adjudicated, un-liquidated tort claim on behalf of an insurance
company.  The suit seeks treble damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest at 12%, cost of suit, attorney fees and expenses and
injunctive relief for violation of Washington's Consumer
Protection Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chase Alvord, Esq.
      James Bulthuis, Esq.
      TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
      1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Phone: (206) 682-5600
      Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
      Email: calvord@tousley.com
             jbulthuis@tousley.com

             - and -

      Matthew J. Ide, Esq.
      7900 SE 28th Street, Suite 500
      Mercer Island, WA 98040
      Phone: (206) 625-1326
      Email: mjide@yahoo.com

Progressive Direct Ins. Co. is represented by:

      Matt Donohue, Esq.
      MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC
      1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3000
      Portland, OR 97204
      Phone: (503) 295-3085
      Email: mattdonohue@markowitzherbold.com

Defendant CCS Commercial, LLC is represented by:

      William H. Walsh, Esq.
      Kevin A. Michael, Esq.
      Nadia A. Bugaighis, Esq.
      William H. Walsh, Esq.
      Kevin A. Michael, Esq.
      Nadia A. Bugaighis, Esq.
      COZEN O'CONNOR
      999 Third Avenue, Suite 1900
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Telephone: (206) 340-1000
      E-mail: wwalsh@cozen.com
              kmichael@cozen.com
              nbugaighis@cozen.com


CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS: June 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND SHAREHOLDER
DERIVATIVE ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION, AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF COMMON STOCK OF
CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS, INC. ("CHECKPOINT") WHO HELD OR OWNED SUCH
STOCK AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON AND INCLUDING
MARCH 2, 2016 THROUGH AND INCLUDING MAY 13, 2016.

THIS NOTICE WAS SENT TO YOU BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE
CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF THIS CLASS ACTION AND SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION
AND, IF YOU ARE A CHECKPOINT SHAREHOLDER, CONTAINS IMPORTANT
INFORMATION AS TO YOUR RIGHTS CONCERNING THE SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED
BELOW.

IF YOU HELD SHARES OF CHECKPOINT COMMON STOCK FOR THE BENEFIT OF
ANOTHER, PLEASE PROMPTLY TRANSMIT THIS DOCUMENT TO THE
BENEFICIAL OWNER.


This Notice is not a lawsuit against you and you are not being
sued.

You have received this Notice because you may be a member of the
class described in this Notice.

This Notice is given pursuant to an Order of the Court of Common
Pleas for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (the "Court") entered
in the above-captioned class action and shareholder derivative
lawsuit (the "Checkpoint Action") arising out of a transaction (as
further described below, the "Transaction") pursuant to which CCL
Industries Inc. ("CCL") agreed to acquire Checkpoint Systems, Inc.
("Checkpoint").

The purpose of this Notice is to notify you of (1) the pendency of
the Checkpoint Action; (2) the proposed settlement (the
"Settlement") of the Checkpoint Action; (3) the Court's
conditional certification of a settlement class composed of all
record holders and beneficial owners of Checkpoint common stock
who held or owned such stock at any time between and including
March 2, 2016 to the date of closing of the Transaction on May 13,
2016, for purposes of a settlement; and (4) a hearing to be held
regarding the proposed Settlement.  This Notice describes the
rights that you may have pursuant to the Settlement and what steps
you may, but are not required to, take in relation to the
Settlement.  This Notice also is to inform you of your right to
exclude yourself from the Settlement, provided that you timely and
validly submit a request for exclusion in accordance with the
instructions set forth herein (a "Request for Exclusion").

YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE ANY ACTION IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE
UNLESS YOU WISH TO FILE AN OBJECTION OR BE HEARD AT THE HEARING.

On March 1, 2017 the Court entered an Order determining, for
settlement purposes only, that the Checkpoint Action may be
conditionally maintained as a class action pursuant to Pa. R. Civ.
P. 1702, et seq. on behalf of a class consisting of any and all
record holders and beneficial owners of Checkpoint common stock
(other than Defendants, their affiliates, and any member of the
class who has validly and timely requested exclusion from the
class, as the case may be) who held or owned such stock at any
time during the period beginning on and including March 2, 2016
through and including the date of closing of the Transaction on
May 13, 2016, including any and all of their respective
successors-in-interest, successors, predecessors-in-interest,
predecessors, representatives, trustees, executors,
administrators, estates, heirs, assigns and transferees, immediate
and remote, and any person or entity acting for or on behalf of,
or claiming under, any of them, and each of them, together with
their predecessors-in-interest, predecessors, successors-in-
interest, successors, and assigns (the "Class").
Class Members shall have the right to exclude themselves from the
Settlement only as to those Released Claims relating to a claim
for monetary damages arising out of the Transaction and not as to
any other claims, including without limitation, claims for
injunctive relief and claims concerning the adequacy of
disclosures.

The Court also scheduled a hearing to be held in Courtroom 630 of
the Philadelphia County Courthouse, Philadelphia City Hall,
Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107, on June 8,
2017, at 10:00 a.m. (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine:

   a. whether the proposed Settlement of the Checkpoint Action on
the terms and conditions provided for is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and should be finally approved by the Court, pursuant to
Pa. R. Civ. P. 1506(d) and 1714;

   b. whether the Checkpoint Action may be permanently certified
for settlement purposes only pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1702, et
seq. as an opt-out class action on behalf of the Class;

   c. whether plaintiffs Louis Levine, Shiva Stein, and Feivel
Gottleib Defined Benefit Pension Plan (together, "Plaintiffs") may
be designated as class representatives of the Class ("Class
Representatives") with the law firms of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
("Barrack, Rodos") and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
("Wolf Haldenstein") as Co-Lead Counsel ("Co-Lead Counsel");

   d. whether the Class Representatives and Co-Lead Counsel have
fairly and adequately represented the interests of the Class and
Checkpoint, pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1506(a), (c) and 1702(4)
and 1709;

   e. whether judgment should be entered dismissing the Actions
with prejudice and releasing all Released Claims (defined below);
and

   f. whether the request by Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses should be granted and, if so, in what
amount; and

   g. such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate.

Plaintiffs' Counsel intend to petition the Court for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses incurred in the
amount of up to $322,500.00 in connection with the Actions and the
Checkpoint Action.  Defendants agree not to oppose a petition for
an award in the amount.  Under no circumstances shall Plaintiffs'
Counsel petition for an award of fees and expenses in excess of
$322,500.00, and under no circumstances shall Checkpoint, its
successor, or insurer, be required to pay an award in excess of
that amount.

Any Class Member may, but is not required to, appear at the
Settlement Hearing in person or by counsel and be heard in support
of, or in opposition to, the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the Settlement, or to the request of Class Counsel for
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses,
consistent with the provisions of Paragraph 10.

No Class Member shall be heard in opposition to the Settlement and
no paper or brief submitted by any Class Member shall be received
or considered by the Court unless the following procedures are
followed.  To have your objections heard at the Settlement
Hearing, you must, no later than fourteen
(14) calendar days prior to the June 8, 2017 Settlement Hearing
(unless the Court otherwise directs for good cause shown), serve
the following documents on the attorneys listed below: (i) a
written notice of the intention to appear; (ii) proof of
membership in the Class; (iii) a detailed summary of your
objections to any matter before the Court; (iv) the grounds
therefor or the reasons why you desire to appear and to
be heard; and (v) all documents and writings which you want the
Court to consider.  These papers must be served by hand delivery,
overnight mail, or e-mail on the following counsel of record:

Counsel for Plaintiff Louis Levine,
Co-Lead Counsel
Daniel E. Bacine
Mark R. Rosen
Julie B. Palley
BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
3300 Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel.: (215) 963-0600

Counsel for Plaintiff Feivel Gottleib
Defined Benefit Pension Plan
James S. Notis
GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
560 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 3085
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
Tel.: (201) 567-7377

Counsel for Checkpoint and the Individual Defendants
Kevin H. Metz
J. Christian Word
Sarah A. Greenfield
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
555 Eleventh Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004-1304
Tel.: (202) 637-2223

Counsel for Plaintiff Shiva Stein,
Co-Lead Counsel
Gregory M. Nespole
Benjamin Y. Kaufman
Gloria Kui Melwani
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Tel.: (212) 545-4600

Counsel for Defendants CCL Industries, Inc. and
CCL Industries USA Corp.
Brian J. Masternak
WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP
900 Fifth Third Center
111 Lyon Street
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503-2487

You must also contemporaneously deliver a copy to the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Even if you do
not appear at the Settlement Hearing, the Court will consider your
written submission if it is served and filed in accordance with
the foregoing procedures.

ANY PERSON WHO FAILS TO OBJECT IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED ABOVE
SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED SUCH OBJECTION AND SHALL FOREVER BE
BARRED FROM RAISING SUCH OBJECTION IN THE CHECKPOINT ACTION OR ANY
OTHER ACTION OR PROCEEDING.

If you wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a
Request for Exclusion by mailing or delivering a letter or
postcard to the Notice Administrator and Co-Lead Counsel at the
addresses listed below.  To be effective, the Request for
Exclusion must include: (1) your name, address, telephone number,
and Social Security number; (2) a clear and unequivocal statement
that you wish to be excluded from the Class; (3) identification
and evidence of the shares for which you seek exclusion;
and (4) your signature.  The Request for Exclusion must be mailed
to the Notice Administrator and Co-Lead Counsel at the following
addresses by May 15, 2017:

Daniel E. Bacine
Mark R. Rosen
Julie B. Palley
BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
3300 Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Gregory M. Nespole
Benjamin Y. Kaufman
Gloria Kui Melwani
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016

Checkpoint Systems, Inc. Settlement Notice Administrator
c/o KCC Class Action Services
P.O. Box 43434
Providence RI 02940-3434

CheckpointSystemsStockholderSettlement@kccllc.com

You cannot exclude yourself by telephone or e-mail.

Defendants may (but are not required to) withdraw from and
terminate the Settlement if putative Class Members who held in
excess of a certain number of shares of Checkpoint stock during
the Class Period exclude themselves from the Class.


CLAYTON WILLIAMS: "Poms" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------
Nadav Poms, 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-00316, (D. Del., March 23, 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:

      Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
      KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
      206 Covington Street
      Madisonville, LA 70447
      Tel.: (504) 455-1400
      Fax: (504) 455-1498
      E-mail: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com

             - and -

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


CONNECTTO COMMUNICATIONS: "Greenfield" Alleges Privacy Invasion
---------------------------------------------------------------
BOB GREENFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. CONNECTTO COMMUNICATIONS INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02137 (C.D. Cal., March 17, 2017), accuses
Defendant of negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone to solicit the
purchase of Defendant's services in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Defendant, CONNECTTO COMMUNICATIONS INC. is a full service
communications and IT services provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENERGY PROTECTION: Faces Class Action Over Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Northern California Record, reports that
a former employee for a general electrical and energy contractor
alleges he was not paid overtime.

Michael Sahlbach filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated on March 13 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California, Fresno Division against Energy
Protection Systems Group Inc. alleging violations of California
labor codes and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he was
employed by the defendants from December 2016 to February 2017.
The plaintiff holds Energy Protection Systems Group Inc.
responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to pay minimum
and overtime wages to the plaintiff and did not provide duty-free
meal and rest breaks.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks damages,
liquidated damages, overtime not paid, restitution and
disgorgement, interest, court costs and any further relief this
court grants.  He is represented by Michael L. Tracy of Law
Offices of Michael Tracy in Irvine.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno
Division Case number 1:17-cv-00369-DAD-SKO


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Sued for Violation of FCRA in Va.
------------------------------------------------------
Thomas W. Lovegrove, personally, on behalf of himself and the
class of consumers similarly situated to him, Plaintiff v. Equifax
Information Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00222-HEH
(E.D. Va., March 21, 2017), seeks damages and attorneys' fees for
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Defendants own and operate a financial services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Gary M. Bowman, Esq.
   2728 Colonial Ave., Ste. 100
   Roanoke, VA 24015
   Tel: (540) 343-1173


ETSY INC: New York Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that on
March 16, 2017, District Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
dismissed with prejudice a putative class action against Etsy,
Inc., its CEO, CFO, certain of its directors, and the underwriters
of its initial public offering ("IPO").

The case is Altayyar, et al., v. Etsy, Inc., et al., No. 1:15-cv-
2785 (E.D.N.Y. March 16, 2017).

Plaintiffs alleged that the company and the individual defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by artificially
inflating Etsy's stock price through misrepresentations leading up
to Etsy's IPO, causing plaintiffs to suffer losses when additional
information was revealed and the company's stock price dropped.
Plaintiffs also brought claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against all
defendants, as well as claims under Section 15 of the Securities
Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants.  In dismissing the complaint in its entirety, the
Court found that plaintiffs had failed to establish that the
company's statements were objectively false, intentionally
inaccurate, or materially misleading when made.

Etsy operates a website that connects buyers and sellers of
handmade and vintage goods, as well as craft supplies.  Plaintiffs
-- investors in Etsy's April 16, 2015, IPO -- alleged that the
prospectus and registration statements filed in support of the IPO
contained false and misleading information regarding the company's
"values," including its commitment to working with artisans,
entrepreneurs, and small-batch manufacturers; its business
operations; and its performance metrics.  According to plaintiffs,
who sought to bolster their allegations with statements from six
confidential witnesses who were former employees of the company,
the company's offering materials omitted that its marketplace
included mass-producers of counterfeit goods, overstated its
performance metrics because it did not discount sales relating to
counterfeit sellers, and, contrary to the company's
representations, maintained a "lax" approach to compliance, doing
"the bare minimum" to address ongoing infringement issues.  Judge
Donnelly disagreed.  In addition to finding that statements about
the company's culture were inactionable puffery, the Court found
that the company's use of words like "mindful," "humane,"
"genuine," and "authentic" to describe its marketplace were not
quantifiable or factual, but rather were statements of opinion
that, under Omnicare, were subject to interpretation and were not
actionable as fraud. Regarding allegations concerning the
company's financial performance, the Court found that Etsy had
sufficiently explained its methodology for the calculation of its
financial metrics and had supplied investors with all the
necessary information to assess the reported financial results.
Lastly, the Court agreed with defendants that plaintiffs had not
alleged facts sufficient to suggest that the company's CEO was
deliberately lying in asserting that he "believed" Etsy's
compliance system "was working."  Notably, the Court determined
that while plaintiffs' allegations "might show that Etsy's
compliance practices were imperfect -- perhaps even awful -- and
that its managers knew of ongoing infringement problems,"
plaintiffs had not established that Etsy's statements were
"objectively false or disbelieved" when made.  Finding no
misstatement or intent to deceive, the Court dismissed the fraud
claim.

Further, after first determining that Plaintiffs' Section 11 and
12(a)(2) claims should be subject to the standard Rule 8 pleading
requirements because those claims sounded in negligence rather
than fraud, the Court dismissed those claims, finding that, for
the same reasons why the Exchange Act claims were defective,
plaintiffs had failed to plead any actionable material
misstatements or omissions, even under Rule 8.  Finding that
plaintiffs failed to allege primary liability under either the
Securities Act or the Exchange Act, the Court dismissed the
control person liability claims under Sections 15 and 20(a)
thereof, respectively, against the individual defendants.

The decision serves as a reminder of the high pleading standard
that plaintiffs must meet in alleging Section 10(b) or Section 11
and 12(a)(2) claims, even when the complaint is supported by
numerous confidential witness statements.  The decision also
reinforces that courts will carefully distinguish between
aspirational or opinionated statements that are not actionable
under the Exchange Act or Securities Act, on the one hand, and
factual assertions that may provide the basis for liability under
the securities laws, on the other.


FERHATI LLC: "Salto" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
Luis Salto, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Ferhati LLC d/b/a Ferhati Restoration and Eglantin
Ferhati, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01637, (E.D.
N.Y., March 23, 2017), seeks injunctive and declaratory relief,
compensation for Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages,
liquidated damages, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff worked as an asbestos worker and construction worker at
Ferhati Restoration, a construction and restoration company owned
by Eglantin Ferhati. Salto worked on average six days a week, from
8 a.m. until 4 p.m. without overtime. Defendants also failed to
provide Plaintiff with accurate wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
      225 Broadway, Suite 307
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 323-6980
      Facsimile: (212) 233-9238
      Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


FERRARA CANDY: Faces Class Action Over Slack Fill Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Anstoetter, Esq. -- manstoetter@shb.com -- and Madeleine
M. McDonough, Esq., of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, in an article for
Lexology, wrote that a consumer has filed a putative class action
against Ferrara Candy Co. claiming that its packaging of
Jujyfruits(R) and other candies misleads consumers by
misrepresenting the amount of candy contained in each box.
Iglesias v. Ferrara Candy Co., No. 17-0849 (N.D. Cal., filed
February 21, 2017).  The plaintiff claims that Ferrara
"shortchanges consumers" by under-filling its opaque candy boxes.

In movie theaters, where boxed candies are sold, the boxes are
kept behind glass showcases, the complaint asserts, and consumers
have no opportunity to examine net weight, serving disclosures or
other labeling until after paying for the candy. Moreover, the
plaintiff claims that consumers' purchasing decisions are heavily
dependent on product packaging and that "consumers are apt to
choose the larger box because they think it's a better value."
The action includes other candy lines manufactured by Ferrara,
including Lemonhead(R), RedHots(R), Chuckles(R), Brach's(R) and
Atomic Fireball(R) products. For alleged violations of
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising and
Unfair Competition laws, the plaintiff seeks class certification,
damages and attorney's fees.


FIELD ASSET: Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment in "Bowerman"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California granted in part Plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment in the case captioned, FRED
BOWERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FIELD ASSET SERVICES, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:13-CV-00057-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

The action is a class-wide misclassification case involving
vendors who perform property preservation services in California
for Field Asset Services, Inc.  FAS is property preservation,
maintenance, and repair services company for foreclosed and real-
estate-owned properties. Plaintiffs filed this class action
complaint against FAS on January 7, 2013 and filed an amended
complaint on February 15, 2013. The first amended complaint brings
causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) willful
misclassification of independent contractor status, Cal. Labor
Code Sections 226.8, 2753; (4) failure to pay overtime
compensation, Cal. Labor Code Sections 510, 1194, 1198; (5)
failure to pay wages due and owing, Cal. Labor Code Section 200 et
seq.; (6) failure to indemnify employees for business expenses,
Cal. Labor Code Section 2802; (7) violations of the Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et
seq.; and (8) failure to comply with Labor Code provisions in
violation of the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA).

On September 17, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and within 60 days, plaintiffs filed a renewed
motion to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3), which proposed narrowing the class definition. On
January 26, 2015, the Court supplied a summary order granting
plaintiffs' renewed motion. The certified class of "All persons
who at any time from January 7, 2009 up to and through the time of
judgment (the Class Period) (1) were designated by FAS as
independent contractors; (2) personally performed property
preservation work in California pursuant to FAS work orders; and
(3) while working for FAS during the Class Period, did not work
for any other entity more than 30 percent of the time. The class
excludes persons who primarily performed rehabilitation or remodel
work for FAS."

On January 4, 2017, FAS moved for class decertification and
summary judgment as to potential class members Julia Magdaleno
(f/k/a Bowerman), Matthew Cohick, and Eric Ackel. The same day,
plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on (1) "FAS's affirmative
defense that Plaintiffs and Class Members are independent
contractors"; (2) "FAS's liability under California law for
failing to pay the Class overtime"; and (3) "FAS's liability under
California law for failing to reimburse the Class for reasonable
and necessary business expenses."

Plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment as to their status as
employees under the law, and their resulting entitlement to
expenses and overtime pay.

In his Order dated March 17, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/Tq89g8 from Leagle.com, Judge Orrick found that
summary judgment with respect to liability to the class is
appropriate because employees are entitled to overtime and payment
of expenses as a matter of law.  The Court granted as to Magdaleno
because her claims does not fall within the class definition and
denied as to Cohick and Ackel because their claim for breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, on the other
hand, is based on FAS's "failure and refusal to pay Plaintiffs and
class members in accordance with California law."

The damages phase of the case remains set for trial on May 22,
2017 at 8:30 a.m.  The pre-trial conference is set for April 24,
2017 at 2:00 p.m.

Fred Bowerman, et al. are represented by Thomas E. Duckworth, Esq.
-- tom@dplolaw.com -- and -- Monique Olivier, Esq. --
monique@dplolaw.com -- DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP --
Chiharu Gina Sekino, Esq. -- csekino@sfmslaw.com -- James Edward
Miller, Esq. -- jmiller@sfmslaw.com -- James C. Shah, Esq. --
jshah@sfmslaw.com -- Kolin Tang, Esq. -- ktang@sfmslaw.com --
Laurie Rubinow, Esq. -- lrubinow@sfmslaw.com -- Nathan Curtis
Zipperian, Esq. -- nzipperian@sfmslaw.com -- and -- Ronald Scott
Kravitz, Esq. -- rkravitz@sfmslaw.com -- SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN,
MILLER & SHAH, LLP

Field Asset Services, Inc. is represented by Robert G. Hulteng,
Esq. -- rhulteng@littler.com -- Alison Jacquelyn Cubre, Esq. --
acubre@littler.com -- Aurelio Jose Perez, Esq. --
aperez@littler.com -- Danton Wai-Ky Liang, Esq. --
dliang@littler.com -- and -- Kevin R. Vozzo, Esq. --
kvozzo@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC


FINANCIAL CREDIT: Accused of Violating TCPA in Cal.
---------------------------------------------------
Emir Balanzar, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Financial Credit Network, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00558-H-BGS (S.D. Cal., March 21, 2017), seeks to
stop Defendant's practice of making unsolicited phone calls to
telephones of consumers nationwide.  The suit also seeks
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant Financial Credit Network, Inc., is a collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
   Alexis Wood, Esq.
   Kas Gallucci, Esq.
   Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron
   651 Arroyo Drive
   San Diego, CA 92103
   Tel: (619) 696-9006
   Fax: (619) 564-6665
   Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com

        - and -

   Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
   Law Offices of Daniel G. Shay
   409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
   San Diego, CA 92108
   Tel: (619) 222-7429
   Fax: (866) 431-3292


FIRSTMERIT: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $15.975MM
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court Of Common Pleas, Lake County, Ohio, on March 20
disclosed that a $15,975,000 Settlement has been reached in a
class action lawsuit about the order in which FirstMerit
Corporation and FirstMerit Bank, N.A. ("FirstMerit") posted Debit
Card Transactions (including ATM transactions) to consumer deposit
accounts from March 16, 2005 to August 13, 2010, and the alleged
effect the posting order had on the number of Overdraft Fees
charged to account holders.  On August 16, 2016, FirstMerit was
merged into Huntington Bancshares Incorporated and The Huntington
National Bank who are the "Defendants."  The Defendants maintain
that there was nothing wrong with the posting process used and
that FirstMerit complied, at all times, with applicable laws and
regulations and the terms of the account agreements with its
customers.  The Court has not decided who is right.

The Class includes all persons (excluding Defendants' employees,
officers or directors and Court personnel involved in this case)
who, from March 16, 2005 to August 13, 2010:

a. Had an account with FirstMerit Bank N.A. that permitted funds
in such account to be accessible by a debit card;

b. Had more than one Debit Card Transaction in a single day;

c. Had their Debit Card Transactions posted from highest to lowest
dollar amount; and

d. Incurred an Overdraft Fee as a result of FirstMerit's practice
of posting Debit Card Transactions from highest to lowest dollar
amount that would not have been incurred had FirstMerit posted
Debit Card Transactions "chronologically" as part of the following
posting order:

     i. Credits;
     ii. Fees and other non-customer-initiated debits in high to
low order;
     iii. All ACH transactions from lowest dollar amount to
highest dollar amount;
     iv. All checks in low to high order;
     v. All Debit Card Transactions for which information
regarding the time of day that the Debit Card Transaction was
authorized at the point of sale or ATM is available, in
chronological order;
     vi. All Debit Card Transactions for which information
regarding the time of day that the Debit Card Transaction was
authorized at the point of sale or ATM is not available, in low to
high order.

The Settlement creates a Cash Settlement Fund of $8,975,000 and a
Debt Forgiveness Settlement Fund of $7,000,000.  The Cash
Settlement Fund will be used to pay attorneys' fees, costs,
expenses and incentive awards to the Class Representatives, and to
pay valid claims.

Eligible Class Members will automatically receive debt forgiveness
on consumer accounts they may have with negative balances.  Class
Members who do not have negative balances, have had their debt
assigned to a third-party, or who have actual damages above any
current negative balance can file a claim for a cash payment.
Class Members with any doubt as to whether they are eligible to
receive a cash payment should file a Claim Form. Class Members can
submit their claim online or visit the website and download a
Claim Form and submit it via email, fax or by mail.  The deadline
to submit a Claim Form is June 19, 2017.

Class Members who do not want to be legally bound by the
Settlement, must exclude themselves by May 5, 2017.  Class Members
who do not exclude themselves will release any claims they may
have, as more fully described in the Settlement Agreement
available at the settlement website.  Class Members who stay in
the Class may object to it by May 5, 2017.  The Detailed Notice
available at the website below explains how to exclude from or
object to the Settlement.  The Court will hold a hearing on June
2, 2017, to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a
request for attorneys' fees of up to 40% of the Settlement Fund,
plus expenses and Class Representative incentive awards. Class
Members may appear at the hearing, either by themselves or through
a hired attorney, but don't have to.  For more information, call
or visit www.FirstMeritOverdraftSettlement.com or call 1-844-616-
6615


FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Patient Data Theft Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Griffin, writing for Dothan Eagle, reports that a federal
judge has granted class action status to a civil lawsuit involving
the theft of personal information at Flowers Hospital, believed to
have occurred in 2013.

The decision, if ultimately approved, means people who believe
they have been adversely affected as a result of the theft of
their personal information may pursue their claims against the
hospital's parent company as a group instead of individually.

The lawsuit stems from a 2014 criminal case in which a man hired
as a phlebotomist, Kamarian Millender, obtained non-hospital
patient records stored at the hospital and used the information to
file as many as 124 fraudulent federal tax returns for the 2012
and 2013 tax years.  Mr. Millender was arrested in February of
2014 and was found in possession of 54 patient records.

According to court records, the hospital began an immediate
investigation and determined there were five missing file folders
with each folder containing between 100 and 150 patient records.
Court records also indicate the IRS and other federal agencies
provided the hospital with a list of other identities that may
have been stolen by Millender.

Between April 8 and Aug. 29 of 2014, Flowers sent letters to 1,208
non-hospital patients to notify them their personal information
may have been at risk of being compromised, although the hospital
maintains it was acting in an overabundance of caution and that
the number should not reflect the actual extent of the breach.

Mr. Millender is believed to have acted with an accomplice who
remains on the loose.

Five plaintiffs filed suit in May of 2014 against the hospital's
parent company, Triad of Alabama, claiming negligence, invasion of
privacy, breach of contract and violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.  The suit sought class action status. Invasion of
privacy claims have since been dismissed.

Thus far, the plaintiffs and the hospital have debated how many
individuals' information may have been compromised.

"To be clear, the named plaintiffs have not shown exactly how many
putative class members were affected by the data breach. But, they
have proved that the class will most likely number in the hundreds
. . ." states the opinion, written by Chief United States District
Judge W. Keith Watkins.

Mr. Millender pleaded guilty in 2014. As part of his plea
agreement, he admitted to victimizing 73 people.

Dothan attorney Adam Jones, one of the attorneys for the
plaintiffs, said the decision, if upheld, will allow the case to
move toward the discovery phase.

"We're pretty pleased with the opinion because, best I can tell,
the judge agreed with us on virtually every issue," Mr. Jones
said. "Up until now, this case has not gotten to the meat of the
matter. Had the class action request been denied, anyone and
everyone affected by this breach would have been on their own.  We
believe this is the best remedy for the community of people
affected."

A spokesperson for Flowers Hospital said officials are still
reviewing the judge's decision and have not decided their next
course of action.


FMM ENTERPRISES: Faces "Glass" Suit Over Non-Payment of Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyrell Glass, et al., individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FMM Enterprises, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00563-JAH-KSC (S.D. Cal., March 22,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
injunctive and declaratory relief and award of attorneys' fees
for violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Plaintiffs were employed as call center agents by the Defendants.

Defendants offers call center services and marketing for companies
to consumers via inbound and outbound calls. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Gregory Mauro, Esq.
   James Hawkins, Esq.
   James Hawkins, APLC
   9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
   Irvine, CA 92618
   Tel: 949-387-7200
   Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
          greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com

        - and -

   Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
   Jesse L. Young, Esq.
   Sommers Schwartz, P.C.
   One Towne Square, Suite 1700
   Southfield, MI 48076
   Tel: (248) 355-0300
   Fax: (248) 436-8453
   Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com
          jyoung@sommerspc.com



FTD COMPANIES: Faces Class Action, May 19 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, on March 20
announced that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed
against FTD Companies, Inc. (FTD) ("FTD" or the "Company") on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between March 13,
2015 and March 14, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who purchased FTD securities during the Class Period
may, no later than May 19, 2017, petition the Court to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class.  For
additional information or to learn how to participate in this
action please visit https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/ftd-companies-
inc#join

FTD shareholders who wish to discuss this action and their legal
options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299 - 7706 or at info@ktmc.com.

FTD provides floral and related gifts and products to consumers
and retail florists primarily in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and
the Republic of Ireland.  In December 2014, FTD announced the
closing of a $430 million acquisition of "Provide Commerce," a
floral and gifting business.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that FTD and
certain of its executive officers made a series of materially
false and misleading statements to investors during the Class
Period.  Specifically, the defendants are alleged to have made
materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) FTD's financial statements contained errors
relating to the assessment of cross-border indirect taxes; (ii) in
turn, the Company lacked effective internal controls over
financial reporting; and (iii) FTD had overstated the benefits of
the Provide Commerce acquisition.  The complaint further alleges
that, as a result of the foregoing, FTD's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 14, 2017, FTD reported its Fourth Quarter and Full Year
2016 financial and operational results.  Therein, the Company
disclosed a net loss for the Fourth Quarter "primarily due to
goodwill impairment charges related to the Provide Commerce
segment of $84.0 million."  FTD also announced that it would
restate its previously issued financial statements for Fiscal 2014
and Fiscal 2015 to correct certain errors.

Following this news, shares of FTD's stock declined $5.54 per
share, or 23.7%, to close on March 15, 2017 at $17.85 per share.

FTD shareholders may, no later than May 19, 2017, petition the
Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check or other counsel, or
may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A
lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all
class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class in the action.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff. For additional information, or to learn how to
participate in this action, please visit https://www.ktmc.com/new-
cases/ftd-companies-inc#join

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- http://www.ktmc.com-- prosecutes
class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate
governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf
of institutional and individual investors from the United States
and around the world.  The firm represents investors, consumers
and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent
practices against the government and share in the recovery of
government dollars).  The complaint in this action was not filed
by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check.


GOOGLE INC: Judge Rejects E-mail Scanning Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that a federal judge
has rejected a settlement of a class-action lawsuit alleging that
Google violates people's privacy by scanning emails for ad-
targeting purposes.

The settlement called for Google to pay up to $2.2 million to the
lawyers who brought the case on behalf of the class, but nothing
to individual users.  The deal also called for some technical
changes to its email scanning system.

"Based on the parties' current filings, the court cannot conclude
that the settlement is 'fundamentally fair, adequate, and
reasonable,'" U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh said in a
decision.

The rejected deal stems from a complaint filed in September 2015
by San Francisco resident Daniel Matera, who alleged that Google
violates a California privacy law and the federal wiretap law by
intercepting messages without people's consent.

Google's terms of service disclose that it analyzes the contents
of email messages for features including "tailored advertising."
But Matera alleged that he didn't have a Gmail account, and
therefore never agreed to those terms.

In her decision denying preliminary approval to the settlement,
Judge Koh specifically criticized the deal for failing to require
Google to inform the public that it scans emails sent by non-Gmail
users in order to send targeted ads to people with Gmail accounts.

She also said that it wasn't clear how Google's proposed technical
changes to its scanning system would remedy any violations of the
federal wiretap law or California's privacy statute.

Judge Koh also said that a proposed public notification about the
settlement terms was not adequate.  "The notice does not clearly
disclose that Google intercepts, scans, and analyzes the content
of emails sent by non-Gmail users to Gmail users for the purpose
of creating user profiles of the Gmail users to create targeted
advertising for the Gmail user," she wrote.

Judge Koh previously approved Yahoo's settlement of a similar
lawsuit.  That deal required Yahoo to add new language to its
privacy policy, and to make some technical changes to the way it
scans emails, but didn't require the company to otherwise change
its ad-targeting efforts.  The agreement also did not call for
Yahoo to pay monetary damages to Web users whose privacy allegedly
was violated, but provided for payments of up to $4 million to the
attorneys who brought the case.

Judge Koh said that circumstances surrounding the Yahoo settlement
justified that deal, noting that more evidence had been developed
in that matter than in the Google battle.

"The Yahoo settlement took place after more than two years of
litigation," she wrote.  "The parties and the Court had much more
information to assess the risks of litigation and determine
whether the class action settlement was fair and reasonable under
the circumstances."

Judge Koh also noted that Yahoo's privacy policy disclosed that
the company scanned non-users' emails, and that the agreement
"included additional important disclosures regarding scanning of
incoming and outgoing emails and the sharing of information with
third parties."


GRAND CELEBRATION: Faces "Alan" Suit Over TCPA Violation in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Alan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Grand Celebration Cruises, LLC, Paradise
Cruise Line Operator, Ltd. Inc., Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-
60589-WPD (S.D. Fla., March 22, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants to secure redress because Defendants willfully violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by causing unsolicited calls
to be made to Plaintiffs' and others class members' cellular
telephones through the use of an auto-dialer and/or pre-recorded
or artificial voice message.

Plaintiff alleges that the Cruise Line Defendants are also
responsible for orchestrating or directing the aggressive
telemarketing campaigns to consumers' cell phones in violation of
the TCPA.  Defendants utilize call centers primarily based in the
Fort Lauderdale, Florida area in order to conduct their
telemarketing campaign.

Defendants are responsible for operating the MV Grand Celebration
cruise ship, which sails daily between the Port of Palm Beach,
Florida and Grand Bahama Island.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John P. Kristensen, Esq.
   Kristensen Weisberg, LLP
   12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
   Los Angeles, CA 90066
   Tel: (310) 507-7924
   Fax: (310) 507-7906
   Email: john@kristensenlaw.com

        - and -

   Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
   Hughes Ellzey, LLP
   2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
   Galleria Tower I
   Houston, TX 77056
   Tel: (888) 627-4573
   Fax: (888) 995-3335
   Email: jarrett@hughesellzey.com

        - and -

   Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
   Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, PC
   9171 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400
   Beverly Hills, CA 90210
   Tel: (877) 619-8966
   Fax: (866) 633-0228
   Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


GULFSTREAM PARK: Faces "Dietz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Dietz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc.
d/b/a Gulfstream Park Racing and Casino, a Florida profit
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60586-WPD (S.D. Fla.,
March 22, 2017), seeks to recover compensation and relief pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant willfully refused to
properly compensate the Plaintiff and others similarly situated
for the full minimum wage and overtime in violation of the FLSA
because tip-credit was claimed, despite the fact that the
Defendant failed to comply with the "tip-credit" requirements
under FLSA.

Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc. operates a racetrack and
county-approved casino in Hallandale Beach, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq.
   David Frank, Esq.
   Whitelock & Associates, P.A.
   300 Southeast Thirteenth Street
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
   Tel: (954) 463-2001
   Fax: (954) 463-0410
   Email: cjw@whitelocklegal.com
          davidfrank@whitelocklegal.com


HAKKASAN LIMITED: Faces "Gardner" Suit Over Labor Code Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Gardner, an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of
others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. Hakkasan Limited,
a foreign private limited company, Hakkasan USA, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Hakkasan USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Hakkasan
Holdings LLC, a Nevada Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00557 (S.D. Cal., March 21, 2017), seeks payment of unpaid wages,
overtime pay, penalties and unjust gains realized by Defendants in
violation of the California Labor Code.

Plaintiffs worked long hours for Defendants, often in excess of 60
per week, says the complaint. In order to avoid paying Plaintiffs
their legally mandated wages, Defendants instituted a variety of
illegal practices. With respect to some employees, Defendants
unlawfully misclassified them as exempt and refused to pay them
overtime, among other violations of federal and state laws. With
respect to other employees, Defendants paid them hourly but only
for a certain portion of the total time they actually worked for
Defendants. Defendants made employees, in other words, work for
free, the complaint asserts.

Hakkasan Group is an international company owning and operating
several of the world's most acclaimed fine-dining and lifestyle
brands. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
   Shaun Markley, Esq.
   Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP
   225 Broadway, 19th Floor
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 325-0492
   Fax: (619) 325-0496
   Email: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
          atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
          smarkley@nicholaslaw.org


HERTZ CORP: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in "Moretti" Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Leonard P. Stark of the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware denied Defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings in the case captioned, ENRICO MORETTI, individually and
on behalf of the general public and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION; DOLLAR THRIFTY AUTOMOTIVE
GROUP, INC.; and HOTWIRE, INC. Defendants, Case No. 14-469-LPS (D.
Del.).

On May 23, 2013, Plaintiff Enrico Moretti filed a putative class
action complaint in California state court. Plaintiff sues under
California's false advertising, consumer protection, and unfair
and deceptive trade practices laws, and alleges common law fraud.
Plaintiff accuses Defendants of carrying out a "currency exchange
rate scam." According to Plaintiff, prices for car rentals in
Mexico were advertised in U.S. dollars but later converted into
Mexican Pesos at an artificially inflated rate.

Plaintiff claims that The Hertz Corporation and Dollar Thrifty
Automotive Group, Inc. (Hertz Defendants) supplied this misleading
information about car rental prices and terms to Hotwire, Inc. and
Hotwire incorporated the content into listings on its website.
Plaintiff alleges that Hotwire continued to do so despite consumer
complaints and Hotwire's knowledge of the information's fraudulent
content.

The matter was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California and later transferred to the District of
Delaware.

On May 13, 2016, Hotwire filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings. Hotwire contends that it is immune from suit under 47
U.S.C. Section 230, which protects websites and other interactive
computer service providers under certain circumstances.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated March 17, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/HfdwUI from Leagle.com, Judge Stark held that the
judgment on the pleadings is inappropriate because Hotwire has not
"clearly established that no material issue of fact remains to be
resolved."

Enrico Moretti is represented by Brian E. Farnan, Esq. --
bfarnan@farnanlaw.com -- FARNAN LLP -- Adam J. Gutride, Esq. --
adam@gutridesafier.com -- Marie A. McCrary, Esq. --
marie@gutridesafier.com -- Seth A. Safier, Esq. --
seth@gutridesafier.com -- GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP -- Matthew T.
McCrary, Esq. -- matthew_scoble@fd.org -- MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY

The Hertz Corporation, et al. are represented by Raymond J.
DiCamillo, Esq. -- dicamillo@rlf.com -- and -- Susan Marie
Hannigan, Esq. -- hannigan@rlf.com -- RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER,
PA -- John F. Ward, Jr., Esq. -- jward@jenner.com -- and -- Ross
B. Bricker, Esq. -- rbricker@jenner.com -- JENNER & BLOCK LLP


HOWROYD-WRIGHT: Cal. App. Reverses Counsel DQ in Workers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2010, David Read filed a class action lawsuit against
AppleOne Business Solutions, a staffing agency for temporary
workers. The complaint alleged that thousands of workers were not
paid when interviewing with AppleOne clients who did not hire the
job applicants. According to the complaint, AppleOne was legally
required to compensate the applicants for their time because
AppleOne arranged and controlled the client interviews. In July
2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.

AppleOne filed an opposition to the motion by submitting eight
declarations to demonstrate that the company did not control job
applicants' interviews with potential employers.

On November 30, 2015, the trial court held a status hearing in the
case. During the hearing, the parties discussed Plaintiff's
request for the declarants' contact information so that Plaintiff
could notice and take their depositions. Defense counsel (Kenneth
P. Roberts) told Plaintiff and the trial court that his firm might
represent the declarants at deposition. From November 30, 2015 to
December 2, 2015, defense counsel contacted the declarants, told
them that Plaintiff wanted to depose them, and offered to
represent them at the deposition -- and only the deposition. Two
out of the eight declarants, Nicholas Stephens and Iva Johnson,
accepted the offer.

On January 13, 2016, Plaintiff's attorney deposed Stephens and
Johnson later that day. During the first deposition, Stephens
confirmed that defense counsel's offer of representation extended
only to the deposition. Immediately after these two depositions,
Plaintiff moved to disqualify defense counsel (both the Kenneth P.
Roberts firm and Reed Smith) based on the Roberts' firm
representation of Stephens and Johnson at the depositions.

Plaintiff's attorney moved to disqualify both firms counsel after
defense counsel refused to do so. According to Plaintiff's
attorney, he had standing to bring the motion based on his
fiduciary duty to putative class members who were not yet clients
pursuant to California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-310(C). The
trial court held that it had no choice but to automatically
disqualify the Roberts firm based on the firm's simultaneous
representation of a putative class member and AppleOne. The court
did not disqualify Reed Smith given that the firm did not
participate in the depositions.

On appeal, AppleOne urged the California Court of Appeals to
reverse with directions to the trial court to vacate its order and
enter a new order denying the disqualification motion.  This is
the proper disposition according to AppleOne because the record
compels a finding that counsel's disqualification was unwarranted.
Alternatively, AppleOne contends, the trial court's statements and
findings at the hearing show that it would have denied the motion
had it applied the correct legal standard.

In an Order dated March 16, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/mm3SeG from Leagle.com, the Appeals Court reversed
the order, holding that the defense counsel did not use best
practices and could have easily warded off the disqualification
motion, as well as this appeal, by obtaining a written conflict
waiver.  By not doing so, counsel cost his client time and money,
and potentially impaired the claims of putative class members,
while risking a potential loss in this court, the Appeals Court
said.  Nevertheless, the limited representation at issue in this
case, which resulted from temporarily aligned interests and has
long since ceased, necessarily limited the risk of a prospective
conflict, the Appeals Court further held.  Given that the purpose
of a disqualification order is prophylactic, not punitive, and
that application of the balancing test will root out those cases
where disqualification is appropriate, allowing the trial court to
conduct that test in the first instance is the proper disposition
here, the Appeals Court concluded.

The matter remanded to the trial court for rehearing of the
disqualification motion, rather than to decide the matter on the
existing state of the evidentiary record.

The appeals case is captioned DAVID READ, Plaintiff and
Respondent, v. HOWROYD-WRIGHT EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, INC., Defendant
and Appellant, Case No. B271515 (Cal. App.).

David Read is represented by Giuseppe Joseph Antonelli, Esq. --
jantonelli@antonellilaw.com -- LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI

            -- and --

       Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
       Gregg Lander, Esq.
       LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
       5670 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1460
       Los Angeles, CA 90036-5614
       Tel: (323)302-9675


HU HOLDINGS: Tapia, et al. Allege Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES FUENTE TAPIA, LEONARDO CONDE RODRIGUEZ, ABRAHAM GUTIERREZ,
MARIO HERNANDEZ REYES, RICARDO TRUJILLO GOMEZ, CHRISTIAN ACAJABON,
VICTORINO GALLARDO, ABELARDO PEREZ, ARMANDO MENSINAS, EDUARDO
PEREZ ROBLES, FERNANDO RIOS, JAVIER FLORES, JULIO SANTIAGO
MORALES, NOEL MONROY ALONSO, LORENZO GALINDO, SALVADOR
MAXIMILIANO ROJAS, SERGIO FRANCISCO MATIAS, OSCAR ENRIQUE COSIGUA
ZUREC, ROBERTO CANALES and MARCOS ALCANTARA individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against HU
HOLDINGS LLC (d/b/a HU KITCHEN), JASON KARP, JESSICA KARP, and
JORDAN BROWN, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01980 (S.D.N.Y., March
17, 2017), alleges among others that Defendants maintained a
policy and practice of unlawfully appropriating Plaintiffs' and
other tipped employees' tips and made unlawful deductions from
Plaintiffs' and other tipped employees' wages.

The case alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control a vegetarian/health food
restaurant located at 78 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10011,
operating under the name "Hu Kitchen."  Plaintiffs are employed as
delivery workers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317 1200
     Fax: (212) 317 1620


I.K. HOFMANN: Faces "Fortune" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
KESLEY FORTUNE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against I.K. HOFMANN USA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01533 (E.D.N.Y., March 19, 2017), alleges that
Plaintiff and other hourly employees were not compensated for all
of the time they worked for Defendant when they worked through
their automatically deducted forty-five minute unpaid meal breaks.
The case was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department
of Labor regulations.

I.K. Hofmann USA, Inc. is a provider of professional employment
services.  Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as a
dishwasher.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
     NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
     1517 Voorhies Avenue, 2nd Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11235
     Phone: 800 789 9396
     Phone: 866 261 5478
     E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


INVENSENSE INC: "Rollins" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
George E. Rollins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Invensense, Inc., Behrooz Abdi, Amir
Faintuch, Emiko Higashi, Jon Olson, Amit Shah, Eric Stang, Yunbei
Yu, Usama Fayyad, TDK Corporation and TDK Sensor Solutions
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01574, (N.D. Cal., March
23, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, including interest,
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, plus
counsel fees and expert fees, extraordinary equitable and/or
injunctive relief, and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

InvenSense and TDK agreed to merge with TDK acquiring all of the
outstanding shares of InvenSense. Under the terms of the merger
agreement, InvenSense public stockholders will receive $13.00 in
cash for every share of InvenSense common stock held, for an
approximate aggregate value of $1.3 billion.

The complaint says Defendants have exacerbated their breaches of
fiduciary duty by agreeing to lock up the merger with preclusive
and onerous deal protection devices that preclude other bidders
from making successful competing offers for the Company including
a no solicitation provision that prevents the Company from
negotiating with or providing confidential information to
competing bidders except under extremely limited circumstances and
a matching rights provision that allows TDK to match any competing
proposal in the unlikely event that one emerges and up to
$46,700,000 in termination fees if the Board agrees to a competing
proposal.

InvenSense designs, develops, markets and sells sensor systems on
a chip, including accelerometers, gyroscopes and microphones for
the mobile, wearable, smart home, gaming, industrial, and
automotive market segments. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0063
      Facsimile: (619) 255-1856

             - and -

      W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 802-1486
      Facsimile: (212) 602-1592


JEFFERSON COUNTY, AL: Sales Tax Constitutional, High Ct. Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, Jefferson County and Jefferson County
Commission, v. Taxpayers and Citizens of Jefferson County. Andrew
Bennett, Mary Moore, John Rogers, and William Muhammad, v.
Jefferson County and Jefferson County Commission, Case Nos.
1150326, 1150327 (Ala.), the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the
trial court's judgment declaring Act No. 2015-226, levying the
local sales and use taxes, unconstitutional on the basis that the
proper quorum was not present pursuant to Section 71.01(C) when
the budget isolation resolution (BIR) underlying H.B. 573 was
enacted.

In 2004 and 2005, Jefferson County issued warrants to raise funds
to make certain grants to local boards of education to construct
school buildings and to retire other debt.

On July 20, 2015, Bennett, Moore, Rogers, and Muhammad filed in
the Jefferson Circuit Court a class action against Jefferson
County on behalf of a purported class composed of "persons or
entities who pay or are otherwise subject to franchise, excise,
and privilege license taxes on receipts from sales made within
Jefferson County," challenging the constitutionality of Act No.
2015-226.  On the same day, pursuant to Section 6-6-751, Ala. Code
1975, the County parties filed in the trial court a petition,
seeking to validate the proposed issuance and sale by the County
of its limited-obligation refunding warrants, the sales and use
taxes levied by the County pursuant to the resolution adopted by
the Commission on August 13 and Act No. 2015-226, and the pledge
of the proceeds of the sales and use taxes for the payment of the
warrants.

On September 14, the trial court denied the class plaintiffs'
motion to have the validation action consolidated with the class
action. The class plaintiffs then dismissed their action. Shannon
and the class plaintiffs will hereinafter sometimes be referred to
jointly as "the taxpayers."

On December 14, 2015, the trial court entered a judgment denying
the County parties' validation petition on the basis that the BIR
adopted by the House to enable H.B. 573 to be considered before
the annual appropriations bills was not passed in compliance with
Section 71.01(C). The trial court held that H.B. 573 was passed
out of order in violation of Section 71.01(C) and, therefore, that
Act No. 2015-226 was unconstitutional. The trial court declined to
reach the other arguments raised by the taxpayers.

In a decision dated March 17, 2017, available for free at
https://is.gd/iV76tr from Leagle.com, the Alabama Supreme Court
concluded that by its express terms Section 71.01(G) applies
retroactively to the action.  The Court further found no merit in
the alternative grounds on which the taxpayers argue that Act No.
2015-226 is unconstitutional.


JIMMY CHOO: Customer Objects to FACTA Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, reports that a would-be class
member in a proposed class action accusing luxury shoe brand Jimmy
Choo of printing sensitive data on credit card receipts has
objected to a proposed $2.5 million settlement, complaining about
the payouts to the named plaintiff and class counsel and raising
questions about their motivations.

Tennessee resident Cynthia Wagner filed an objection on March 17
in federal court in Miami seeking to upend the agreement reached
by plaintiff Kerri C. Wood and J Choo USA Inc. to resolve Wood's
potential nationwide class action.


JTNU INC: "Dyer" Alleges Violation of FLSA's Tip Credit Provision
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA DYER on her own behalf and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. JTNU, INC., d/b/a SKYWAY
JACK'S, a Florida Profit Corporation, and JOSEPH TENAGLIA,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00644-RAL-AAS (M.D.
Fla., March 17, 2017), alleges, among other things, that the
Defendant failed to abide by the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act pertaining to tip credits, and was not permitted to
take tip credits.

Defendant, JTNU, Inc. d/b/a Skyway Jack's, is a restaurant
establishment located in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida.
Plaintiff was a server employed by Defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     201 N. Franklin Street, Ste 700
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Tel: 813-223-5505
     Fax: 813-257-0572
     E-mail: Medelman@forthepeople.com


LAKE COUNTY SECURITY: Garcia Files Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Garcia on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs v. Lake County Security Patrol Officer, Inc.
FKA Lake County Patrol, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00856
(S.D. Tex., March 17, 2017), alleges that Defendant violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay its employees,
including Plaintiffs, time and one-half for each hour worked in
excess of 40 per work week when the FLSA requires the non-exempt
employees to be compensated for overtime work at the mandated
overtime wage rate.

Defendant provides fully armed and unarmed security guards,
bodyguards, and private investigation services, and it employs
Plaintiffs and Class Members to perform one portion of these
services.  Plaintiff Johnny Garcia is a security patrolman for
Lake County Security Patrol Officer, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     THE VETHAN LAW FIRM, PC
     Charles M.R. Vethan, Esq.
     3501 Allen Parkway
     Houston, TX 77019
     Phone: (713) 526-2222
     Fax: (713) 526-2230


LENDINGUSA LLC: Faces "Grabar" Suit Under Junk Fax Prevention Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DR. JOYCE M. GRABAR and GARY GRABAR, Pennsylvania residents,
individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly-
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. LENDINGUSA, LLC a Delaware limited
liability company, CRB GROUP, INC., a New Jersey corporation,
CROSS RIVER BANK, a New Jersey state bank and JOHN DOES 1-5,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01232-MAK (E.D. Pa., March 17, 2017),
alleges that Defendants sent facsimile transmissions of
unsolicited advertisements to Plaintiff and the Class in violation
of the Junk Fax Prevention Act, including, but not limited to, the
facsimile transmission of an unsolicited advertisement on October
23, 2014.

Lending USA, LLC specializes in point of sale and direct-to-
consumer financing solutions.  CROSS RIVER BANK is a New Jersey
state bank.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ann M. Caldwell, Esq.
     CALDWELL LAW OFFICE LLC
     108 W. Willow Grove Avenue, Suite 300
     Philadelphia, PA 19118
     Phone: 215-248-2030
     Fax: 215-248-2031
     E-mail: acaldwell@classactlaw.com

        - and -

     Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
     Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
     ANDERSON + WANCA
     3701 Algonquin Rd., Ste. 760
     Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
     Phone: 847-368-1500
     Fax: 847-368-1501
     E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


LL TRANSPORT: "Pou" Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursements
------------------------------------------------------
Ruben O. Pou and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff
(s), v. LL Transport & Interp Corporation and Luis Delgado,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21103, (S.D. Fla.,
March 23, 2017), seeks to recover from Defendants minimum and
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

LL Transport provides special patient transportation services to
different medical centers within the area of Miami-Dade County.
Plaintiff was hired as a driver, transporting patients from their
homes to medical centers and then returning patients back home.
Plaintiff accompanied patients to their medical appointments and
also served as a translator.

Pou used his own personal vehicle to perform his work. He was not
reimbursed for gasoline, car expenses and insurance. He worked an
average of 65 hours weekly but Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
minimum and overtime wages. [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


LRR ENERGY: Delaware Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP reports that on March 13, 2017, the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware rejected LRR
Energy L.P., and Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC's motion to
dismiss, allowing the putative shareholder class action suit
against them and various current and former directors to proceed.
Robert Hurwitz v. LRR Energy, L.P., et al., Civ. No. 15-711-SLR
(D. Del. March 13, 2017). Plaintiff asserted claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"), alleging that Vanguard and LRR Energy
failed to disclose material information related to Vanguard's debt
agreements in the proxy statement and registration statement
issued by LRR and Vanguard, respectively, in connection with
Vanguard's acquisition of LRR in 2015.  In denying the motion to
dismiss, the Court held that plaintiffs had sufficiently pled that
the proxy and registration statement failed to disclose material
information as to Vanguard's ability to service its debt, and the
consequences of such debt servicing issues.

In 2015, LRR, a partnership involved in North American oil and gas
development and production, entered into merger talks with
Vanguard, a company specializing in the acquisition and
development of oil and gas properties in the United States.  In
order to facilitate the transaction, Vanguard issued a
registration statement and LRR issued a proxy statement (which was
incorporated into the registration statement by reference). A few
weeks after announcing the merger, Vanguard released its 10-Q for
the first quarter of 2015, stating that while the company was
currently in compliance with all debt covenants, the company
expected that it "will not be in compliance with our total
leverage ratio covenant in certain future periods."  In March
2016, in order to reduce its debt, Vanguard's board of directors
voted to suspend all cash distributions.  This announcement
allegedly caused Vanguard's stock to fall precipitously.

Plaintiffs alleged that both the registration and proxy statements
"failed to disclose that Vanguard's then-current financial
projections showed that it would violate existing debt covenants
in certain future periods," and also did not disclose the
consequences that debt servicing issues would have on Vanguard's
ability to make cash distributions to shareholders. The Court
rejected defendants' argument that the allegedly omitted fact
could be determined by a "simple calculation" of the total
leverage ratio based on disclosed information.  The Court held
that neither the proxy nor registration statement "provided, in
any obvious manner, the numbers required" to perform what the
Court stated was not a "simple calculation."  The Court similarly
rejected defendants' argument that the omissions were immaterial,
finding that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the likelihood of
receiving distributions is "a key investment criterion." Finally,
the Court rejected defendants' arguments that the challenged
statements and omissions were mere puffery or were inactionable
under the "bespeaks caution" doctrine.  After holding that
plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded claims under Sections 11 and
14(a), and that the individual defendants' sole argument against
control liability was plaintiffs' failure to establish a primary
violation, the Court also allowed the claims under Sections 15 and
20(a) to proceed.  The Court also found unpersuasive a decision
from a Texas court granting defendants' motion to dismiss a
putative class action brought on behalf of shareholders of another
company acquired by Vanguard in parallel with LRR.


MACHINE ZONE: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Game of War Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district
court's judgment in the appeals case captioned, MIA MASON,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MACHINE ZONE, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 15-2469 (4th. Cir.).

Mia Mason, a Maryland resident, filed a class action complaint
against Machine Zone, Inc., the developer of a mobile video game
entitled "Game of War: Fire Age," pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).  In her complaint, Mason asserted a
claim under Maryland's gambling loss recovery statute, Md. Code
Ann., Crim. Law Section 12-110.

Mason sought recovery of alleged gambling losses that she claims
she and each member of the putative class incurred as a result of
"spinning" the virtual wheel. She also asserted claims on her own
behalf and for the alleged class under the California Penal Code,
and the California Unfair Competition Law as well as a common law
claim of unjust enrichment.

The district court dismissed Mason's complaint under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court concluded that Mason did
not "lose money" when she "spun" the virtual wheel and that,
therefore, she had failed to state a claim under the Loss Recovery
Statute. The court similarly dismissed Mason's claims under the
California Penal Code and the UCL, as well as her claim of unjust
enrichment.

Mason appeals only from the court's dismissal of her claim under
the Loss Recovery Statute. Mason argues that the district court
erred in dismissing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) her claim under the
Loss Recovery Statute. She contends that she lost money while
playing in the virtual casino, which she asserts is an unlawful
"gaming device" within the meaning of the Loss Recovery Statute.

In a Decision dated March 17, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/Fddb2x from Leagle.com, the Fourth Circuit held that
there is no basis in the text of the Loss Recovery Statute for
applying the term "money" to include virtual gold and other
virtual resources that Mason received while interacting with the
Game of War casino.  The district court, accordingly, correctly
concluded that Mason did not "lose money" within the meaning of
the Loss Recovery Statute as a result of her participation in the
Game of War casino.

Mia Mason represented by Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Esq. --
atievsky@edelson.com -- Ryan D. Andrews, Esq. --
randrews@edelson.com -- and -- Roger Perlstadt, Esq. --
rperlstadt@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC

Machine Zone, Inc. is represented by Michael Anthony Berta, Jr.,
Esq. -- michael.berta@apks.com -- and -- Allyson Himelfarb, Esq. -
- allyson.himelfarb@apks.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER LLP


MDL NO. 2672: Class Counsel Awarded $175MM in Fees, Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California granted Class Counsel's motion
for attorneys' fees and costs relating to the 2.0-liter settlement
in the case captioned, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order
Relates To: Dkt. No. 2175, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.).

The Multi-District Litigation consists of various actions brought
by consumers, dealers, securities plaintiffs, and government
agencies against Volkswagen based on its use of a defeat device --
software designed to cheat emissions tests and deceive federal and
state regulators -- in nearly 600,000 Volkswagen-, Porsche-, and
Audi-branded turbocharged direct injection (TDI) diesel engine
vehicles sold in the United States.

With regards to the 2.0-liter TDI diesel vehicles, the parties
submitted an Amended Consumer Class Action Settlement Agreement
(Settlement) on July 26, 2016 and the Court granted final approval
of the Settlement on October 25, 2016. At the time of final
approval, Class Counsel had not yet moved for their fees and
costs, though they submitted a statement that they would seek no
more than $324 million in fees and no more than $8.5 million in
actual and reasonable out-of-pocket costs for expenses incurred
through October 18, 2016.

Class Counsel submitted its application for $167 million in
attorneys' fees and $8 million in costs. Class Counsel's requested
fees, amounting to approximately 1.7% of the $10.033 billion
Funding Pool established by the Settlement.

In his Order dated March 17, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/BNP6cW from Leagle.com, Judge Breyer found that the
requested attorneys' fees and costs as reasonable.  Accordingly,
Class Counsel is be awarded $167 million in attorneys' fees and $8
million in costs.

Nicholas Benipayo, 15-4278, et al. are represented by Robert B.
Carey, Esq. -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Steve W. Berman, Esq. --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- and -- Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. --
toml@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

David Fiol, 15-4278, et al. are represented by Jeff D. Friedman,
Esq. Robert B. Carey, Esq. -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Steve W. Berman,
Esq. -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- and -- Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. --
toml@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Donald Ardine, et al. are represented by Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
-- awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com -- Dean Noburu Kawamoto,
Esq. -- dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com -- Derek William Loeser, Esq.
-- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. --
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. --
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- and -- Tana Lin, Esq. --
tlin@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al. are represented by Amie
Adelia Vague, Esq. -- avague@lightfootlaw.com -- LIGHTFOOT
FRANKLIN & WHITE -- Casey Erin Lucier, Esq. --
clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP -- Charles J. Baker,
III, Esq. -- cbaker@wcsr.com -- Dana Woodrum Lang, Esq. --
dlang@wcsr.com -- Henry Buist Smythe, Jr., Esq. --
HSmythe@wcsr.com -- and -- Kurt E. Lindquist, II, Esq. --
klindquist@wcsr.com -- WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE -- David M.
Eisenberg, Esq. -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- BAKER, STERCHI,
COWDEN & RICE, LLC -- Elizabeth L. Deeley, Esq. --
elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com -- and -- Andrew Brian Clubok, Esq.
-- andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS -- Hugh J. Bode,
Esq. -- hbode@reminger.com -- REMINGER & REMINGER CO LPA --
William B. Monahan, Esq. -- monahanw@sullcrom.com -- and --
William Henry Wagener, Esq. -- wagenerw@sullcrom.com -- SULLIVAN
AND CROMWELL LLP

Audi AG is represented by Elizabeth L. Deeley, Esq. --
elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com -- and -- Andrew Brian Clubok, Esq.
-- andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -- and -- Stuart A. Drake, Esq. --
KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP -- Matthew H. Marmolejo, Esq. --
mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP -- Michael H.
Steinberg, Esq. -- steinberm@sullcrom.com David M.J. Rein, Esq. --
reind@sullcrom.com -- Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Esq. --
giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Laura Kabler Oswell, Esq. --
oswelll@sullcrom.com -- Sharon L. Nelles, Esq. --
nuless@sullcrom.com -- and -- William B. Monahan, Esq. --
monahanw@sullcrom.com -- SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL LLP -- J. Gordon
Cooney, Jr., Esq. -- gordon.cooney@morganlewis.com -- and -- Ryan
P. McCarthy, Esq. -- ryan.mccarthy@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN,
LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP -- James K. Toohey, Esq. -- tooheyj@jbltd.com
-- JOHNS & BELL LTD -- John Thomas Prisbe, Esq. --
jtprisbe@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP -- Stephen D. Bell, Esq. --
bell.steve@dorsey.com -- DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP


MICROSOFT CORP: Supreme Court Sympathetic in Xbox 360 Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Gresko, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
Supreme Court is suggesting it's sympathetic to Microsoft Corp. in
a dispute with disgruntled owners of the Xbox 360 video-game
system who sued saying the console has a design defect that
scratches game discs.

The justices heard arguments on March 21 in a case that involves
the Xbox 360 owners' attempts to get class action status for their
lawsuit, which was filed several years ago in the state of
Washington, where Microsoft is headquartered.

Xbox 360 owners were denied class action status in the lawsuit.
Several justices seemed sympathetic to Microsoft's argument that
the Xbox owners shouldn't be permitted to use a procedural
maneuver to force an appeals court to weigh in.

Business groups say siding with the Xbox 360 owners would make
defending against class action lawsuits more costly.


MILLICOM AMERICAS: Sent Illegal SMS Ads, "Reyes" Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Reyes, for himself and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. Millicom Americas, LLC and IDT Telecom,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00337 (E.D. Va., March 23,
2017), seeks statutory damages; permanent injunction restraining
Defendants from sending non-emergency texts to wireless phones
using an automatic telephone dialing system without first
obtaining the prior express consent of the receiving party;
statutory damages; pre-judgment interest; reasonable attorneys'
fees and all costs of this proceeding; and general, special and
equitable relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant Millicom Americas LLC and IDT Telecom, Inc. offers
prepaid credits for local and long distance calls. IDT Telecom
operates as Boss Revolution, a service that helps immigrants and
the under-banked to conveniently and affordably share resources
with friends and family around the world.

Plaintiff purchased long distance minutes issued by Defendants
from a retailer in Virginia in order to communicate with his
sister in El Salvador. After exhaustion of these minutes,
Defendants kept sending text messages to Plaintiff encouraging him
to purchase more minutes and even falsely claimed that his sister
from El Salvador was attempting to contact Plaintiff, implying an
urgent need to purchase additional minutes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
      Andrew Guzzo, Esq.
      KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC
      3925 Chain Bridge Rd., Suite 202
      Fairfax, VA 22030
      Tel: (703) 424-7576
      Fax: (703) 591-9285
      Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
             aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

             - and -

      Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
      Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
      CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1A
      Newport News VA 23601
      Telephone: (757) 930-3660
      Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
      Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com
             craig@clalegal.com

             - and -

      Matthew T. Sutter, Esq.
      616 North Washington Street
      Alexandria, VA 22314
      Telephone: 703-836-9030
      Facsimile: 703-683-1543
      Email: sutter@oldtownlawyers.com


MLM REMODELING: "Gomez" Suit Alleges Non-payment of Overtime Work
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SANTOS GOMEZ, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. MLM REMODELING, LLC, N & T IMPROVEMENTS,
LLC, and MYKOLA UDYCH, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02244 (E.D.
La., March 17, 2017), alleges that while working for the
Defendants, Plaintiff was not paid one-and-a-half times his
regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours
a workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

MLM REMODELING, LLC provides commercial and residential contractor
services in the Greater New 41 Orleans Area. MLM specializes in
renovations and remodels.

Plaintiff was employed as a general construction laborer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
     William H. Beaumont, Esq.
     Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
     BEAUMONT COSTALES
     3801 Canal Street Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 534-5005
     E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com
             whbeaumont@gmail.com
             emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com


MODERN APPEALING: Class Action Alleges "Unfair Competition"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Chasmar, writing for The Washington Times, reports that a
San Francisco fashion retailer has filed a class action lawsuit
against Ivanka Trump's clothing line for unfair competition
because of the first daughter's ties to the White House.

Though Mrs. Trump does not have any official role in her father's
administration, Modern Appealing Clothing (MAC) alleges in its
lawsuit that her brand has enjoyed an unfair advantage since Mr.
Trump was elected.

The lawsuit claims that Mrs. Trump's brand has seen sales surge
several hundred percent since last year due to "unlawful, unfair,
or fraudulent promotional activities" committed by Mrs. Trump, the
president and others.

The lawsuit cites Mr. Trump's tweet in February that blasted
Nordstrom for dropping the brand, as well as counselor Kellyanne
Conway's plugging of the brand on Fox News as examples of unfair
competition.

It also accuses the Ivanka Trump brand of "exploiting the power
and prestige of the White House for personal gain, including, but
not limited to, piggybacking promotion of defendant Ivanka Trump
products on appearances at executive branch and other governmental
events."

MAC seeks to represent a class that includes all women's clothing
and accessory businesses that operated in California between
November 9, 2016 -- the day after the election -- through the date
of trial, Courthouse News Service reported.

"As a result of their unlawful acts, defendants have reaped and
continue to reap unfair benefits and illegal profits at the
expense of plaintiff MAC and the class it seeks to represent," MAC
says in the lawsuit.

The retailer is seeking unspecified damages for itself and the
class, as well as a restraining order preventing the Ivanka Trump
brand from continuing to compete in California at an unfair
advantage.

"My clients just want an even playing field," MAC attorney R.
Michael Lieberman told Courthouse News in an interview on
March 17.


MOLYCORP INC: June 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP regarding the
Molycorp Securities Litigation:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00292-RM-KMT

In re MOLYCORP, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO:      ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED MOLYCORP,
INC. ("MOLYCORP" OR THE "COMPANY") SECURITIES FROM FEBRUARY 7,
2011 THROUGH NOVEMBER 10, 2011, INCLUSIVE, INCLUDING ALL PERSONS
WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED MOLYCORP COMMON STOCK AND/OR MOLYCORP
5.50% SERIES A MANDATORY CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK ("PREFERRED
STOCK") PURSUANT TO THE FEBRUARY 2011 OFFERING, AND ALL PERSONS
WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED MOLYCORP COMMON STOCK PURSUANT TO THE
JUNE 2011 OFFERING, AND WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado, that a hearing will be held on
June 16, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable Raymond P.
Moore, at the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th
Street, Courtroom A601, Denver, CO 80294, for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in
the above-referenced Litigation for the principal amount of
$20,500,000.00, plus interest, should be approved by the Court as
fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment
and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the
Court dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) whether the
Plan of Allocation of the Settlement proceeds is fair and
reasonable and should be approved; and (4) whether the application
of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses
and Lead Plaintiffs' expenses in connection with this Litigation
should be approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK OR
PREFERRED STOCK OF MOLYCORP DURING THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 7, 2011
THROUGH AND INCLUDING NOVEMBER 10, 2011, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to Molycorp
Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co.
LLC, P.O. Box 30237, College Station, TX 77842-3237, or on the
internet at www.molycorpincsecuritieslitigation.com.  If you are a
Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form
by mail (postmarked no later than June 14, 2017), or online at
www.molycorpincsecuritieslitigation.com no later than June 14,
2017, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you are a Class Member, you will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Litigation, including the releases provided for in
the Settlement, unless you request to be excluded from the Class.
If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion such that it is postmarked no later than May
22, 2017, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice,
referred to above.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the
fee and expense application must be received, not simply
postmarked, by each of the following recipients no later than
May 22, 2017:

          CLERK OF THE COURT
          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
          DISTRICT OF COLORADO
          ALFRED A. ARRAJ UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
          901 19th Street, Room A105
          Denver, CO 80294

Lead Counsel:

          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          TRIG R. SMITH
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101

          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          MATTHEW MUSTOKOFF
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087

Counsel for Defendants:

          COOLEY LLP
          KOJI F. FUKUMURA
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121

          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          GREGORY J. KERWIN
          1801 California Street, Suite 4200
          Denver, CO 80202

          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          JONATHAN K. YOUNGWOOD
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the addresses listed above.

DATED: March 6, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLORADO


NATIONAL AUTO: Faces "Frost" Suit in Fla. Over TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. National Auto Protection Corp, a Florida
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 9:17-cv-80367-DMM (S.D. Fla.,
March 21, 2017), seeks damages and injunctive relief requiring
Defendant to cease all unsolicited autodialed and/or prerecorded
calling activities.

The complaint says Defendant and its agents made more than one
solicited telemarketing call to Plaintiff and members of the Do
Not Call Class within a 12-month period without having prior
express written consent to place such calls. Each such call was
directed to a telephone number that had been registered with the
National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days. Plaintiff and
members of the Do Not Call Class did not provide consent to
receive such telemarketing calls from Defendant or its agent and
neither Defendant nor its agents have any record of consent to
place such telemarketing calls to Plaintiff or the members of the
Do No Call Class.

National Auto offers low cost, affordable automotive warranties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Stefan Coleman, Esq.
   Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, P.A.
   201 S Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (877) 333-9427
   Fax: (888) 498-8946
   Email: law@stefancoleman.com


NIMBLE STORAGE: "Huston" Files Suit Over Sale to Hewlett Packard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Huston, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Nimble Storage, Inc., Frank Calderoni,
James J. Goetz, William Jenkins, Jr., Jerry M. Kennelly, William
J. Schroeder, Bob Kelly, Varun Mehta an Suresh Vasudevan,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01533-JSW (N.D. Cal., March 21,
2017), seeks to enjoin a proposed transaction, or in the event the
Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages for
violation of the Securities Exchange Act.

Specifically, the Plaintiff 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.

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, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff says Defendants solicit the tendering of stockholder
shares to approve the sale of the Company to Hewlett through a
recommendation statement that omits material facts necessary to
make the statements therein not false or misleading in violation
of Federal Securities Laws.

Defendant Nimble Storage provides flash-optimized storage
platforms. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
   Levi & Korsinsky LLP
   44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
   San Francisco, CA 94104
   Tel: (415) 291-2420
   Fax: (415) 484-1294
   Email: rrivas@zlk.com


OAKLAND CAR: Faces "Coleman" Suit in Fla. Over FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marquis Coleman and others similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. Oakland Car Service, Inc., Annellie's Car Wash LLC,
Jacob Schneider and Rene L. Moreno, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 0:17-cv-60575-BB (S.D. Fla., March 21, 2017), seeks to recover
any unpaid minimum wages, overtime hours, retaliatory damages and
any other relief as allowable by Fair Labor Standard Act.

Defendants employed Plaintiff Marquis Coleman as a non-exempt
tipped car wash employee from 2001 to November 19, 2016, or more
than 15 years.

During Plaintiff's employment time, he worked more than 40 hours
every week period. Plaintiff worked weeks two weeks of five days
and two weeks of 5 days per week. Plaintiff worked from 8:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m. (10 hours daily). Plaintiff was unable to take any
bona fide lunch period and he worked for a total of 50 and 60
hours each week, says the complaint.

Defendants Okland Car Service and Annellie's Car Wash operates a
carwash located at 3501 West Oakland Park Blvd, Lauderdale Lakes
33311. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Default Servicing Class Action Dismissal Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Raffetto, Esq., of Goodwin, in an article for JDSupra, wrote
that in February, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a
putative class action that challenged certain fees imposed for
property inspections conducted after the named plaintiffs had
defaulted on their mortgages.  Demonstrating the value of the
increased pleading requirements set by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 9, the Ninth Circuit's decision in Vega v. Ocwen
Financial Corp. Case No. 15-555885, will assist financial services
defendants facing fraud claims in connection with default
servicing obligations.

In Vega, the defendant, Ocwen, charged the plaintiffs for property
inspections conducted after the plaintiffs defaulted on their
loans.  The plaintiffs had agreed in their standard form mortgage
contract that their lenders and servicers could "charge the
plaintiffs for property inspections that are 'reasonable or
appropriate' to protect the lenders' interest in the properties"
and to pass those costs on to the plaintiffs.  Slip Op. at 4.
After the plaintiffs defaulted, Ocwen sent property inspectors out
to the plaintiffs' properties to ensure that the properties were
occupied and maintained.  The plaintiffs sued Ocwen for this,
alleging violations of RICO and the California Unfair Competition
Law, among other violations.  The plaintiffs alleged that Ocwen
had conspired to commit fraud by failing to disclose the allegedly
unnecessary fees, and to support these claims, the plaintiffs
claimed the inspections were ordered automatically, that they were
too frequent, and that they went unreviewed.

Affirming dismissal, the Ninth Circuit concluded that these
allegations did not support the plaintiffs' fraud allegations,
explaining that these allegations were insufficient because they
did not create an inference that the inspections were not
performed in accordance with the terms of plaintiffs' mortgage
contracts.  Default servicing organizations facing similar claims
may find the reasoning in this opinion helpful in their own
litigations, particularly where plaintiffs have included
allegations of fraud in their suits.


PACIFIC GATEWAY: Faces "Lim" Suit Alleging Violation of FACTA
-------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK LIM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC GATEWAY CONCESSIONS LLC, and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01477 (N.D.
Cal., March 18, 2017), alleges that Defendants willfully violated
the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act and failed to
protect Plaintiff and others similarly situated against identity
theft and credit and debit card fraud by printing more than the
last 5 digits of the card number on receipts provided to credit
card and debit card cardholders transacting business with
Defendants.

PACIFIC GATEWAY CONCESSIONS LLC owns, manages, maintains and or
operates retail stores offering various goods and services for
sale to the public.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chant Yedalian, Esq.
     CHANT & COMPANY
     1010 N. Central Ave.
     Glendale, CA 91202
     Phone: 877-574-7100
     Fax: 877-574-9411
     E-mail: chant@chant.mobi


PNC BANK: "Marino" Sues Over Unauthorized Consumer Report Access
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Margaret Marino, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PNC Bank NA, Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-00179, (D. Nev., March 23, 2017), requests statutory and
punitive damages, including attorney fees and costs and such other
and further relief for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Plaintiff has mortgage debt with the Defendants. On March 15,
2013, Marino filed for bankruptcy, granting a discharge of
personam liability for debts, including any debt owed to PNC Bank
NA. Despite the discharge and the absence of any in personam
credit relationship between Marino and PNC Bank NA, the latter
accessed Marino's personal information after the discharge by
pulling or obtaining a consumer report from a consumer reporting
agency on more than one occasion without Marino's consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher P. Burke, Esq.
     702 Plumas Street
     Reno, NV 89509
     Tel: (775) 333-9277
     Email: attycburke@charter.net

            - and -

     Scott C. Borison, Esq.
     LEGG LAW FIRM, LLP
     1900 S. Norfolk Rd. Suite 350
     San Mateo, CA 94403
     Tel: (301) 620-1016
     Fax: (301) 620-1018
     Email: Borison@legglaw.com


PPI INC: Faces "Faeldonea" Suit Over Illegal Tip-Credits
--------------------------------------------------------
Marites Faeldonea, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PPI, Inc., a Florida corporation d/b/a Isle
Casino Racing Pompano Park, fictitiously a/k/a The Isle Casino and
Racing at Pompano Park, fictitiously, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-
cv-60581-BB (S.D. Fla., March 22, 2017), seeks to recover
compensation and relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Plaintiff Marites Faeldonea was hired as a non-exempt poker dealer
employee by the Defendant.  During Plaintiff's employment and
others similarly situated, Defendant claimed a 'tip-credit' for
the Plaintiff and others similarly situated and consequently paid
these employees below the statutorily required minimum wage under
FLSA.

The Defendant's failure to comply with the FLSA 'tip-credit'
requirements results in Defendant's inability to claim a 'tip-
credit' for the Plaintiff and others similarly situated, says the
complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq.
   David Frank, Esq.
   Whitelock & Associates, P.A.
   300 Southeast Thirteenth Street
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
   Tel: (954) 463-2001
   Fax: (954) 463-0410
   Email: cjw@whitelocklegal.com
          davidfrank@whitelocklegal.com



RELIANT CAPITAL: "Hodges" Alleges TCPA, FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Jenni Hodges, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Reliant Capital Solutions, LLC and Does 1-
10, inclusive and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-at-00307
(E.D. Cal., March 22, 2017), seeks damages for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The complaint says Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's prior
express consent to receive calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system or an artificial prerecorded voice on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone.

Reliant Capital Solutions, LLC' website is a payment portal for
making online payments. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
   Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
   Meghan E. George, Esq.
   Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
   21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
   Woodland Hills, CA 91367
   Tel: 877-206-4741
   Fax: 866-633-0228
   Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
          abacon@toddflaw.com
          megeorge@toddflaw.com


REMINGTON ARMS: Rifle Owners Eligible for Trigger Replacement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Bresswein, writing for lehighvalleylive.com, reports that on
owners of certain Remington rifles are eligible for a free
trigger-mechanism replacement under a class action lawsuit
settlement granted final approval.

Certain models are at risk of unintentional discharge and should
immediately no longer be used, according to the settlement.  These
rifles are described as "some Model 700 and Model Seven rifles
with X-Mark Pro triggers manufactured from May 1, 2006, to April
9, 2014."  These rifles are subject to a voluntary safety recall.

More centerfire bolt-action rifles from Remington are not subject
to the recall but are still eligible for free repair.  These
rifles are Models 700, Seven, Sportsman 78 and 673 with a
Remington Walker trigger mechanism that utilizes a trigger
connector, and Models 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722
and 725 with a Remington trigger mechanism that utilizes a trigger
connector have not been recalled.

The settlement resolves two class-action lawsuits filed in federal
district court in Kansas City, Missouri, according to a news
release from June 2015 when the then-proposed agreement was
announced.

"The underlying lawsuits alleged that certain Remington bolt-
action rifles contained defectively designed trigger mechanisms
and could result in accidental discharges without a trigger pull
and sought economic losses for the alleged diminished value of the
rifles, along with other equitable relief," Remington Arms Co. LLC
says in the 2015 release.  "The suits did not seek damages for
personal injuries or property damage, and the settlement does not
resolve or affect any such claims.

"Remington believes that the trigger mechanisms are safe and has
vigorously defended both lawsuits. However, to avoid the
uncertainties and expense of protracted litigation, and to ensure
continued satisfaction for its valuable customers, Remington has
agreed to settle and to offer to retrofit certain firearms."

The settlement provides for the free replacement of the trigger
mechanism, to be performed by one of 20 Remington Authorized
Repair Centers in the United States.  None are in Pennsylvania or
New Jersey, though there is one in Verona, New York. Remington is
providing pre-paid shipping materials.

The serial number on the rifle is used to determine whether a
Remington rifle is eligible to be retrofitted.

Claim Forms are available at
remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com or by calling 800-876-
5940.  You may submit your Claim Form online, or you may complete
your form and then submit it by U.S. mail or e-mail at the
addresses listed below:

By E-Mail: remington@angeiongroup.com

By U.S. Mail: Angeion Group
Attn: Remington Claims
Suite 660, 1801 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103

The final approval is still subject to appeal for 30 days from
March 14.  The deadline for filing a claim form will not be before
Aug. 14, 2018.

Remington is a pioneer in the manufacture of bolt-action rifles,
with its Keene Repeating Rifle dating to 1876.


RIVER CAFE: July 31 Trial Set in Waiter Pay Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Pete Brush, writing for Law360, reports that former River Cafe
waiters who say the pricey eatery in Brooklyn's DUMBO neighborhood
stiffed them out of millions of dollars in tips and other wages
over eight years were given a trial date on March 20 in a long-
running paycheck action targeting owner Michael "Buzzy" O'Keeffe.

U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams set a July 31 date for an
estimated weeklong trial for classes who sued under federal and
New York labor laws.  In November she inherited the 2013 case,
brought by named plaintiffs Jorge Fonseca and Reyes Andon, from
U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres.

The two former waiters' counsel from Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP
estimates the liability bill for the waterfront restaurant where
diners' checks regularly hit $500 and up could top out at $15
million for violations dating between 2007 and 2015 for about 200
class members.

"River Cafe is on the path to joining the shortlist of employers
who cannot admit they violated the wage laws and insist on taking
a losing case to trial," plaintiffs' counsel Josef Nussbaum said
after the hearing.  "We look forward to the opportunity to prove
our claims at trial this summer."

An operative 2015 complaint says the restaurant shorted waiters
and others on overtime, forced them to share tips with management
and other ineligible workers, and failed to properly disclose pay
policies on check stubs.

River Cafe, whose corporate name is Dircksen & Talleyrand Inc.,
has fought the case since it was filed.  The restaurant asserts
among other things that all workers who shared in tips were
eligible to do so and that it believes it was in full compliance
with state and federal laws.

"We're talking about waiters who made over $100,000 per year,"
defense counsel Christine L. Hogan of Littler Mendelson PC told
Judge Abrams on March 20.  "These were professional waiters who
made lots of money."

Judge Abrams noted that a recent settlement huddle did not show
any results.  The sides were potentially going to gather again in
front of U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn for another go-
around.

The waiters are represented by D. Maimon Kirschenbaum --
maimon@jhllp.com -- Josef Nussbaum -- jnussbaum@jhllp.com -- and
Lucas Buzzard of Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP.

The restaurant and its owner are represented by Craig R. Benson
-- cbenson@littler.com -- and Christine L. Hogan --
clhogan@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson PC.

The case is Fonseca et al. v. Dircksen & Talleyrand Inc. et al.,
case number 1:13-cv-05124, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


RUSHMORE LOAN: "Cedre" FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Marie Cedre, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rushmore Loan Management
Services LLC, James E. Albertelli, P.A. d/b/a Alaw and Carlsbad
Funding Mortgage Trust, Defendants, was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando) on
March 22, 2017, and assigned Case No. 6:17-cv-00511-RBD-KRS.

Plaintiff seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC is a residential loan
servicer and national wholesale residential mortgage loan
originator.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Darren Newhart, Esq.
   Consumer Law Organization, PA
   721 US Hwy 1, Suite 20
   North Palm Beach, FL 33408
   Tel: (561) 822-3446
   Fax: (305) 574-0132
   Email: darren@cloorg.com

        - and -

   James Lawrence Kauffman, Esq.
   Bailey & Glasser, LLP
   1054 31st Street NW
   Washington, DC 20007
   Tel: (202) 462-2101
   Fax: (202) 463-2103

        - and -

   Robert C. Burgess, Esq.
   McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC-Jacksonville, Suite 200
   10407 Centurion Pkwy N
   Jacksonville, FL 32256
   Tel: (904) 224-4498
   Fax: (904) 212-1828
   Email: cburgess@mcglinchey.com

        - and -

   Paul Gerard Wersant, Esq.
   Robert C. Burges, Esq.
   Albertelli & Whitworth, P.A.
   100 Galleria Parkway, Suite 960
   Atlanta, GA 30339
   Tel: (770) 373-4242
   Fax: (770) 373-4260
   Email: pwersant@alaw.net


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Soto" Sues Over S5 Phone Explosion
--------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Soto, an individual on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics
America, Inc., a New York Corporation and Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-01561 (N.D. Ga., March 23,
2017) seeks damages and penalties; restitution; costs of suit and
reasonable attorneys' fees; interest upon any judgment entered;
and such other and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment
and violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

Soto purchased a Samsung S5 in February 2015 from Best Buy in
Colorado. It exploded on their dresser, shooting out flames
several inches high and quickly filling the room with smoke. Soto
seeks to enjoin Samsung from selling the defective phones.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a foreign corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the Republic of Korea, with its
principal place of business located at 129 Samsung-Ro, Yeongtong-
Gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea. It is the parent company of
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Niall P. McCarthy, Esq.
      Anne Marie Murphy, Esq.
      Eric J. Buescher, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
      San Francisco Airport Office Center
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Telephone: (650) 697-6000
      Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
      Email: nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com
             amurphy@cpmlegal.com
             ebuescher@cpmlegal.com

             - and -

      Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
      Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
      Crystal L. Matter, Esq.
      STONEBARGER LAW, APC
      75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
      Folsom, CA 95630
      Telephone: (916) 235-7140
      Facsimile: (916) 235-7141
      Email: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
             rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com
             cmatter@stonebargerlaw.com


SANTA CLARA, CA: Class Settlement in Suit vs. HACSC Has Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California granted Plaintiff's Motion for
Attorney's Fees and Costs in the case captioned, THANH HUYNH, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA
CLARA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-02367-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

In early 2013, "the federal government imposed an $85 billion
across-the-board cut in discretionary federal spending." In order
to address the decrease in funding, Housing Authority of the
County of Santa Clara (HACSC) made significant revisions to its
administration of the Section 8 Program on March 1, 2013 revising
the calculations increased each participant's total tenant payment
from 30% to 35% of their gross monthly income or $50 a month,
whichever was higher."

Subsequent to these changes, each named Plaintiff submitted a
reasonable accommodation request for an additional bedroom based
on at least one family member having a documented disability.
HACSC denied these requests.

Plaintiffs bring the action against the HACSC and Katherine
Harasz, in her official capacity as HACSC's Executive Director.
Defendants removed the case to federal court on May 22, 2014. On
May 29, 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint.
The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to
dismiss on September 2, 2014 and Huynh subsequently filed a First
Amended Complaint. On January 7, 2015, the Court granted Huynh's
request to file a Second Amended Complaint, and on January 12,
2015, Huynh -- now joined by the rest of the named Plaintiffs --
filed the SAC.

The SAC contains five substantive causes of action, based on
violations of (1) the Fair Housing Amendments Act, (2) the Fair
Employment and Housing Act, (3) the California Disabled Persons
Act, (4) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and (5) the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The SAC also includes a sixth
cause of action for declaratory relief. On September 17, 2015,
Plaintiffs moved for class certification pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) which was granted on
November 12, 2015.

The parties filed a notice of settlement on June 8, 2016 which was
preliminarily approved on August 11, 2016. The parties filed the
motion for final approval of class action settlement and the
instant motion for attorney's fees, costs, and incentive payments
on February 14, 2017. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement, Plaintiffs request $712,500 in attorney's fees and
costs, as well as $50,000 in named Plaintiff incentive payments.

In the motion for attorney's fees, both Law Foundation of Silicon
Valley, which the Court previously appointed as Class Counsel, and
Fish & Richardson P.C., which the Court did not appoint as Class
Counsel, have requested attorney's fees. In total, Plaintiffs
report a lodestar of $1,125,992 for attorneys, consisting of
$498,192 for Fish & Richardson and $627,800 for Law Foundation.
Plaintiffs also report a lodestar of $46,523.50 for paralegals,
entirely attributable to Fish & Richardson. Finally, Plaintiffs
report $20,142.68 in costs, consisting of $12,438.92 for Fish &
Richardson and $7,703.76 for Law Foundation.

In her Order dated March 17, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/MMQdsM from Leagle.com, Judge Koh found that the
requested $712,500 as attorney's fees and costs, $10,000 as
incentive award to each named Plaintiff household fair and
reasonable.

Thanh Huynh, et al. are represented by Emily Petersen Garff, Esq.
-- petersengarff@fr.com -- Katherine Vidal, Esq. -- vidal@fr.com -
- Meghana Chandrakant RaoRane, Esq. -- raorane@fr.com -- and --
Michael Richard Headley, Esq. -- headley@fr.com -- FISH &
RICHARDSON P.C. -- Kara Elizabeth Brodfuehrer, Esq. --
kara.brodfuehrer@lawfoundation.org -- Kyra Ann Kazantzis, Esq. --
kyrak@lawfoundation.org -- and -- Thomas Philip Zito, Esq. --
tom.zito@lawfoundation.org -- LAW FOUNDATION OF SILICON VALLEY

Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara is represented by
John Algot List, Esq. -- jlist@pahl-mccay.com -- Karen K. McCay,
Esq. -- kmccay@pahl-mccay.com -- and -- Helene Anastasia
Simvoulakis, Esq. -- hsimvoulakis@pahl-mccay.com -- PAHL AND MCCAY


SEVIER COUNTY, TN: Wildfire Survivors Mull Suits vs. Park Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Local 8 News reports that several survivors of November's
wildfires in Gatlinburg attended the Sevier County Commission
Meeting on March 20.  The meeting began at 6 p.m. at the Sevier
County Courthouse.

One survivor who spoke during the meeting said she is involved in
a lawsuit that will be filed against the National Park Service in
June.  She said Gillreath and Associates of Knoxville was working
with the people looking to file lawsuits against the Park Service.

The administrator of the Gatlinburg Wildfire Survivor Facebook
group, Melinda Stites, said the group of 230 members has been
persistent about questioning how officials responded before and
during the wildfires that killed 14 people.  Members include those
who lost loved ones, property and businesses in the deadly
November wildfires.

"I've been told that officials are getting scared and that we are
the main talk in board meetings. Our persistence is paying off,"
Stites said.

Speakers at the March 20 meeting questioned how warnings were
issued and evacuations were handled.

The meeting featured retired Park Ranger Jerry Grubb, who spoke on
behalf of people that were evacuated, as well as community members
that lost their homes and loved ones during the fires.  He spoke
about what he called the National Park Service's negligence.

"Absolutely no one, no one, should have been injured or killed in
that fire," Mr. Grubb said.  "It may have burnt this city to the
ground, but if they had gone back to their crisis intervention and
done what their NPS regulations said, it would never have
happened."

Melinda Stites requested solutions for problems that occurred
during the wildfires.

"I want to see public access to an evacuation plan," Ms. Stites
said. "I want to see sirens put everywhere.  They are talking
about putting sirens downtown, but what about where all the deaths
occurred in Chalet Village?"

Ms. Stites told Local 8 News she just barely made it off the
mountain in time with her family.  She said a group of people are
currently involved in lawsuits against the National Park Service.


SUNGEVITY: Next Class Action Hearing Scheduled for April 12
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christian Roselund, writing for PV Magazine, reports that the news
from Sungevity just getting worse.  A former employee filed a
class-action lawsuit against the bankrupt residential solar
company, demanding accrued vacation pay and alleging that
Sungevity failed to comply with federal and state law.

Under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN)
Act, under most circumstances companies with more than 100
employees must provide 60 days notice before layoffs and plant
closings.  Sungevity filed a WARN Act notice in January for 66
employees that it laid off in Oakland, but provided no notice for
the layoffs on March 9.

However, it is not only lack of warning that former employees are
suing over.  They are also suing over accrued vacation and
personal time off for which they were not compensated and unpaid
commissions and bonuses, as well as Sungevity's alleged failure to
make pension and 401(k) contributions.  Employees also accuse
Sungevity of failing to pay into health plans.  Some of these are
addressed in California and Missouri state law.

Additionally, according to emails seen by pv magazine, the law
firm retained by former Sungevity employees will be looking into
the issue of bounced paychecks.  According to pv magazine sources,
not only have paychecks issued by the company to workers laid off
on March 9 failed to clear, but the final severance checks to
workers laid off in January have also failed.

Sungevity has promised to issue new checks to its workers, however
some of these former employers are claiming that the original
checks which they received were returned by their banks as
fraudulent.

Court filings show that the situation may be more complicated.  In
a filing from March 17, Sungevity claims that its bank has
wrongfully reversed $326,000 in checks to 184 former employees,
and has filed several motions to the courts to be allowed to pay
its workers.

In the filing, Sungevity notes that "failure to remit these
amounts to the Former Employees could potentially expose the
Debtors, as well as their directors and officers, to additional
liability under applicable state and federal labor laws."

Sungevity has received a pledge of $20 million in emergency
funding from its proposed buyer, however court records also show
$169 million in debt.  The next hearing in Sungevity's case will
be April 12.


TRXADE GROUP: Class Settlement in TCPA Suit Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Kristi K. DuBose of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Alabama granted final
judgment in the case captioned, FAMILY MEDICINE PHARMACY, LLC,
Plaintiff, v. TRXADE GROUP, INC. and WESTMINSTER PHARMACEUTICALS,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 12-CV-00040-RJA-JJM (S.D. Ala.).

On November 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed the class action complaint
alleging that Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. Section 221, as amended by the
Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the TCPA). Specifically,
Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated the Act by sending or
"fax blasting" thousands of unsolicited faxed advertisements to
Plaintiff and the putative class members to generate sales leads
and advertise the commercial availability of Defendants'
pharmaceutical products.

In May 2016, Plaintiff notified the Court that the action was
scheduled for mediation facilitated by the Honorable John L.
Carroll to be held on June 6, 2016. The mediation was successful
and the parties reached a settlement as memorialized in the Class
Settlement Agreement. According to the terms of the Class
Settlement Agreement, a Settlement Fund of $200,000.00 was
created.

Among other terms and conditions, the parties agreed to the
creation of a Settlement Fund of $200,000.00 for payment of the
Claims Administrator's expenses (estimated at $15,900.00),
attorney's fees of 25% of the Settlement Fund plus costs and
expenses (approximately $50,400.00), and the Class
Representative's Incentive Award ($3,500.00) subject to Court
approval, with the balance of approximately $130,200.00 to fund a
Common Fund for pro rata payment of the claims by the Class
Members, but not to exceed $1,000.00 per claimant.

After hearing the Motion for Preliminary Approval, the Court
granted the unopposed Motion and preliminarily approved the
proposed Class Settlement Agreement and conditionally and
preliminarily certified the Settlement Class. The Court also
designated Plaintiff's counsel James H. McFerrin and Diandra S.
Debrosse Zimmerman as Settlement Class Counsel, designated
Plaintiff as Class Representative, and designated JND Legal
Administration d/b/a JND Class Action Administration as the Claims
Administrator.

In her Final Judgment and Order and Memorandum dated March 17,
2017 available at https://is.gd/HqSBO1 from Leagle.com, Judge
DuBose found that the class settlement agreement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate and not result of collusion and that
award of attorney's fees, expenses, and incentive payment for
class representative as fair and reasonable.

Family Medicine Pharmacy LLC is represented by:

      James H. McFerrin, Esq.
      THE MCFERRIN LAW FIRM
      265 Riverchase Parkway East
      Suite 202
      Birmingham, Al 35244
      Tel:(205) 870-5704

             -- and --

      Diandra S. Debrosse, Esq.
      Gregory Martin Zarzaur, Esq.
      2201 Morris Ave,
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205)324-3600

TRXADE Group Inc. and Westminster Inc. are represented by M.
Warren Butler, Esq. -- wbutler@starneslaw.com -- and -- Scott D.
Stevens, Esq. -- sstevens@starneslaw.com -- STARNES DAVIS FLORIE
LLP


ULTRATECH INC: Faces Investor Class Action Over Veeco Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Martin O'Sullivan and Fola Akinnibi, writing for Law360, report
that Ultratech Inc. investors have hit the company, which makes
equipment for businesses that manufacture semiconductors, with a
proposed class action in California federal court over the
company's $815 million acquisition by Veeco Instruments Inc.,
saying shareholders were not given enough information on the deal.

Ultratech in February announced that it would be acquired by Veeco
-- also a provider of semiconductor manufacturing equipment -- for
$815 million in a deal that would give Ultratech shareholders a 15
percent stake in the combined company.
Ultratech investors on March 17 said that the deal unfairly
favored Veeco and that Ultratech had violated securities law by
supplying shareholders with a proxy that left out essential
information about the deal.

"The . . . omitted information, if disclosed, would significantly
alter the total mix of information available to Ultratech's
stockholders," the investors said.

Under the terms of the deal announced in February, Ultratech
shareholders stand to receive $21.75 per share in cash and 0.2675
shares of Veeco for each share held.  Combined, this represents a
$28.64 per-share purchase price, the companies said at the time of
the deal.

Investors on March 17 said the $28.64 per-share purchase price
falls short of other figures, such as a $35.90 implied per share
value from an analysis by its financial adviser, Merrill Lynch.

Additionally, investors said the terms of the acquisition "are
calculated to unreasonably dissuade potential suitors from making
competing offers," citing a $26.5 million termination fee, a
clause barring solicitation for competing offers and other
factors.

The proxy for the deal violates securities law, investors said,
since Ultratech omitted certain financial projections and
analyses, potential conflicts of interests regarding its directors
and officers, the background of the transaction and more.

"The omissions and false and misleading statements in the proxy
statement are material in that a reasonable stockholder will
consider them important in deciding how to vote on the proposed
transaction," the investors said.

Ultratech did not immediately respond to a comment request on
March 20.

The investors are represented by Rosemary M. Rivas of Levi &
Korsinsky LLP and Brian D. Long, Gina M. Serra of Rigrodsky & Long
PA and Richard Maniskas of RM Law PC.

Counsel information for Ultratech and its executives was not
available on March 20.

The suit is The Vladimir Gusinksky Rev. Trust v. Ultratech Inc. et
al., case number 3:17-cv-01468, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


ULTRATECH INC: Faces "Letter" Suit Over Sale to Veeco
-----------------------------------------------------
Michel De Letter and Elizabeth De Letter, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Ultratech Inc.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01542-WHA (N.D. Cal., March
22, 2017), is brought on behalf of all holders of the common stock
of Ultratech, and seeks to enjoin the proposed transaction in
which Veeco Instruments Inc. will acquire each outstanding share
of Ultratech common stock through a flawed process and for an
inadequate consideration.

On March 13, 2017, Ultratech filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission a materially misleading and incomplete
Preliminary Proxy that failed to provide the Company's
stockholders with material information and provides them with
materially misleading information critical to the total mix of
information available to the Company's stockholders concerning the
financial and procedural fairness of the proposed acquisition.

Defendant Ultratech develops, manufactures and markets
photolithography, laser thermal processing and inspection
equipment. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Evan J. Smith, Esq.
   Brodsky & Smith, LLC
   9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
   Beverly Hills, CA 90212
   Tel: (877) 534-2590
   Fax: (310) 247-0160
   Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com


UNITED STATES: Court Finds USCIS Regulation for H-1B Reasonable
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael H. Simon of the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment
and denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in the case
captioned, WALKER MACY LLC and XIAOYANG ZHU, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED
STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES and LORI SCIALABBA,
Acting Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-995-SI (D. Or.).

Plaintiffs Walker Macy LLC and Xiaoyang Zhu bring this putative
class action against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) and its Acting Director, Lori Scialabba, in her official
capacity.  Plaintiffs allege that USCIS improperly administers its
H-1B specialty occupation nonimmigrant visa worker program in
violation of federal law.

Plaintiffs bring their claims under the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA) alleging that Defendants are failing to process H-1B
visa petitions in the manner required by Congress. Defendants'
regulation, 8 C.F.R. Section 214.2(h)(8)(ii)(B), permits a random
computer-generated selection process for H-1B petitions and
requires that petitions not processed within a given year's
statutory cap be returned. Plaintiffs assert that this procedure
conflicts with the unambiguous command of Congress in 8 U.S.C.
Section 1184(g)(3) that H-1B visas shall be issued "in the order
in which petitions are filed."

The parties cross-move for summary judgment. Plaintiffs argue that
Defendants' interpretation of the H-1B statute and resulting
regulatory scheme is unreasonable and leads to arbitrary results.
Defendants argue that H-1B temporary, nonimmigrant visas are
different than the immigrant visas that are processed with waiting
lists because those applicants are seeking permanent residence,
not temporary work. Defendants also argue that the purpose of the
INA is to protect American workers, and thus Plaintiffs' concern
with protecting nonimmigrant workers is misplaced.

In his Opinion and Order dated March 17, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/veIswv from Leagle.com, Judge Simon did not find
that Defendants' refusal to implement a waiting list in the H-1B
visa context is unreasonable. The agency's actions were logical
and address the problems created by the significant demand for H-
1B visas.

Walker Macy LLC and Xiaoyang Zhu are represented by Brent W.
Renison, Esq. -- brent@entrylaw.com -- PARRILLI RENISON

US Citizenship and Immigration Services and Leon Rodriguez are
represented by:

      Joshua S. Press, Esq.
      U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
      950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
      Washington, DC 20530-0001
      Tel: (202)353-1555


WESTERN EDGE: "Hamman" Suit Alleges Non-payment of Overtime Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
SKYLAR HAMMAN, STEWART MCGEE, and STEVE RODGERS, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs.
WESTERN EDGE CONSTRUCTION, LLC, MARK TUCKER, and CINDY TUCKER,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00092 (S.D. Tex., March 17, 2017),
alleges that Defendant's workers put in 80 or more hours of work
per week but were not given any overtime pay for all the extra
hours in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Skylar Hamman was employed by the Defendants as a carpenter on
various construction projects being managed by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew S. Golub, Esq.
     DOW GOLUB REMELS & GILBREATH, PLLC
     2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1750
     Houston, TX 77056
     Phone: (713) 526-3700
     Fax: (713) 526-3750
     E-mail: asgolub@dowgolub.com


* Fate of FICALA 220 to 201 Bill Uncertain in Senate
----------------------------------------------------
Alexander R. Dahl, Esq. -- adahl@bhfs.com -- of Brownstein Hyatt
Farber Schreck LLP, in an article for Law360, reports that the
polarized reaction to the U.S. House of Representative's passage
of H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act (FICALA),
indicates that class action and multidistrict cases are in real
trouble.

While the U.S. Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform lauded FICALA
as a remedy to "many of the abuses that have turned class actions
and mass tort MDL proceedings into cash machines for the
plaintiffs trial bar," the American Association for Justice called
the legislation an "ill-conceived plan to deprive Americans of
their rights."  The chasm between these statements provides a
clear contrast between the consensus with which class actions and
MDLs were created in the late 1960s (when both the plaintiffs bar
and the corporate and defense bars supported them) and the deep
disagreement about how those mechanisms have evolved.

As often happens with legal theories -- and other ideas -- the
creative expansion of the justifications and procedures that
underlie class actions and MDL cases have reached a point of
unsustainability.  This is because, as Benjamin Graham frequently
observed in other contexts: "You can get in way more trouble with
a good idea than a bad idea because you forget that the good idea
has limits."

It was a good idea in 1966 to revise Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure to establish a procedure for modern class
action cases.  Judicial efficiency was a key reason for the
revision.  In a case involving a common set of facts, such as the
civil rights desegregation cases envisioned by the rule's
drafters, a single forum for litigation makes much more sense than
relitigating the same facts in different courts.  Similarly, it
was a good idea in 1968 for Congress to create the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation, which was also motivated by judicial
efficiency.  Now these mechanisms are exceeding their limits and
should be reined in.

Class Actions Have Lost Their Class

The drafters of Rule 23 envisioned a meaningful relationship
between the cause of action and the class members.  For example,
the Advisory Committee for Civil Rules explained in the notes to
the rule that "[t]he court is required to find, as a condition of
holding that a class action may be maintained under this
subdivision [(b)(3)], that the questions common to the class
predominate over the questions affecting individual members." Over
time, however, lawyers and courts developed new theories to
stretch Rule 23 in order to fit their cases.  The fact that courts
routinely circumvent the clearly defined "predominance"
requirement is one of the reasons lawmakers drafted and voted for
FICALA.

Predominance is only one of several issues related to class
requirements that FICALA addresses.  Another is "typicality,"
which requires the named plaintiff to have the same type of injury
as the rest of the class members he or she purports to represent.
Although some portray the typicality requirement as an unimportant
obstacle that should be eliminated, the cases in which typicality
has been overlooked have resulted in some egregious results that
go to the fundamental purpose of class actions.

When, for example, plaintiffs who have suffered physical injuries
from consumer products purport to represent thousands of people
who have not been injured and who are not unhappy with the
product, the "no-injury" class members receive unwarranted
compensation and are then barred from further damages if they
suffer future injury.  An empirical study conducted by Professor
Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University School of Law found that
no-injury class actions resolved in the last decade resulted in
approximately $4 billion worth of settlements and judgments, yet
provided a mere 9 percent -- or less -- of that amount to class
members.

Differing views about predominance, typicality and whether a class
needs to be ascertainable reflect an expanding explanation of the
purpose of class actions.  Although the principle of judicial
efficiency remains important, it seems to have taken a back seat
to some newer, more creative justifications.  Some believe in the
"private attorney general" theory that plaintiffs lawyers are in
effect policymakers or enforcers who hold wrongdoers accountable
for their actions.  Others say class actions exist to aggregate
small-value claims into higher-value cases in order to provide
redress to people who would otherwise not pursue it.  Both
theories fit within the wider umbrella of the extreme articulation
"every wrong deserves a remedy," which has been used to justify
stretching the limits of the rules in order to secure a payment.

The problem with stretching Rule 23 to provide a remedy for every
wrong is that Rule 23 is a procedural rule created pursuant to the
Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 2071-2077.  Because the Rules
Enabling Act is a congressional delegation of authority to the
federal judiciary, rules created pursuant to the act (including
Rule 23) are subject to the congressional directive that
procedural rules "shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any
substantive right."  Rule 23 violates that constraint when it
allows as class members people who would be unable to maintain a
claim for relief under underlying state or federal law.  FICALA
would fix this.

Tightening the relationship between the case and the class would
also result from other provisions in FICALA.  The bill would
ensure that class members receive a meaningful share of the
judgment or settlement funds by: limiting attorneys' fee awards to
a reasonable percentage of those funds; prohibiting the lawyers
from receiving fees until after the class members are paid; and
requiring the lawyers to file a report of how all money paid by
the defendants was distributed.  It would also compel plaintiffs
lawyers to disclose conflicts of interest with any proposed class
representative, including whether that person is related to the
lawyers, is an employee of the lawyers or is working with the
lawyers in any other case or business matter.

FICALA also provides some procedural protections that will help
ensure Rule 23 cases do not exceed the scope of the rule,
including a mandatory right of appeal of class certification
decisions (appeals are discretionary under the current rule) and a
mandatory suspension of discovery while the court resolves Rule 12
motions (motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, motions
to strike class allegations and motions to transfer). FICALA also
requires disclosure of third-party funding agreements, an
important provision for legal, practical and ethical reasons.

MDL Cases are Adrift

Like class actions, MDLs have morphed over time into something
policymakers did not envision.  Congress created the MDL process
for the purpose of "coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings" (28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407), but now MDL cases -- which
account for somewhere between one-third and one-half of the
federal civil docket -- have a reputation for one-sided discovery
and "bellwether trials."

FICALA contains some modest reforms aimed at getting MDLs back on
the rails, including requiring plaintiffs lawyers to demonstrate
"evidentiary support" for each plaintiffs' claim and prohibiting
courts from ordering "bellwether" trials unless all parties
consent.  Other important reforms include a requirement that
federal jurisdiction exist for each plaintiff, mandatory appellate
review for material decisions and a limit on attorneys' fees.  The
fact that all of these reforms are needed is a sad reflection on
the state of MDLs.

The Future of FICALA

Although the House passed FICALA 220 to 201, its fate in the
Senate is uncertain.  Most Republican senators are expected to
support it, but most Democrats will not.  With a 52-to-48 split
between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, the focus will be
on the "red state" Democrats facing reelection in 2018 in states
that President Donald Trump won.  The chances for timely action in
the Senate will be influenced by the fact that Congress has plenty
of other priorities, including the confirmation of Judge Neil
Gorsuch for the U.S. Supreme Court, approving many dozens more
Trump administration nominees, the effort to "repeal and replace"
the Affordable Care Act, comprehensive tax reform, appropriations
for the remainder of 2017 and for 2018, to name a few of the big
ones.


* Some Provisions in FCALA Bill Controversial, Attorneys Say
------------------------------------------------------------
Dale A. Hudson, Esq., and Mae Hau, Esq., of Nixon Peabody LLP, in
an article for Lexology, wrote that the House Judiciary Committee
has approved the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017
which would enact wide-ranging changes to the rules governing
class and multi-district litigation.

In February of this year, the House Judiciary Committee approved
the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 (FCALA), which
would enact wide-ranging changes to the rules governing class and
multi-district litigation.  The sponsors of the bill state that
the purpose of FCALA is to "assure fair, more efficient outcomes
for claimants and defendants."  While no one would quarrel with
the stated goal of the legislation, many of the specific
provisions of the legislation are controversial.

FCALA consists of a hodgepodge of new procedural rules. Some of
the proposed rule changes would undoubtedly have significant
impact on class litigation. Other provisions, such as the
disclosure requirements, will likely have little if any practical
impact.

FCALA would prohibit a court from certifying a class seeking
monetary relief unless the plaintiff demonstrates that each
proposed class member suffered the "same type and scope of
injury."  The court would have to make a specific finding after "a
rigorous analysis of the evidence presented." As a practical
matter, it is unclear how this restriction would play out in
litigation.  For example, it is unclear what would happen in a
scenario where all class members suffered an injury from side-
effects of a prescription drug, but the types or severity of the
reactions varied.  The courts would be required to sort this out.

FCALA would prohibit a court from certifying a class seeking
monetary relief unless the class can be defined by "objective
criteria" and there is a reliable and administratively feasible
mechanism (a) for the court to determine whether putative class
members fall within the class definition and (b) for distributing
the recovery directly to a substantial majority of class members.

One of the more controversial provisions of FCALA would prohibit
anyone with a current or past relationship with class counsel from
serving as a class representative.  This would include all
relatives of class counsel, all current or former employees of
class counsel and all current or former clients of class counsel.
The prohibition on employees and relatives serving as class
representatives is presumably intended to reign in "attorney-
driven" litigation.  However, the proposed prohibition on current
or former clients of class counsel serving as a class
representative is extremely broad.  For example, it could make it
difficult for pension funds to find attorneys to bring class
action lawsuits for securities law violations, since they would
effectively be prohibited from using the same law firm more than
once.  If this provision is not eliminated or at least watered
down in the course of the legislative process, it will likely face
serious constitutional challenges.

FCALA would require that any proposed class representative
disclose if he or she has previously served as a class
representative in a prior lawsuit.  In addition, class counsel
would be required to disclose if any entity is helping to fund the
litigation in exchange for a contingent recovery.

FCALA would limit attorney's fees awarded to class counsel to "a
reasonable percentage of any payments directly distributed to . .
. class members." This is a change from current law, which
generally calculates fees as a percentage of the gross recovery
(including attorney's fees). This rule change would discourage so-
called "reversionary settlements," whereby amounts not claimed by
class members revert to the defendant, while class counsel
nonetheless seeks fees based on the amount of the potential
maximum payment.  In furtherance of this goal, the legislation
would also provide that attorney's fees could not be determined or
paid until payments to the class have been completed. However, the
rule delaying payment of attorney's fees would apply to all class
action lawsuits, even where no reversionary component is present.
The reason for this proposed delay is unclear.

Where a class lawsuit obtains equitable relief (such as an
injunction restricting future conduct), attorney's fees would be
limited to a "reasonable percentage of the value of the equitable
relief."  The legislation provides no guidance as to how this
would be determined. Class counsel might be required to present
expert testimony as to the monetary value of non-monetary relief.

FCALA would also provide that all orders granting or denying class
certification are immediately appealable.  This is a departure
from current procedure, where an appeal must wait until
proceedings at the trial court have concluded, unless the court of
appeal exercises its discretion to allow an immediate appeal. If
this reform is enacted, one would expect that defendants would
routinely appeal any orders granting class certification; this
would typically delay proceedings at the trial court level for a
year or more.  FCALA would further provide that all proceedings
are stayed once a defendant brings a motion to strike class
allegations, a motion to dismiss or a motion to transfer.

Finally, FCALA would require class counsel to prepare an
accounting of monies paid incident to any recovery, with details
such as the number of class members who received payments, the
average amount of such payments and the amounts paid to others,
such as class counsel.  The accounting would be provided to
federal agencies that oversee the federal courts, which in turn
would issue an annual report summarizing how funds paid by
defendants in class action lawsuits had been distributed.

Although the impact of this legislation on class litigation would
undoubtedly be significant, it should be emphasized that the
legislation would have no impact on the vast majority of class
action lawsuits, which are filed in state courts.  In fact, FCALA
might encourage attorneys to file even more class actions in state
court, in order to avoid the restrictive rules of FCALA.

As with changes to rules governing class action litigation, FCALA
would also amend certain rules applicable to cases that become
part of multi-district litigation (MDL).  The bill would require a
plaintiff in a personal injury action to submit evidence of their
injury within 45 days of their case being transferred to the
multi-district proceeding.  Such evidentiary support would include
medical records regarding the alleged injury, evidence of exposure
to the risk that allegedly caused the injury and evidence of the
alleged cause of the injury.  Where the judge finds that such
evidentiary support is insufficient, the action is to be dismissed
without prejudice.  The plaintiff would then have 30 days to
tender a sufficient submission and, if he or she fails to do so,
the action would be dismissed with prejudice. These changes are
intended to ferret out cases where the harm to plaintiff is
minimal or not supported by documentary evidence.

In addition, FCALA would limit MDLs to pretrial proceedings, and
would prohibit the use of MDL procedures for any trial "unless all
parties to the civil action consent to trial of the specific case
sought to be tried." FCALA would also require that plaintiffs in
an MDL proceeding receive 80 percent of any recovery, whether
obtained by settlement, judgment or otherwise. This would
effectively limit attorneys' fees to 20 percent of the total
recovery.  This is a significant departure from present
arrangements for plaintiff's attorneys, who often charge a
contingency fee between 25 percent and 40 percent of the total
recovery.

Finally, FCALA would alter the rules regarding diversity of
citizenship in personal injury and wrongful death claims.  Under
current law, federal courts have jurisdiction over cases in which
the diversity of citizenship among the parties is complete, i.e.,
only if there is no plaintiff and no defendant who are citizens of
the same state.  FCALA would require federal courts to consider
each plaintiff's claims separately, and to sever those claims that
do not satisfy the diversity of citizenship requirement.  To
illustrate the effect of this provision, consider a products
liability lawsuit involving ten plaintiffs, one of whom is a
citizen of the same state as the defendant. Under current law, a
federal court would be required to remand the case to state court
because complete diversity between the plaintiffs and defendant is
lacking.  However, the new FCALA provision would require the court
to sever the claim of the plaintiff who is a co-citizen of the
defendant, and to retain jurisdiction over the remaining nine
plaintiffs' claims, as complete diversity would exist after
severance.  This is intended to combat the practice of joining at
least one non-diverse plaintiff in a lawsuit to order to avoid
removal to federal court.

FCALA was passed without any hearings (although hearings were held
on similar legislation that had been proposed in the last
Congress).  FCALA now goes to the full House, which is expected to
approve the legislation along a largely party-line vote.  The
legislation's fate in the Senate remains unclear; one unknown is
whether Senate Democrats would launch a filibuster in an effort to
stop the legislation.  It seems likely, at a minimum, that the
Senate will amend some of the more controversial provisions before
passing the bill.  President Trump would be expected to sign any
bill that Congress would place on his desk.



                         *********


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  * * *