CAR_Public/170404.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Tuesday, April 4, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 67



                            Headlines

AAC HOLDINGS: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Remains Pending
ADAPTIVE ENTERPRISES: "McCoy" Sues Over Misclassification
AMAZON.COM INC: Wins Stay of Delivery Drivers' Class Action Suit
AMERICAN 383: 10 Passenger Suits Filed Over Engine Failure & Fire
AMERICAN CORADIUS: Faces "Hines" Suit in S.D. New York

ANCIENT NUTRITION: Court Conditionally Certified Settlement Class
ANGELITO AUTO: "Lopez" Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
ARTISTIC ENTERTAINMENT: Renteria Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation
ASPLUNDH TREE: Electric Easements Negligence Suit Continues
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Awaits Decision on Motion to Dismiss TCPA Suit

ASTRAZENECA PLC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Transfer Nexium Suits
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Bid to Rehear in Nexium Antitrust MDL Denied
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Cal. Court Affirms Dismissal of 40 Nexium Suits
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Class Suit Filed in Israel Already Concluded
ASTRAZENECA PLC: JPML Grants MDL for Invokana-Related Injuries

ASTRAZENECA PLC: Plaintiffs Want Onglyza Injury Suits Coordinated
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Toss "Zamir" Suit
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Discovery in "Nieder" Class Suit Underway
CALIFORNIA: Cell Phone Tax Challenge Belongs in State Court
CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Opposes Bid for Conditional Certification

CHICO'S FAS: Altman v. White House Remains Pending in Georgia
CHICO'S FAS: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Ackerman" Suit
CHICO'S FAS: "Rodems" Suit Remains Pending in E.D. California
CHICO'S FAS: Settles "Calleros" Class Suit Following Mediation
CINTAS CORP: "Jernagin" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

CLAUDIO & JOHNSON: Cisson Seeks Certification of Consumers Class
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Has Already Performed Settlement Obligations
CREDIT CONTROL: Class Certification Sought in "Wood" Suit
DAVID GLADIEUX: Faces "Garcia" Suit Seeks in N.D. Indiana
DEBBIE'S STAFFING: Court Won't Certify Class in "Pierre" Suit

DENVER, CO: Mayor Refuses to Testify in Class Action
DITECH FINANCIAL: "Ferreira" Suit Removed to D.R.I.
DJ SHIRLEY: Employee Class Certification Sought in "Khalid" Suit
DRUMMOND CO: Responds to Suit Over Radiation Contamination
EASTMAN KODAK: Settlement in ERISA Litigation Now Final

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Morris" Suit in S.D. California
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Keller Rohrback Files Suit for Overpriced Insulin
EXXON MOBIL: Judge Transfers Investors Case to New York
FASTAFF LLC: "Dalchau" Seeks Overtime Pay, Housing Benefits
FIAT CHRYSLER: Asks Judge to Toss Hidden Tire Defect Class Action

FIELDTURF USA: Faces Neshannock Township Suit in W.D. Pa.
FINANCIAL INDUSTRY: Faces B.E. Capital Suit in Delaware
FIRST TENNESSEE: Final Hearing for Class Action Set For April 20
FREE PEOPLE: Faces "Riley" Suit Over Blind Inaccessible Website
GC SERVICES: Sued in S.D. Ohio Over Debt Collection Practices

GC SERVICES: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
GOOGLE INC: Free Range Suit Seeks Certification of Three Classes
GRUBHUB INC: "Flores" Sues for Unsolicited Text Messages
HANESBRANDS INC: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in E.D. New York
HARBOR FREIGHT: Settles Class Action, Customers Can Claim Refund

HILTON HEAD: "Isaman" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
IBEX CONSTRUCTION: Sued in N.Y. Sup. Ct. Over Breach of Contract
IDAHO STATE: Suit Says Violations Led to Amputations, Deaths
ILLINOIS BELL: Lamarr Seeks Certification of Classes & Subclasses
INFINITI OF BAYSIDE: Chatooria Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Law

INVENTURE FOODS: Sued in Ariz. Over Misleading Financial Reports
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: "Monroy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
KROGER CO: Rhodes et al. Action Remanded to Arkansas State Court
LLR INC: Faces "Goodwin" Suit in Ohio Over Defective Leggings
LLR INC: "Webster" Suit Seeks Certification of Class

LMI AEROSPACE: Sued in E.D. Mo. Over Violations of Exchange Act
LYNDA VITRY: "Barahona" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
M3 USA: Mediation Fails in Comprehensive Health's Junk Fax Suit
MARION-HARDIN: Court Dismisses "Bonsel" Claims as Untimely
MDL 2633: Oregon Judge Trims Claims in Data Breach Suit

MDL 2690: Parties to Seek Change in Schedule
MDL 2738: "Crenshaw" Suit vs. Johnson & Johnson Consolidated
MEAD JOHNSON: Faces "Rubin" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Reckitt
MEAD JOHNSON: Faces "Solak" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Reckitt
MEGA VISION: Faces "Lewis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

MENARD INC: Acuity Says It Has No Duty to Indemnify
MICHAELS COMPANIES: Appeal From "Whalen" Suit Dismissal Pending
MICHAELS COMPANIES: Continues to Defend Suit by Store Managers
MICHAELS COMPANIES: Partial Dismissal of FCRA Suits Appealed
MINNESOTA: Appeals Court Reverses Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

MINOR LEAGUE: Players Ask Judge to Reverse Ruling in OT Pay Suit
MOTORCARS INC: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Torres" Suit Says
MRS. BLOOM'S DIRECT: "Saavedra" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
NATIONAL AUTO: Faces Suit Over TCPA Violation
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Tolands Sue Over Debt Collection Practices

NBTY INC: Faces "Alvarez" Suit in S.D. California
NIMBLE STORAGE: "Ettel" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal
NORTHEAST HOME: "Winston" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
NORTHSTAR LOTTERY: Faces 2nd Lawsuit Over Defrauding Players
NUTRISYSTEM INC: Del. Court Says Removal Provision Not Valid

OCEAN POWER: No One Appeals Final OK of Securities Suit Accord
OHIO: Judge Rejects Request to Dismiss Disability Case
OPTIMUM EMPLOYER: Gloria Seeks Compensation for All Hours Worked
PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Wins Final OK of KB Partners Suit Settlement
PAPPAS COMPANY: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA

PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Subsidiary Venmo
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Elliston" Suit in N.D. Texas
PRECISION CASTPARTS: Faces Suit Over Toxic Air Emissions
PSYCHEMEDICS CORP: Faces Two Shareholder Class Suits in Mass.
REEDER CHEVROLET: "White" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages

REPUBLIC SCHOOLS: Judge Orders Class Action Status in TCPA Suit
ROAR CONSTRUCTION: Tiffany & Knutson Sue over Robocalls
S. DONADIC INC: "Munoz" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Under FLSA
SAN JUAN COUNTY, NM: Judge Grants Prelim Approval of Settlement
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Suit over Defective Hard Drives Underway

SETERUS INC: Discovery in "Blake" Suit Due Feb. 2018
SFILATINO LLC: "Morgan" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage Under FLSA
SILVER CARE: Faces "Matson" Suit in District of New Jersey
SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: "Rubio" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
SR PALMDALE: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Mattison" Suit Says

STATE STREET: "Leal" Hits Trust Fund Mismanagement
STATE STREET: Judge to Allow Objections to Legal Fees
STEVENS VAN LINES: Trial in "Britts" Suit Continued to August
SUNRUN INC: Hoffman et al. Appeal Dismissal Order to 9th Cir.
STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Sales Assocs. Must Be Paid Separate Wages

TEMPUR SEALY: Johnson & Weaver Files Class Action
TL TRANSPO: Faces Suit Over Workers' Compensation Acts Violation
TMBC LLC: Judge Says Doc-Prep Fees Violate Missouri State Laws
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Court OKs Settlement in Macondo Well-Related MDL
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Not Included in Supreme Court's Certiorari Grant

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Starr" Class Suit in Indiana
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Former Students File Claims to Get Money Back
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Okays $25MM Class Action Settlement
UBER: Appeals Court Weighs Arguments in Class Suit
UBER: Counsel Says Riders Have No Right to Sue

USC: Judge Nixes Attempt to Compel Plaintiffs to Arbitration
VALE SA: Court Annuls Nearly All Parts of Class Action Lawsuit
VERITAS CONSULTANT: "Gonzales" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Emissions Cheating Internal Probe May Take Time
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settles Emissions Claims by 10 States for $157MM

WELLS FINANCIAL: Shareholders File Class Action Over Proposed Sale

* Don't Stumble Now on Construction Defects Reform
* House Bill Would Significantly Change Class Actions
* Presentation Matters When Seeking to Compel Arbitration
* Trump's Pick for Supreme Court Denies He's Against Class Actions


                            *********


AAC HOLDINGS: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action lawsuit remains pending,
AAC Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On August 24, 2015, a shareholder filed a purported class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers (Kasper v. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al.).  The
plaintiff generally alleges that the Company and certain of its
current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
and failing to disclose certain information.  On September 14,
2015, a second class action against the same defendants asserting
essentially the same allegations was filed in the same court
(Tenzyk c. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al.).  On October 26, 2015, the
court entered an order consolidating these two described actions
into one action.  On February 29, 2016, the plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

The Company says it intends to defend this action vigorously. At
this time the Company cannot predict the results of litigation
with certainty, and cannot estimate the amount or range of loss,
if any.

AAC Holdings, Inc., is a provider of inpatient and outpatient
substance abuse treatment services for individuals with drug and
alcohol addiction.  The Company also performs drug testing and
diagnostics laboratory services and provides physician services to
its clients.


ADAPTIVE ENTERPRISES: "McCoy" Sues Over Misclassification
---------------------------------------------------------
Glenna McCoy and Dietrich Grainger, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Adaptive
Enterprises, LLC, Michael Montgomery and Justin Hurdle,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00054, (W.D. Ky., March 24, 2017),
seeks all unpaid wages, including all minimum wage and overtime
compensation due, liquidated damages and/or penalties,
disgorgement of all monies deducted from Plaintiffs' pay,
restitution for Defendants' unjust enrichment and conversion,
compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, declaratory and injunctive relief, costs and expenses of
this action, together with reasonable attorneys' fees and such
other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Adaptive provides transportation services to Medicare and Medicaid
patients who need transportation to healthcare providers located
in Kentucky and other states where Plaintiffs worked as van
drivers. Plaintiffs were misclassified as independent contractors,
thus depriving them of lawful minimum wages and overtime pay,
workers' compensation protection provided by the employer as
mandated by Kentucky law, payment of Social Security and Medicare
contributions mandated by the Federal Insurance Contribution Act
as well as federal and state unemployment insurance contributions
mandated by federal and state laws. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jimmy Bewley, Esq.
     Jenni Bryant, Esq.
     JAMES BEWLEY LAW PLLC
     300 10th Ave. South
     Nashville, TN 37203
     Tel: (615) 988-9411
     Email: jbewley@JBLfirm.com
            jbryant@JBLfirm.com

            - and -

     Emma R. Wolfe, Esq.
     DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
     300 W. Vine Street, Suite 1700
     Lexington, KY 40507
     Tel: (859) 899-8705
     Email: ewolfe@dickinsonwright.com

            - and -

     Peter F. Klett, Esq.
     Joshua Burgener, Esq.
     R. Cameron Caldwell, Esq.
     DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
     Fifth Third Center
     424 Church Street, Suite 1401
     Nashville, TN 37219-2392
     Tel: (615) 244-6538
     Email: pklett@dickinsonwright.com
            jburgener@dickinsonwright.com
            ccaldwell@dickinsonwright.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Wins Stay of Delivery Drivers' Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McGowan at BNA reports that Amazon.com, Inc., won't have to
face its delivery drivers' wage and hour claims until the fall of
2017 or later. That's when the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to
decide if arbitration agreements that waive class actions are
enforceable (Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2017 BL 90916, W.D.
Wash., No. 16-1554, stay granted 3/22/17).

A federal district court in the state of Washington March 22 put
on hold a lawsuit in which drivers that Amazon classifies as
independent contractors allege they're actually employees
protected by federal and state wage laws.

The drivers opposed Amazon's motion to put their nationwide class
and collective action on ice. But the company proved it would
"simplify the case" to await a Supreme Court decision on the class
action waiver issue, Judge John C. Coughenour said.

The drivers argued the court should authorize notice to potential
class members informing them about the pending lawsuit and their
legal rights, said Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represents the
drivers.

But the court declined to issue such notices and instead granted
Amazon's stay request.

"My concern is that Amazon is really trying to keep its drivers in
the dark" regarding their potential legal claims, Liss-Riordan
told Bloomberg BNA March 23.

That "goes beyond" anything the Supreme Court previously has
decided regarding mandatory arbitration, said Liss-Riordan, a
partner with Lichten & Liss-Riordan in Boston.

High Court Cases Pending

The high court in January granted review in three cases raising
the class action waiver issue but won't hear oral argument until
its next term begins in October. The justices probably won't issue
a decision until some time in 2018.

Judge Neil Gorsuch, if his nomination to the Supreme Court is
confirmed, could be "a deciding vote" on whether employers can
enforce class action waivers in arbitration, Liss-Riordan said.
Most drivers in the purported class, which could reach into the
tens of thousands, previously signed agreements to arbitrate
individually any work-related disputes with Amazon.com or Amazon
Logistics Inc. Only about 165 drivers "opted out" of those
arbitration provisions, Liss-Riordan said.

The cases currently pending before the Supreme Court would
determine if arbitration pacts that bar workers from pursuing
class or collective actions are enforceable or violate the
National Labor Relations Act.

Drivers Also Argue Exemption

The drivers argued the projected Supreme Court decision is
irrelevant because they fall within a Federal Arbitration Act
exemption for transportation workers engaged in interstate
commerce.

The issue of whether drivers classified as independent contractors
have a "contract of employment" for Federal Arbitration Act
purposes currently is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, the district court said.

A Supreme Court decision on class action waivers is relevant
because "it likely will determine" if the putative class of Amazon
delivery drivers "numbers in the hundreds or tens of thousands,"
the court said.
After the Ninth Circuit rules in Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation
Co., the transportation worker exemption case, the drivers may
"renew their argument" that the Supreme Court decision won't
affect their claims and the court should lift the stay, Coughenour
wrote.

Attorneys representing Amazon.com declined to comment March 23.
Frank Freed Subit & Thomas also represented the drivers. Morgan
Lewis & Bockius and K&L Gates LLP represented Amazon.com and
Amazon Logistics Inc. [GN]


AMERICAN 383: 10 Passenger Suits Filed Over Engine Failure & Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ten lawsuits have been filed against G.E. Aviation Systems, LLC,
et al., in Illinois Circuit Court. Each Plaintiff seeks an amount
in excess of $50,000, together with costs and any other damages
permitted by the law.

The lawsuits are captioned as follows:

ALAN LEMERY AND MARTA LEMERY, the Plaintiffs, v. G.E. AVIATION
SYSTEMS, LLC, a limited liability corporation; THE BOEING COMPANY,
a corporation; and AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 2017L00291 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Mar. 21, 2017);

ANNETTE BRZOZOWSKI, the Plaintiff, v. G.E. AVIATION SYSTEMS, LLC,
a limited liability corporation; THE BOEING COMPANY, a
corporation; and AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 2017L002932 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Mar. 21, 2017);

BLADIMIR ARROYO, the Plaintiff, v. G.E. AVIATION SYSTEMS, LLC, a
limited liability corporation; THE BOEING COMPANY, a corporation;
and AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 2017L002935 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Mar. 21, 2017);

FLOR ELIZABETH ARROYO, the Plaintiff, v. G.E. AVIATION SYSTEMS,
LLC, a limited liability corporation; THE BOEING COMPANY, a
corporation; and AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 2017L002938 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Mar. 21, 2017);

IGNACIO VEGA, the Plaintiff, v. G.E. AVIATION SYSTEMS, LLC, a
limited liability corporation; THE BOEING COMPANY, a corporation;
and AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 2017L002943 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Mar. 21, 2017);

JOSE A. PEREZ, the Plaintiff, v. G.E. AVIATION SYSTEMS, LLC, a
limited liability corporation; THE BOEING COMPANY, a corporation;
and AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 2017L002939 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Mar. 21, 2017);

MARIO ZARITZKY AND SILVIA FRAJBERG, the Plaintiffs, v. G.E.
AVIATION SYSTEMS, LLC, a limited liability corporation; THE BOEING
COMPANY, a corporation; and AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2017L002928 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Mar. 21, 2017);

MARK GRUBE AND LORI GRUBE, the Plaintiffs, v. G.E. AVIATION
SYSTEMS, LLC, a limited liability corporation; THE BOEING COMPANY,
a corporation; and AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 2017L002921 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Mar. 21, 2017);

MONICA PATINO, the Plaintiff, v. G.E. AVIATION SYSTEMS, LLC, a
limited liability corporation; THE BOEING COMPANY, a corporation;
and AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 2017L002941 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Mar. 21, 2017); and

RAISA OCAMPO, , the Plaintiff, v. G.E. AVIATION SYSTEMS, LLC, a
limited liability corporation; THE BOEING COMPANY, a corporation;
and AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 2017L002916 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Mar. 21, 2017).

The Plaintiffs on October 28, 2016, were passengers on board a
Boeing 767-300 ER aircraft, registration No. N34SAN, which was
being operated by Defendant AMERICAN as Flight 383 from Chicago's
O'Hare International Airport to Miami International Airport.
Boeing designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the aircraft.

On October 28, 2016, the engine on the right side of the subject
aircraft suffered an uncontained catastrophic failure and burst
into flames while the aircraft was rolling down the runway and
preparing to take off from O'Hare International Airport. The
Plaintiffs were forced to evacuate the aircraft via an emergency
evacuation onto the runway/tarmac at O'Hare International Airport
after the engine on the right side of the aircraft suffered an
uncontained catastrophic failure and burst into flames. As a
direct and proximate result of the engine failure and fire on the
aircraft and the emergency evacuation from the aircraft,
Plaintiffs suffered personal, emotional and pecuniary injuries and
sustained and will sustain in the future medical bills, lost
earnings, disability, disfigurement and pain and suffering and
emotional distress.

The Defendants owed the Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated,
the duty to use reasonable care in the design, manufacture,
assembly, inspection and maintenance of the engines installed on
the aircraft.

GE Aviation, a subsidiary of General Electric, is headquartered in
Evendale, Ohio, outside Cincinnati. GE Aviation is among the top
aircraft engine suppliers, and offers engines for the majority of
commercial aircraft.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael S. Krzak, Esq.
          CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          120 N. LaSalle, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 899 9090
          Facsimile: (312) 251 1160
          E-mail: msk@cliffordlaw.com


AMERICAN CORADIUS: Faces "Hines" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Coradius
International LLC.  The case is captioned as Eric Hines, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. American Coradius International LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-02132 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 23, 2017).

American Coradius is a collection agency headquartered in Amherst,
New York. It was established in 2005.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Igor B Litvak, Esq.
          THE LITVAK LAW FIRM
          1701 Ave P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (646) 796 4905
          Facsimile: (718) 228 8140
          E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com


ANCIENT NUTRITION: Court Conditionally Certified Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Steven D. Merryday entered an order on March 24, 2017, in
the lawsuit styled MEDICAL & CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, INC., the
Plaintiff, v. ANCIENT NUTRITION, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 8:16-cv-02342-SDM-TGW (M.D. Fla.), conditionally certifying a
Settlement Class and granting preliminary approval of settlement
agreement.

The Court held that the Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as
moot.  The Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification as moot.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Iu4HGo48


ANGELITO AUTO: "Lopez" Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Lopez individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Angelito Auto Repair, Inc. and Angelito
Guzman, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01668, (S.D. N.Y., March 25,
2017), seeks damages for the amount of unpaid overtime wages and
for any improper deductions or credits taken against wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act with corresponding liquidated
damages, damages for violating the recordkeeping requirements of
the New York Labor Law, unpaid spread of hours pay under the same.
The suit further seeks attorney's fees and costs and all such
other and further relief.

Angelito Auto Repair is an Auto repair shop owned by Angelito
Guzman, located at 15-67 East New York Avenue Brooklyn, NY, where
Lopez worked as a mechanic. Complaint says Plaintiff regularly
worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate overtime compensation for any of the hours that he
worked over 40 each week. Defendants also failed to maintain
accurate records of hours worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lina M. Franco, Esq.
      LINA FRANCO LAW, P.C.
      42 Broadway, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (800) 933-5620


ARTISTIC ENTERTAINMENT: Renteria Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR RENTERIA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and the California general public, the Plaintiff, v.
ARTISTIC ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, L.L.C.; CRAIG BUGAJSKI; DOE 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC655126 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Mar. 23, 2017), seeks recovery and restitution of
unpaid overtime compensation and meal and rest premiums under
Labor Code.

At all times relevant since at least 4 years prior to the
commencement of the action, the Plaintiff and other current and
former employees of Defendants worked overtime but were
not paid overtime compensation, and Defendants failed to provide
them with meal and rest periods required by law, failed to provide
them with accurate wage statements and failed to pay all wages
they due after separation.

Artistic Entertainment is a fabrication company and has 30 years
of experience creating innovative and unique products for theme
park attractions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Glick, Esq.
          M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK
          1055 Wilshire Boulevard. Suite 1480
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 387 3400
          Facsimile: (213) 387 7872


ASPLUNDH TREE: Electric Easements Negligence Suit Continues
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Linell at My Statesman reports that a state appeals court
ruled March 24 that lawsuits by Bastrop County property owners can
continue against a tree-pruning company alleged to have
contributed to the 2011 fire that destroyed more than 1,600 homes.

The lawsuits, part of a complex body of legal action after the
fire, accused Asplundh Tree Expert Co. of negligence in
maintaining electric easements in the area where the fire started.
Asplundh had asked that the lawsuits be dismissed because they
were filed in 2015, more than 18 months after the two-year statute
of limitations had expired on legal action related to the fires.

In March 24's ruling, the Austin-based 3rd Court of Appeals
disagreed, saying the three lawsuits were based on the same
arguments made in class-action lawsuits that had been filed on
time. The latest round of litigation was filed only after a trial
judge denied class-action status and the property owners refiled
the lawsuits as individuals, the appeals court said.

"Asplundh ignores the fact that the delay in filing the three non-
class suits was caused by the filing of the class action and that
individual suits were only filed after Asplundh successfully
challenged the class-action certification," said the opinion,
written by Justice David Puryear.

In September 2011, while Central Texas was mired in a record
drought, three separate wildfires merged into the Bastrop County
Complex Fire and burned for almost two months, killing two and
destroying 1,673 homes.

The property owners who sued were seeking compensation for a
decline in property values, including the trees, plant life and
wildlife destroyed in the 34,000-acre fire.[GN]


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Awaits Decision on Motion to Dismiss TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AstraZeneca PLC awaits decision on its motion to dismiss a
putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, according to the Company's March 7, 2017,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In the U.S., in December 2016, AstraZeneca and several other
entities were served with a complaint filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (the District Court)
that alleges, among other things, violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act caused by the sending of unsolicited
advertisements by facsimile. AstraZeneca's motion to dismiss is
pending. Plaintiff also made a motion for class certification,
which, in January 2017, was denied without prejudice by the
District Court.

AstraZeneca PLC is a global, innovation-driven biopharmaceutical
business with operations in over 100 countries and its innovative
medicines are used by millions of patients worldwide.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Transfer Nexium Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
AstraZeneca PLC awaits decision from the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on a motion seeking transfer of pending
federal court cases alleging injuries from use of Nexium and
Prilosec, according to the Company's March 7, 2017, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

AstraZeneca is defending various lawsuits in the U.S. involving
multiple plaintiffs claiming that they have been diagnosed with
kidney injuries following treatment with proton pump inhibitors,
including Nexium and Prilosec. In October 2016, counsel for some
of these plaintiffs filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation seeking transfer of any currently pending
federal court cases as well as any similar, subsequently filed
cases to a coordinated and consolidated pre-trial multidistrict
litigation proceeding.

AstraZeneca PLC is a global, innovation-driven biopharmaceutical
business with operations in over 100 countries and its innovative
medicines are used by millions of patients worldwide.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Bid to Rehear in Nexium Antitrust MDL Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc in
the antitrust multidistrict litigation relating to Nexium were
denied, according to AstraZeneca PLC's March 7, 2017, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In the U.S., AstraZeneca is a defendant in a multidistrict
litigation class action and individual lawsuit alleging that
AstraZeneca's settlements of certain patent litigation in the U.S.
relating to Nexium violated U.S. antitrust law and various state
laws. A trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts commenced in October 2014 and, in December 2014, a
jury returned a verdict in favour of AstraZeneca and entered
judgment in favour of AstraZeneca in September 2015. The
plaintiffs appealed that judgment and, in November 2016, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed.

The plaintiffs petitioned for rehearing and rehearing en banc,
both of which were denied in January 2017.

AstraZeneca PLC is a global, innovation-driven biopharmaceutical
business with operations in over 100 countries and its innovative
medicines are used by millions of patients worldwide.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Cal. Court Affirms Dismissal of 40 Nexium Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Second Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of
the fewer than 40 Nexium product liability cases in California
state court, according to AstraZeneca PLC's March 7, 2017, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

AstraZeneca has been defending product liability lawsuits brought
in U.S. federal and state courts by approximately 1,900 plaintiffs
who alleged that Nexium caused osteoporotic injuries, such as bone
deterioration, loss of bone density and/or bone fractures, but all
such claims have now been dismissed with judgment entered in
AstraZeneca's favour. Approximately 270 plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal of their claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, and fewer than 40 plaintiffs appealed the dismissal
of their claims to the California Second Appellate Division. In
October 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of the approximately 270 claims in federal
court.

In January 2017, the California Second Appellate Division affirmed
the dismissal of the fewer than 40 cases in California state
court.

AstraZeneca PLC is a global, innovation-driven biopharmaceutical
business with operations in over 100 countries and its innovative
medicines are used by millions of patients worldwide.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Class Suit Filed in Israel Already Concluded
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed in Israel has now been concluded,
AstraZeneca PLC disclosed in its Form 20-F filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In Israel, in November 2012, a Motion to Certify a Claim as a
Class Action and Statement of Claim (together, a Motion to
Certify) were filed in the District Court in Tel Aviv, Jaffa, (the
District Court) against AstraZeneca and four other pharmaceutical
companies for alleged deception and failure to disclose material
facts to consumers regarding potential adverse events associated
with certain drugs, including Crestor. In July 2013, an amended
Motion to Certify containing similar allegations to those in the
first action were filed in the same District Court against the
same defendants. In November 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion to
withdraw from the action, which the District Court granted in
December 2016. This matter has now concluded.

AstraZeneca PLC is a global, innovation-driven biopharmaceutical
business with operations in over 100 countries and its innovative
medicines are used by millions of patients worldwide.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: JPML Grants MDL for Invokana-Related Injuries
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted an MDL to
plaintiffs alleging injury from Invokana, AstraZeneca PLC said in
its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 7, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

AstraZeneca has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in the U.S.
involving plaintiffs claiming physical injury, including diabetic
ketoacidosis and kidney failure, from treatment with Farxiga
and/or Xigduo XR. Cases with these allegations have been filed in
several jurisdictions in the U.S.. In October 2016, one of these
cases was dismissed with prejudice in favour of AstraZeneca. Since
then, several other cases have been dismissed, either voluntarily
or by the courts. Motions to dismiss are pending in many of the
jurisdictions where AstraZeneca has been served.

Counsel for plaintiffs in a product liability action pertaining to
Invokana (a product in the same class as Farxiga) filed a motion
with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) seeking
transfer of any currently pending cases as well as any similar,
subsequently filed cases to a coordinated and consolidated pre-
trial multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding on a class-wide
basis. In December 2016, the JPML granted an MDL to only those
plaintiffs alleging injury from Invokana.

AstraZeneca PLC is a global, innovation-driven biopharmaceutical
business with operations in over 100 countries and its innovative
medicines are used by millions of patients worldwide.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Plaintiffs Want Onglyza Injury Suits Coordinated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain Plaintiffs filed a petition for coordination asking that
all similar, currently pending or subsequently filed cases
alleging injuries from treatment with Onglyza or Kombiglyze in
California be coordinated for pre-trial purposes, AstraZeneca PLC
said in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 7, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2016.

Amylin Pharmaceuticals, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of
AstraZeneca, and/or AstraZeneca are among multiple defendants in
various lawsuits filed in federal and state courts in the U.S.
involving multiple plaintiffs claiming pancreatic injuries, heart
failure, cardiac failure and/or death injuries from treatment with
Onglyza or Kombiglyze. In May 2016, a federal judge in California
granted AstraZeneca's motion for summary judgment and dismissed
the claims of 14 plaintiffs who alleged pancreatic injuries,
including pancreatic cancer, from treatment with either Onglyza or
Kombiglyze. No similar claims remain actively pending in any U.S.
jurisdiction.

In October 2016, the claims of 14 plaintiffs alleging heart
failure, cardiac failure and/or death from treatment with either
Onglyza or Kombiglyze were dismissed in response to motions filed
by AstraZeneca. Approximately 85 plaintiffs' claims currently
remain in active litigation.

In December 2016, plaintiffs in the California Superior Court
filed a Petition for Coordination with the Judicial Council of
California requesting that all similar, currently pending or
subsequently filed cases in California be coordinated for pre-
trial purposes.

AstraZeneca PLC is a global, innovation-driven biopharmaceutical
business with operations in over 100 countries and its innovative
medicines are used by millions of patients worldwide.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Toss "Zamir" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education Inc. awaits ruling on its second motion to
dismiss the securities class action lawsuit styled Zamir v.
Bridgepoint Education, Inc., et al., according to the Company's
March 7, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On February 24, 2015, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California by Nelda Zamir naming the Company, Andrew Clark and
Daniel Devine as defendants. The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false
and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, specifically regarding the Company's
improper application of revenue recognition methodology to assess
collectability of funds owed by students. The complaint asserts a
putative class period stemming from August 7, 2012 to May 30, 2014
and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest and attorneys'
fees. On July 15, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment of lead counsel.

On September 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a substantially similar
amended complaint that asserts a putative class period stemming
from March 12, 2013 to May 30, 2014. The amended complaint also
names Patrick Hackett, Adarsh Sarma, Warburg Pincus & Co., Warburg
Pincus LLC, Warburg Pincus Partners LLC, and Warburg Pincus
Private Equity VIII, L.P. as additional defendants. On November
24, 2015, all defendants filed motions to dismiss. On July 25,
2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss and granted
plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint and the
Company filed a second motion to dismiss on October 24, 2016,
which is currently pending with the Court.

The Company says the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain
at this point because of the many questions of fact and law that
may arise. Based on information available to the Company at
present, it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this
action. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability
associated with this action.

Bridgepoint Education Inc. is a provider of postsecondary
education services through its regionally accredited academic
institutions, Ashford University(R) and University of the
Rockies(SM).  Ashford University offers associate's, bachelor's
and master's programs, and University of the Rockies offers
master's and doctoral programs.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Discovery in "Nieder" Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled Nieder v. Ashford
University, LLC, is currently in discovery, according to
Bridgepoint Education Inc.'s March 7, 2017, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

On October 4, 2016, Dustin Nieder filed a purported class action
against Ashford University in the Superior Court of the State of
California in San Diego. The complaint is captioned Dustin Nieder
v. Ashford University, LLC and generally alleges various wage and
hour claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
failure to pay minimum wages and failure to provide rest and meal
breaks. The lawsuit seeks back pay, the cost of benefits,
penalties and interest on behalf of the putative class members, as
well as other equitable relief and attorneys' fees. The Company
filed an answer denying the claims and the case is currently in
discovery.

The Company says the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain
at this point because of the many questions of fact and law that
may arise. Based on information available to the Company at
present, it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this
action. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability
associated with this action.

Bridgepoint Education Inc. is a provider of postsecondary
education services through its regionally accredited academic
institutions, Ashford University(R) and University of the
Rockies(SM).  Ashford University offers associate's, bachelor's
and master's programs, and University of the Rockies offers
master's and doctoral programs.


CALIFORNIA: Cell Phone Tax Challenge Belongs in State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Mahoney at BNA reports that a fight over the amount of
California sales tax consumers must pay on cell phones is moving
back to state trial court after a federal court found it lacked
jurisdiction (Bekkerman v. Calif. Board of Equalization , E.D.
Cal., 2:16-cv-00709, 3/21/17).

Ruling against phone carrier AT&T Inc., Judge Morrison C. England
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
said March 21 the Tax Injunction Act bars lawsuits involving state
taxes from federal court.

England granted motions from the State Board of Equalization and a
group of plaintiffs who originally filed the class action in state
trial court in 2016. His decision moves the case back to state
court for trial almost one year after AT&T moved the case to
federal court on the grounds that it falls under the Class Action
Fairness Act because of the size of the class and amount of money
at issue.

Tax Injunction Act

England said the federal Tax Injunction Act bars federal courts
from considering lawsuits involving state taxes, including refund
actions. Beyond the TIA, principles of comity between the federal
government and states mandate that federal courts "should refrain
from entertaining suits that risk disrupting state tax
administration."

Attorneys for AT&T didn't respond to a request for comment March
23.

Other wireless phone companies involved in the lawsuits include
Sprint Corp., Verizon Wireless, and T-Mobile USA Inc.
The class action is part of a larger effort to strike down the
SBOE's rules on the application of sales tax to cell phones. The
same plaintiffs have another lawsuit pending in state trial court
in Sacramento against the SBOE, claiming the tax board's
Regulation 1585 is invalid because it requires consumers to pay
sales tax on the full price of cell phones even when they pay a
discounted price as part of a bundle with service plans and
contracts.

Hundreds of Millions

Consumers have improperly paid hundreds of millions of dollars in
tax because the SBOE's regulations illegally impose sales tax on
imaginary commissions the carriers don't pay retailers to offset
the discount, the plaintiffs claim. A trial is set for Dec. 8 in
the challenge to the SBOE's regulations (Bekkerman v. Calif. Board
of Equalization , Cal. Super. Ct., 34-2015-80002242, 11/19/15).

In the class action, the plaintiffs aren't asking for money from
the phone carriers. They are asking that the carriers be compelled
to seek refunds from the SBOE on their behalf, that the SBOE to
pay the refunds and that the carriers be barred from paying future
sales taxes to the state based on the full price of the phones.
Daniel M. Hattis, an attorney in Bellevue, Wash., representing the
plaintiffs in both cases, said AT&T's efforts to move the class
action to federal court delayed the case. However, it will likely
be stayed in state court until the underlying case challenging the
SBOE's regulations is complete.

Hattis filed the lawsuits after the five-member SBOE rejected his
petition to repeal the cell phone tax rules in 2015. [GN]


CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Opposes Bid for Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Baxter at Law.com reports that three current and former
female partners seeking conditional certification of a gender bias
class action against Chadbourne & Parke saw the firm file its
response opposing that motion late March 23.

Chadbourne's managing partner Andrew Giaccia and former firm
products liability chair Mary Yelenick, who is among the three
women suing the firm, also both filed papers making accusations
against their adversaries.

A declaration signed by Yelenick on March 22 accompanies a motion
by plaintiffs citing "substantial evidence" of "widespread pay
disparities" at Chadbourne. The declaration claims that the firm
pushed Yelenick and other female partners to sign a letter last
September criticizing the lawyer retained to advise litigation
partner Kerrie Campbell in her USD100 million suit against the
firm.

David Sanford of Sanford Heisler, who is representing Campbell,
Yelenick and former Kiev office managing partner Jaroslawa
Zelinsky Johnson in their suit against Chadbourne, subsequently
struck back at the 14 female partners that signed the letter.
Yelenick (pictured right) said in her declaration that Joy
Langford, managing partner of Chadbourne's office in Washington,
D.C., approached her in the firm's New York office on Sept. 6 and
requested that she sign the missive.

"I reviewed the draft letter and disagreed strongly with its
content," said Yelenick in court papers, noting that she felt "the
letter contained inaccuracies and mischaracterized the process by
which female partners at the firm could join any potential class
or collective action certified by the court."

Yelenick states that Chadbourne litigation leader Abbe Lowell --
who is named as a defendant in the case -- then called her to
discuss her decision not to sign the letter. A meeting was held in
New York to discuss Campbell's suit, but Yelenick was unable to
attend in person. In court papers, Yelenick asserts that two
partners who attended the meeting and signed the letter later told
her that they "felt great pressure" to do so. (In a statement,
Chadbourne claims that the firm pressured no one and that Yelenick
is mistaken in her chronology of letter-related events.)

In another declaration filed with a federal court in New York
earlier this month, Yelenick detailed her concerns about
Chadbourne's system for allocating origination credits to client
work, claiming that the firm often made such determinations based
on gender. In describing that alleged gender-based "origination
inheritance" system, Yelenick cited former Chadbourne partner and
former public companies' practice head Marc Alpert, another
defendant in the suit, who she said chose two male partners to
inherit his clients upon leaving the firm last year to become
general counsel at Loews Corp.

Alpert, in a lengthy statement provided to The American Lawyer,
disputed Yelenick's contention that he and Chadbourne made such an
important decision based on gender.

"I am saddened that my former partner, who has never assisted me
with any of the firm's clients that I was responsible for, has
distorted the facts about the long and thoughtful process by which
relationship and billing partner responsibility was transitioned
when I left Chadbourne last summer," Alpert said. "My sole
objective in that process was to put Chadbourne in the best
position possible to continue to serve the many clients I had
worked so hard to cultivate during my tenure at the firm in a way
that addressed the clients' needs and preferences."

Giaccia, elected Chadbourne's leader in 2010, said in an affidavit
dated March 10 and submitted to the court that Yelenick's
compensation "was at all times commensurate with her contributions
to the firm." Despite Yelenick's claim that she was "one of the
few partners in the product liability group who ever brought new
clients" to Chadbourne, Giaccia said that the vast majority of the
fees she claims to have generated for the firm "actually
represented collections from clients of other partners" on matters
that Yelenick assisted.

"When a partner responsible for managing a particular client
relationship retires or otherwise leaves the firm, the departing
partner and the client work together to decide which other partner
at the firm will assume responsibility for the client after the
partner leaves," said Giaccia in his affidavit in response to the
allegations about Alpert.

Giaccia's affidavit also asserts that Johnson, the former Kiev
office leader who joined the case back in October, saw her annual
billings steadily drop as the office began losing money amid
Ukraine's "economic, political and military turmoil." As for
Campbell, Chadbourne has included as an exhibit a copy of her
offer letter, dated Nov. 26, 2013, ahead of the litigator's move
to the firm in January 2014 from Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.

The document shows that Campbell received a USD50,000 signing
bonus to join Chadbourne, which claims that her compensation was
pre-set due to her being a recent lateral hire by the firm.
Irrespective of her revenue generation, Campbell was given 500
points in Chadbourne's compensation matrix. (The price per
percentage point at Chadbourne, as well as the names of some other
partners at the firm, are redacted in court papers.) As part of
her agreement to join the firm, Campbell would receive a
USD150,000 bonus if her collections reached USD2 million in 2014.
That bonus would increase to USD200,000 if her collections hit
USD2.5 million or more.

Chadbourne argues in its memorandum opposing conditional class
certification that Campbell, Johnson and Yelenick each had unique
circumstances that contributed to their annual compensation.
Chadbourne, represented by Proskauer Rose, also claims that under
the Equal Pay Act, plaintiffs in the suit cannot be considered
employees because they are partners that share in the profits of
the firm. Chadbourne, which is in the process of combining with
Norton Rose Fulbright, noted in its statement that it won't
succumb to nonstop accusations.

"It is all too telling that when the firm points out the truth
about plaintiffs' misstatements, plaintiffs' response is to
complain that the firm is 'lashing out,'" the firm said.

"Plaintiffs can keep making as many false claims as there is paper
to put them on, but it does not make any of them correct."
Campbell remains a partner at Chadbourne in Washington, D.C.
Yelenick retired from the firm's partnership in December but
continues to work at Chadbourne in an of counsel capacity in New
York. Johnson left Chadbourne in late 2014 and is now president
and CEO of the Chicago-based Western NIS Enterprise Fund, a
regional private equity firm that invests in former Soviet
republics. [GN]


CHICO'S FAS: Altman v. White House Remains Pending in Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit captioned Altman v. White House
Black Market, Inc., remains pending in Georgia, Chico's FAS, Inc.,
said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 7, 2017, for the fiscal year ended January 28,
2017.

In July 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Altman v.
White House Black Market, Inc., a putative class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia. The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of
federal law, published more than the last five digits of a credit
or debit card number or an expiration date on customers' receipts.
The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint. Its
motion to dismiss was denied on July 13, 2016, but the Company
continues to believe that the case is without merit and is not
appropriate for class treatment.

The Company says it will continue to vigorously defend the matter.
At this time, it is not possible to predict whether the proceeding
will be permitted to proceed as a class or the size of the
putative class, and no assurance can be given that the Company
will be successful in its defense on the merits or otherwise. No
specific dollar amount in damages or other relief is specified in
the Complaint, and the Company is unable to estimate any potential
loss or range of loss. However, if the case were to proceed as a
class action and the Company were to be unsuccessful in its
defense on the merits, the ultimate resolution of the case could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial condition.

Chico's FAS, Inc., is a collection of distinct lifestyle brands
serving the needs of fashion-savvy women 35 years and older.  The
Company's portfolio currently consists of three brands: Chico's,
White House Black Market and Soma.  The Company's omni-channel
brands are specialty retailers of private label women's apparel,
accessories and related products.


CHICO'S FAS: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Ackerman" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc., awaits approval of its settlement resolving the
Ackerman Action, according to the Company's March 7, 2017, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended January 28, 2017.

In June 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Ackerman v.
Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative representative Private Attorney
General action filed in the Superior Court of California, County
of Los Angeles. The Complaint alleges numerous violations of
California law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, wage
statements and failure to reimburse business expenses, among other
things. Plaintiff subsequently amended her complaint to make the
same allegations on a class action basis. In June 2016, the
parties submitted a proposed settlement of the matter to the
court, and the court granted preliminary approval on August 26,
2016, and settlement notices have been distributed.

If finally approved, the Company says the proposed settlement will
not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial condition or results of operations.

Chico's FAS, Inc., is a collection of distinct lifestyle brands
serving the needs of fashion-savvy women 35 years and older.  The
Company's portfolio currently consists of three brands: Chico's,
White House Black Market and Soma.  The Company's omni-channel
brands are specialty retailers of private label women's apparel,
accessories and related products.


CHICO'S FAS: "Rodems" Suit Remains Pending in E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Rodems v. Chico's FAS, Inc., remains pending
in California, according to the Company's March 7, 2017, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended January 28, 2017.

In June 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Rodems v.
Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Fresno. The Complaint alleged many
of the same Labor Code violations as Ackerman suit. Given the
overlap with the Ackerman case, the court stayed the matter
pending final approval of the Ackerman proposed settlement. The
Company and the plaintiff subsequently agreed to a lifting of the
stay and a filing of an amended complaint in early November.

The Company removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California on November 9, 2016. In the
First Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs make similar claims, but
only on behalf of three individuals, and they do not seek class
status. The Company disputes the allegations of the First Amended
Complaint and, as the matter is no longer a putative class action,
is confident that this case will not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or
results of operation.

Chico's FAS, Inc., is a collection of distinct lifestyle brands
serving the needs of fashion-savvy women 35 years and older.  The
Company's portfolio currently consists of three brands: Chico's,
White House Black Market and Soma.  The Company's omni-channel
brands are specialty retailers of private label women's apparel,
accessories and related products.


CHICO'S FAS: Settles "Calleros" Class Suit Following Mediation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the lawsuit styled Calleros v. Chico's FAS, Inc.,
entered into a settlement agreement following mediation, the
Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 7, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
January 28, 2017.

On July 28, 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Calleros
v. Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara. Plaintiff
alleges that the Company failed to comply with California law
requiring it to provide consumers cash for gift cards with a
stored value of less than $10.00. Following voluntary mediation of
the matter in November of 2016, the parties entered into a
settlement agreement, which is subject to court review and
approval.

If finally approved, the Company says the settlement will not have
a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
condition or results of operation.

Chico's FAS, Inc., is a collection of distinct lifestyle brands
serving the needs of fashion-savvy women 35 years and older.  The
Company's portfolio currently consists of three brands: Chico's,
White House Black Market and Soma.  The Company's omni-channel
brands are specialty retailers of private label women's apparel,
accessories and related products.


CINTAS CORP: "Jernagin" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Jernagin, on behalf of herself, Plaintiffs v. Cintas
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02273, (N.D. Ill., March
24, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation with prejudgment
interest, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs
and litigation expenses, as provided by statute, and such
additional relief under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Cintas supplies corporate identity uniform programs, providing
entrance and logo mats, restroom supplies, promotional products,
first aid, safety, fire protection products and services, and
industrial carpet and tile cleaning. It operates more than 400
facilities in North America, including six manufacturing plants
and eight distribution centers.  Defendant employed Plaintiff as
an Inside Sales Representatives. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Tel. (312) 853-1450


CLAUDIO & JOHNSON: Cisson Seeks Certification of Consumers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DONALD CISSON, On behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CLAUDIO &
JOHNSON, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01353-HES-PDB (M.D.
Fla.), Mr. Cisson asks the Court for class certification of:

   "all Florida consumers who, within the applicable statute of
   limitations, had a debt or alleged debt to Rotech Healthcare,
   Inc., and received a billing letter from Defendant in
   substantially the same form as the "debt collection letter" to
   the complaint".

The case is a class action arising from the unlawful debt
collection activities of the law firm of Claudio & Johnson.  The
L.L.C. collects money by means of a collection letter regarding a
debt to Rotech Healthcare, Inc.  The complaint says the collection
letter violates Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ECkIClc4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max Story, Esq.
          328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100
          Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
          Telephone: (904) 372 4109
          Facsimile: (904) 758 5333
          E-mail: max@storylawgroup.com


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Has Already Performed Settlement Obligations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc., said in its Form 10-K filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that it has performed its
obligations under its settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit
in California.

The Company said: "We are routinely involved in various legal
proceedings resulting from our consumer finance activities and
practices, both continuing and discontinued. Our legal counsel has
advised us on such matters where, based on information available
at the time of this report, there is an indication that it is both
probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the
loss can be reasonably determined."

"Such matters included a California class action suit where we
were the defendant, and a governmental inquiry in which the United
States Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") required that we refrain
from certain allegedly unfair trade practices, and make
restitutionary payments into a consumer relief fund. In May 2014,
the FTC announced its agreement to settle the matter by filing a
lawsuit against us, and requesting, with our consent, that the
court enter an agreed judgment against us. The lawsuit arose out
of the FTC's inquiry into our business practices. Under the agreed
settlement, we made approximately $1.9 million of restitutionary
payments and $1.6 million of account adjustments to our customers
in September 2014, and paid a $2 million penalty to the federal
government in June 2014, and implemented procedural changes, all
pursuant to a consent decree entered by the court in June 2014."

"The California class action has been settled by agreement with
the plaintiffs and the approval of the court. Our obligations
under that settlement remained outstanding at December 31, 2016,
and were performed after that date and prior to the date of this
report."

"We have recorded a liability as of December 31, 2016, which
represents our best estimate of probable incurred losses for legal
contingencies (the agreed payments with respect to the class
action settlement referenced above). The amount of losses that may
ultimately be incurred in any other proceedings cannot be
estimated with certainty."

Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc., is a specialty finance company.
The Company's primary business is to purchase and service retail
automobile contracts originated primarily by franchised automobile
dealers and select independent dealers in the United States in the
sale of new and used automobiles, light trucks and passenger vans.


CREDIT CONTROL: Class Certification Sought in "Wood" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled LISA A. WOOD, an individual; on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, a Missouri Limited Liability Company; and
JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 10, the Defendants, Case No.
6:16-cv-01098-KGG (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for
an Order certifying the case as class action and granting final
approval of the settlement, on behalf of the following class:

   "all individuals with addresses in the State of Kansas to whom
   Credit Control, LLC mailed a collection letter, between April
   12, 2015, and May 3, 2016, which sought to collect a debt on
   which the last payment or activity on the individual's account
   had occurred more than five years prior to the date of the
   letter".

The Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which alleges Credit
Control violated the FDCPA by mailing consumers collection letters
attempted to collect a time-barred debt from her by sending her a
letter, which failed to disclose that: (1) the debt was barred by
the applicable statute of limitations and, therefore, no lawsuit
would be filed to collect the debt; and (2) a partial payment
would revive the debt's statute of limitations.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          A. Scott Waddell, Esq.
          WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC
          2600 Grand, Suite 580
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 914 5365
          E-mail: scott@aswlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN & THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081 1315
          Telephone: (973) 379 7500
          E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com


DAVID GLADIEUX: Faces "Garcia" Suit Seeks in N.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against David Gladieux. The
case is captioned as Marco Garcia, Joshua Mackin, and Eugene
Lallow, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. David Gladieux, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00109 (N.D. Ind., Mar. 22, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


DEBBIE'S STAFFING: Court Won't Certify Class in "Pierre" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled LAFITTE PIERRE, the Plaintiff, v. DEBBIE'S
STAFFING SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-00089-
JAJ-RAW (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. John J. Jarvey entered an order
denying the motion to certify class.

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


DENVER, CO: Mayor Refuses to Testify in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Chris Walker at Westword reports that since August, Mayor Michael
Hancock and the City of Denver have been fighting a class action
lawsuit in federal court in which nine plaintiffs allege that the
city violated their constitutional rights when it conducted sweeps
of the homeless. The plaintiffs claim that, at various times,
their possessions were trashed without due process and that the
sweeps violated the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments.

The case is one of two being represented by civil-rights attorney
Jason Flores-Williams, who is also defending three clients in
county court who were cited for violating Denver's urban-camping
ban this past winter.

As part of the federal class action case, Flores-Williams has
called upon Mayor Hancock to testify -- a call that is being
refused by the mayor and Denver's city attorneys. The city has
filed a protective order that prevents Hancock from providing
testimony in the case.

The protective order came in response to a motion that Flores-
Williams filed March 22. In it, Flores-Williams lays out his
reasons for believing that the mayor is essential to the case:

"More than any other city official, Mayor Hancock has engaged
himself in Camping Ban policy and enforcement -- aka the homeless
sweeps -- by issuing orders for it to temporarily cease, making
repeated comments to media, personally explaining to media why
certain problems occurred, and even by appointing city officials
that have been involved in downtown urban development.

The Mayor could have delegated and distanced himself. He could
have let others in his administration forge policy and make
statements to the media. He could have issued orders through back
channels. Chief example is the order to the Denver Police
Department on December 12, 2016 to stop seizing blankets and tents
from homeless persons until April 2017. Instead, he issued the
order via press release and then went on a media tour to explain
it to the public. Mayor Hancock has chosen to be on the front
lines of this issue, so that he has made himself an essential
witness."

Mayor's Office spokeswoman Amber Miller says that the city will
not discuss an ongoing case.

But in the city's protective order, also filed on March 22, Denver
city attorneys make the case that Hancock did not have personal
knowledge of many of the enforcement operations that are mentioned
in the plaintiff's suit.

According to the city's motion, "Mayor Hancock is a high
governmental official. Plaintiffs are unable to show that the
Mayor has personal knowledge pertaining to the material
allegations contained in the Amended Complaint that cannot be
obtained from another source. Thus, under the circumstances of
this case it would be unduly burdensome for the Mayor to be
required to appear for a deposition, and good cause exists to
issue a protective order; no extraordinary circumstances justify
burdening the Mayor with appearing for a deposition."
A hearing that will determine Mayor Hancock's involvement in the
case is set for 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, March 29, in the U.S.
District Court of Colorado.

Follow Westword news for continuing developments in the trial.
[GN]


DITECH FINANCIAL: "Ferreira" Suit Removed to D.R.I.
---------------------------------------------------
Carlos Ferreira and Mirandolina Duarte, on behalf of themselves
and all others so similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ditech
Financial LLC and Federal National Mortgage Association
Defendants, Case 2017-0833 (R.I., February 22, 2017) was removed
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on
March 24, 2017 under Case No. 1:17-cv-00115.

Plaintiffs received a loan in the amount of $300,287 and signed a
note and a mortgage granting Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc. a security interest in property located at 190
Vincent Avenue, North Providence, Rhode Island. Said note was sold
to Government National Mortgage Association, the Mortgage was
assigned to a Fannie Mae, and Ditech was the servicer of their
mortgage loan. Plaintiffs claim that Fannie Mae foreclosed without
authorization from Ginnie Mae, the alleged holder of their note,
in violation of Rhode Island General Law. They seek to rescind the
foreclosure and title divested from Ditech, because Defendants
failed to conduct a face to face interview with them before the
foreclosure in violation of federal regulations and the terms of
their mortgage. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd S. Dion, Esq.
      371 Broadway
      Providence, RI 02909
      Email: toddsdion@msn.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Mark P. Dolan, Jr., Esq.
      RICE, DOLAN & KERSHAW
      72 Pine Street, Suite 300
      Providence, RI 02903
      Phone: (401) 272-8800
      Fax: (401) 421-7218
      Email: mdolan@ricedolan.com
             mdolanjr@ricedolan.com


DJ SHIRLEY: Employee Class Certification Sought in "Khalid" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SHERAZ KHALID, SURESH PATEL and MOHAMMED
SALEH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DJ SHIRLEY 1 INC. d/b/a DUNKIN'
DONUTS, DJ HOLBROOK INC. d/b/a DUNKIN' DONUTS, DJ SOUTHHOLD, INC.
d/b/a DUNKIN' DOUNTS, SANJAY JAIN, NEERJA JAIN, and JOHN DOE
CORPS. No. 1-13, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No.
2:15-cv-05926-LDW-GRB (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an Order:

   1. certifying Plaintiffs' New York Labor Law ("NYLL") claims
      for unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours, failure
      to provide wage notice, and failure to provide wage
      statement claims (Counts III, IV, V, VI) as a Rule 23(b)(3)
      class action on behalf of a class defined as:

      "all hourly employees who worked in excess of forty (40)
      hours in any workweek and/or worked a shift or split-shift
      in excess of ten (10) hours at any time from October 14,
      2009 through the present, for any Dunkin' Donuts or
      combination Dunkin' Donuts/Baskin Robbins/Nathan's location
      owned and/or operated by Sanjay Jain and/or Neerja Jain in
      New York";

   2. appointing Plaintiffs Sheraz Khalid, Suresh Patel and
      Mohammed Saleh as class representatives for the classes and
      appointing Plaintiffs' counsel Class Counsel;

   3. approving Plaintiffs' Proposed Class Action Notice;

   4. directing Defendants to furnish to Plaintiffs in
      electronically-readable form the names, last known
      addresses, telephone numbers and email addresses of all
      members of the Class so that Plaintiffs can issue class
      notice; and

   5. providing for such other relief as the Court deems just and
      proper.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          Alison L. Mangiatordi, Esq.
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385 9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385 0800


DRUMMOND CO: Responds to Suit Over Radiation Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------
Suzie Schottelkotte at The Ledger reports that the Drummond Co.,
developer of the Oakbridge and Grasslands communities in Lakeland,
responded to a federal lawsuit alleging site-wide radiation
contamination with a letter posted on the websites of the
community's two homeowners' associations.

"You may have been troubled recently to see news of a class-action
lawsuit filed against the Drummond Company," local corporate Vice
President Leonard Mass wrote.

"In developing Grasslands and Oakbridge, we went through a state-
regulated process to reclaim previously mined land and make it
ready for residential use," he said. "We received state
certification for reclamation of the developments. Additionally,
the homes and buildings in the Oakbridge and Grasslands
communities were constructed pursuant to applicable state and
local rules and regulations which address the issues raised in the
lawsuit.

"You should also know," he said, "that we will vigorously contest
this lawsuit and mount an aggressive defense of Drummond and your
real estate investment in these communities."

Mass declined further comment on March 24, saying any statements
would come from representatives for Drummond. A spokesperson for
the Alabama-based company wasn't available on March 24 afternoon.
More than 300 residents have sought additional information about
the lawsuit, Neal O'Toole, a partner in the Lakeland law firm
Lilly, O'Toole & Brown, said. His firm is one of five law firms
representing the plaintiffs. The other firms are in Washington,
D.C., Houston, Los Angeles and New York City.

John Snapp, president of the Oakbridge homeowners' association,
couldn't be reached for comment on March 24 evening. He previously
has said he has not joined the lawsuit yet.

The lawsuit, filed March 10 in U.S. District Court in Tampa,
alleges the ground throughout the 1,362-acre South Lakeland
development is contaminated with radiation as a result of
phosphate mining decades ago. The lawyers for the plaintiffs are
seeking class-action status.

The lawsuit states the radiation levels are equivalent to getting
a chest X-ray once a week.

Lawyers for residents in the community who are joining the lawsuit
allege Drummond didn't warn potential buyers about the radiation.
They're seeking compensation for any reduction in their home
values, along with medical monitoring and a mandate for Drummond
to remove the contamination.

Washington, D.C., lawyer Chris Nidel, one of the lawyers
representing the plantiffs, said that he was struck by what the
letter didn't say.

"What speaks volumes is what they aren't saying," he said. "They
aren't addressing the health risks, the radiation levels. They are
just saying they followed the rules."

Nidel said the problem came to light through documents from the
federal Environmental Protection Agency, which reflected concerns
about elevated radiation levels, said Nidel. [GN]


EASTMAN KODAK: Settlement in ERISA Litigation Now Final
-------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the settlement agreement
in the ERISA Litigation became final when the time for any party
to appeal the Order and Final Judgment passed.

Subsequent to the Company's Bankruptcy Filing, between January 27,
2012 and March 22, 2012, several putative class action suits were
filed in federal court in the Western District of New York against
the committees of the Company's Employee Stock Ownership Plan
("ESOP") and Savings and Investment Plan ("SIP"), and certain
former and current executives of the Company.  The suits were
consolidated into a single action brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, styled as In re Eastman Kodak
ERISA Litigation (the "Action").  The allegations concerned the
decline in the Company's stock price and its alleged impact on the
ESOP and SIP.  Defendants and plaintiffs, individually and as
class representatives, entered into a settlement agreement in
April of 2016.

On October 4, 2016, the court entered an Order and Final Judgment
certifying the Action as a binding non-opt-out class action,
approving and confirming the settlement agreement and dismissing
the Action with prejudice.  The settlement agreement became final
in November 2016 when the time for any party to appeal the Order
and Final Judgment passed.  The Company was not a party to the
Action and was not obligated to make any payments under the
settlement agreement.

Eastman Kodak Company is a global commercial printing and imaging
company with proprietary technologies in materials science,
digital imaging science and software, and deposition processes
(methods whereby one or more layers of various materials in
gaseous, liquid or small particle form are deposited on a
substrate in precise quantities and positions).  The Company was
founded by George Eastman in 1880 and incorporated in 1901 in New
Jersey.  Kodak is headquartered in Rochester, New York.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Morris" Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. The case is titled as Florence Morris,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00573-BTM-NLS (S.D. Cal., Mar. 23, 2017). The
case is assigned to Hon. Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz.

Experian operates as an information services company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400 6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Keller Rohrback Files Suit for Overpriced Insulin
------------------------------------------------------------------
The nationally recognized class-action law firm of Keller Rohrback
L.L.P. filed suit against the nation's three largest pharmacy
benefit managers, Express Scripts, OptumR, and CVS Caremark
(CVS:US), and the three major insulin manufacturers, Sanofi-
Aventis (SNY:US), Novo Nordisk (NVO:US), and Eli Lilly (LLY:US),
who produce the well-known and widely-prescribed analog insulins:
Lantus, Apidra, Levemir, Humalog, and Novolog. The complaint,
which was filed in the New Jersey federal district court, alleges
that the PBMs--insurance industry middlemen who negotiate drug
prices and create drug formularies that determine how much
patients pay--conspired with the insulin manufacturers to
artificially inflate the price of insulin for their own collective
benefit. This profit-seeking move has directly injured individual
patients and other purchasers of insulin financially and put the
lives of millions of diabetes sufferers at risk.

This Smart News Release features multimedia. View the full release
here: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170325005007/en/
The Plaintiffs in Keller Rohrback's case--Boss v. CVS Health Corp.
et al., No. 17-cv-01823 (D.N.J.)--are individuals who purchase
insulin for themselves or their children, and the Type 1 Diabetes
Defense Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to
promoting the social welfare and protecting the legal rights of
individuals who must take insulin to survive. Together these
Plaintiffs bring a perspective arising from their own personal
experiences and the foundation's organizational purpose. And their
case is focused holistically on the problem, the responsible
parties, and the breadth of injury to insulin purchasers. Thus,
their complaint includes defendant parties not included and/or
claims that have not yet been asserted in two other recently filed
cases.

The artificially high cost of insulin needlessly inflicts
physical, emotional, and financial harm on patients and their
families. While insulin manufacturers certainly contribute to the
problem, they do not act alone. Rather, manufacturers collude with
PBMs to raise insulin "list prices" -- which the PBMs direct
consumers to pay -- thus reaping outsized profits from people who
need insulin to stay alive.

The Insulin Pricing Scheme alleged in Plaintiffs' complaint
explains how PBMs sell exclusionary or preferential access to
their formularies in exchange for a cut of rebates and other fees
paid by the drug manufacturers to the PBMs. Formularies are ranked
lists of drugs that health insurers rely upon to determine how
much of their members' drug costs they will cover. Manufacturers'
sales depend on access to these enormous purchaser pools for their
profits. Although the PBMs claim the rebates and other payments
lower the cost of insulin, in fact, this is misleading. The
rebates and other payments decrease the cost of insulin for the
PBMs and the insurers with whom the rebates are shared, but drive
up the cost for consumers, whose pre-deductible or coinsurance
payments at the pharmacy point-of-sale are based on the unrebated
"list" price.

The PBMs and manufacturers game the system. Instead of competing
on price for access to the PBMs' formularies, the manufacturers
compete based on the amount of the rebate and other fees that they
pay to the PBMs. To prevent the rebates and other fees -- and the
wasteful transactional costs created by an increasingly convoluted
system of payments -- from cutting into their profits, the
manufacturers raise what they call the "list" price of insulin.
Meanwhile, considerable rebates to PBMs maintain at a steady point
the "net" price actually realized by the manufacturers. The higher
the "list" price, the higher the rebate and other fees, and the
larger the profit to the PBMs. The result is a vicious cycle of
"list" price increases by manufacturers, vying to win the favor of
the PBMs. Consumers with out-of-pocket payment obligations, a
large and growing population, are charged an amount based upon the
artificially inflated "list" price. This includes the uninsured
and people in a variety of types of health plans with co-
insurance, co-payment, and high-deductible requirements. [GN]


EXXON MOBIL: Judge Transfers Investors Case to New York
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge in Texas has
ordered a case involving Exxon Mobil and the attorneys general of
Massachusetts and New York be transferred from Texas to a federal
court in New York.

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and New York Attorney
General Eric Schneiderman are investigating whether Exxon misled
investors and the public about the risks climate change posed for
the oil and gas giant.  The company in turn sued the two Democrats
in federal court in Texas, calling their investigation politically
motivated.

Ms. Healey praises the March 29 ruling but says the federal
lawsuit should be dismissed. She says Exxon Mobil Corp. and other
companies her office investigates should be subject to
Massachusetts laws.

A state judge in Massachusetts in January ordered the company to
hand over documents to Ms. Healey's office.


FASTAFF LLC: "Dalchau" Seeks Overtime Pay, Housing Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Dalchau and Michael Goodwin, individuals on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fastaff,
LLC; U.S. Nursing Corporation and Does 1 to 10 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01584, (N.D. Cal., March 24, 2017),
seeks unpaid balance of overtime wages owing, plus interest
thereon, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code.

Defendants are a staffing company that employ hourly health care
professionals for short-term travel assignments at health care
providers throughout the United States where Plaintiffs worked as
healthcare professionals. Part of the healthcare professionals'
compensation is a housing benefit in the form of either a housing
subsidy payment or company-provided housing contingent upon
healthcare professionals working their minimum required number of
hours each week. However, Defendants did not include the value of
Plaintiffs' housing benefits in Plaintiffs' regular rate of pay
for purposes of calculating their overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
     Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
     HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
     595 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 303
     Pasadena, CA 91101
     Tel: (626) 808-4357
     Fax: (626) 921-4932
     Email: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
            kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Asks Judge to Toss Hidden Tire Defect Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Amaral at Law360 reports that the maker of Dodge and
Chrysler vehicles on March 23 asked a federal judge in New York to
dismiss a proposed class action over an alleged costly and hidden
tire defect, saying that most named plaintiffs don't even live in
New York and the only one who does belongs to a practically
identical suit.

FCA US LLC said in a supplemental motion to dismiss that the new
plaintiff, Thomas Hromowyk, can't join the already doomed suit.
Hromowyk claims that his 2010 Dodge Grand Caravan had a defect
that deflated his tire, but he's actually a member of a proposed
class that has already survived dismissal, FCA said.

His entrance into this suit was a shallow attempt at creating
jurisdiction in New York, FCA said, calling it "fraudulent
joinder."

"Here, plaintiffs joined Hromowyk through an amended complaint
only after FCA US challenged personal jurisdiction, and this
occurred just before their opposition to that challenge was due,"
FCA said. "The sudden joinder of Hromowyk evidences plaintiffs'
realization that none of the original plaintiffs can connect their
claims to New York to establish jurisdiction."

Hromowyk is the only named plaintiff to allege that he bought a
vehicle in New York, FCA said.

The suit otherwise lacks personal or general jurisdiction as to
the other named plaintiffs, who bought their cars in other states,
FCA said. It's simply false -- indeed, sanctionable -- to say that
FCA "designs, manufactures and sells automobiles throughout the
United States, including in the State of New York," FCA said.

In the suit that FCA says Hromowyk belongs in, lead plaintiff
Robert Tomassini claimed unfair and deceptive trade practices and
breach of express warranty.

Tomassini brought the suit in September 2014 on behalf of all New
York purchasers of 2008-11 Chrysler Town & Country and Dodge Grand
Caravan minivans.

In 2013, about a year after he purchased a used 2010 Town &
Country minivan from a wholesale dealer, Tomassini noticed one of
the tires was quickly losing air, he alleged. He took the vehicle
to a repair shop and was told the valve stem had corroded to the
point that it was utterly deflated.

A year later, the same thing happened to another tire, his
complaint said.

FCA is represented by Alan J. Pope -- APope@psplawfirm.com  of
Pope Schrader & Pope LLP and Kathy A. Wisniewski --
kWisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- and Stephen A. D'Aunoy --
sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com --  of Thompson Coburn LLP.

The proposed class is represented by Elmer Robert Keach III of the
Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach III, Gary S. Graifman --
mail@kgglaw.com -- and Robert A. Lubitz -- mail@kgglaw.com -- of
Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman PC and Nicholas A. Migliaccio --
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com --  and Jason S. Rathod --
jrathod@classlawdc.com -- of Migliaccio & Rathod LLP.

The case is Spratley et al v. FCA US LLC, case number  3:17-cv-
00062-MAD-DEP in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of New York. [GN]


FIELDTURF USA: Faces Neshannock Township Suit in W.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FIELDTURF USA, INC.
The case is entitled as NESHANNOCK TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. FIELDTURF USA, INC., a Florida corporation;
FIELDTURF, INC., a Canadian corporation; and FIELDTURF TARKETT
SAS, a French corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00374-
CB (W.D. Pa., Mar. 23, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Cathy Bissoon.

Fieldturf engages in manufacturing and installation of infield
artificial turf systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          707 Grant Street, Suite 2500
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281 7229
          Facsimile: (412) 281 4229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com


FINANCIAL INDUSTRY: Faces B.E. Capital Suit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. The case is captioned as B.E. Capital
Management Fund LP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc., and Depository Trust Company, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00311-UNA (D. Del., Mar. 22, 2017).

In the United States, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. is a private corporation that acts as a self-regulatory
organization.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FIRST TENNESSEE: Final Hearing for Class Action Set For April 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meagan Nichols at Biz Journal reports a class action lawsuit
against a Memphis-based bank is nearing its conclusion.

The final hearing for the USD16.75 million class action suit
against First Tennessee Bank National Association concerning
overdraft fees is set for April 20.

According to the settlement website, the lawsuit claims First
Tennessee posted "debit card transactions in the order of highest
to lowest dollar amount, which plaintiffs argue results in an
increased number of overdraft fees assessed to customers."
The dates included in the suit are from Sept. 8, 2005, to Feb. 20,
2013. The suit was originally filed Sept. 6, 2011, by plaintiffs
Sylvia and William Hawkins.

"This is not unique to us," said Kim Cherry, executive vice
president of corporate communication for First Horizon National
Corp. "It happened at banks across the country. It was a common
industry process, and we changed the way we handled those several
years ago. We look forward to resolving this issue and putting it
behind us."

The settlement website states that "First Tennessee maintains that
there was nothing wrong with either the posting process it used or
the disclosures it made, and that it complied, at all times, with
applicable laws and regulations and the terms of the account
agreements with its customers."

Indeed, the practice was not "unique" to First Tennessee Bank. The
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) launched a national
inquiry in 2012 to examine overdraft fee practices by banks across
the country. One of the areas in question was transaction re-
ordering. The CFPB released those findings in 2013.

The final approval hearing in the Hawkins v. First Tennessee
Settlement is scheduled for 10 a.m. April 20 at the Shelby County
Courthouse at 140 Adams Ave. During the hearing, the court will
decide if the settlement is "fair, reasonable and adequate."
Requests regarding attorney fees, as well as any objections, will
be heard at that time. [GN]


FREE PEOPLE: Faces "Riley" Suit Over Blind Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanie Riley, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Free People of PA LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-02199 (S.D.N.Y., March
27, 2017), alleges that the Defendant is denying blind individuals
throughout the United States equal access to the goods and
services Free People provides to their non-disabled customers
through http://www.Freepeople.com.Specifically, Freepeople.com
has many access barriers preventing blind people to independently
navigate and complete a purchase using assistive computer
technology.

Free People of PA LLC owns and operates store locations that
provide to the public important goods, such as shoes, accessories
and clothing. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


GC SERVICES: Sued in S.D. Ohio Over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND BOYD, c/o Minnillo & Jenkins Co., LPA, 2712 Observatory
Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45208, Plaintiff, v. GC SERVICES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, 6330 Gulfton Street, No. 300 Houston, Texas 77081
Serve: CT Corporation System 1300 East 9th Street Cleveland, Ohio
44114, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00179-TSB (S.D. Ohio, Mar.
17, 2017), seeks to recover actual damages, statutory damages in
an amount up to $1,000.00, and reasonable attorney's fees as a
result of Defendant's violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA).

The statements made by Defendant in its notices and collection
calls that Plaintiff was responsible for the Debt, that he owed up
to $11,155.66 or any other amount were false, and that he was in
default, were false. The Defendant falsely represented the
character, amount, or legal status of the Debt. The threat in each
of the statements to pursue collection efforts against Plaintiff
and/or report Plaintiff to credit reporting agencies could not
legally be taken or was not intended to be taken. The Defendant's
collection practices were deceptive, unfair, and/or
unconscionable.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christian A. Jenkins, Esq.
          MINNILLO & JENKINS Co., LPA
          2712 Observatory Avenue
          Cincinnati, Ohio 45208
          Telephone: (513) 723 1600
          Facsimile: (513) 723 1620
          E-mail: scjenkins@minnillojenkins.com


GC SERVICES: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned EMIR FETAI, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GC SERVICES
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00430-WED
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff ask the Court enter an order
certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jhbSaxB7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOOGLE INC: Free Range Suit Seeks Certification of Three Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled FREE RANGE CONTENT, INC., a California
corporation, COCONUT ISLAND SOFTWARE, INC., a Hawaii corporation,
TAYLOR CHOSE, a Minnesota resident, and MATTHEW SIMPSON, a British
Columbia, Canada resident, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INC, a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:14-cv-02329-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs move the Court for class certification of :

First class seeking declaratory relief for violations of Cal. Civ.
Code:

   "all former or current Google AdSense publishers: (1) whose
   AdSense accounts were subject to Google's terms and conditions
   or terms of service for the U.S., Canada, American Samoa,
   Puerto Rico, United States Minor Outlying Islands, the U.S.
   Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas,
   Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Falkland
   Islands, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat,
   Netherland Antilles, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint
   Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, or the Turks
   and Caicos Islands (the locations at issue); (2) whose AdSense
   account Google disabled or terminated for any breach of
   contract, including policy violations or invalid activity, on
   any date between and including May 20, 2010, and the date of
   judgment in this matter; and (3) whose last AdSense program
   earnings or unpaid amounts Google withheld in their entirety,
   and permanently, in connection with such disablement or
   termination";

Second class seeking damages or restitution for violations of Cal.
Civ. Code and the UCL, as well as breach of contract:

   "all former or current Google AdSense publishers: (1) whose
   AdSense accounts were subject to Google's terms and conditions
   for the locations at issue; (2) whose AdSense account Google
   disabled or terminated for any breach of contract, including
   policy violations or invalid activity, on any date between and
   including May 20, 2010, and April 22, 2013; and (3) whose last
   AdSense program earnings or unpaid amounts Google withheld in
   their entirety, and permanently, in connection with such
   disablement or termination"; and

Third terms-of-service class seeking damages or restitution for
violations of Cal. Civ. Code and the UCL, breach of contract, and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing:

   "all former or current Google AdSense publishers: (1) whose
   AdSense accounts were subject to Google's terms of service for
   the locations at issue; (2) whose AdSense account Google
   disabled or terminated for any breach of contract, including
   policy violations or invalid activity, on any date between and
   including April 23, 2013, and the date of judgment in this
   matter; (3) whose last AdSense program earnings or unpaid
   amounts Google withheld in their entirety, and permanently, in
   connection with such disablement or termination; and (4) who
   submitted a written notice of dispute to Google within 30 days
   of notice from Google of withholding from their AdSense
   publishers' accounts.

Excluded from the classes are Google's officers, directors,
managerial employees, and their immediate families, as well as the
Court and the Court's immediate family members.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=suoQy1C1

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Robert F. Lopez, Esq.
          AGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623 0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  robl@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725 3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725 3001
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com


GRUBHUB INC: "Flores" Sues for Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Flores, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Grubhub Inc., Case No. 2017-CH-04406 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., March 27, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of sending unauthorized and unwanted text message advertisements
to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain
redress for all persons injured by its conduct.

Grubhub Inc. operates an online platform that allows consumers to
order food from more than 40,000 restaurants in more than 1,000
cities throughout the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (3120 589-6378
      E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com


HANESBRANDS INC: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hanesbrands Inc. The
case is entitled as Judith Rodriguez and Maryann Riedel, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
HANESBRANDS INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01612 (E.D.N.Y.,
Mar. 22, 2017).

Hanesbrands is an American clothing company based in Winston-
Salem, North Carolina. It employs 65,300 people internationally.
On September 6, 2006, the company was spun off by the Sara Lee
Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


HARBOR FREIGHT: Settles Class Action, Customers Can Claim Refund
---------------------------------------------------------------
Catlin Bogart at WKBW reports that you could be due a partial
refund from "Harbor Freight" if you were a customer between April
8th, 2011 and December 15th, 2016.

The company has settled a class-action lawsuit which alleged the
company advertised merchandise as "on sale" or "comp at" prices
were based on prices that didn't exist within 28 of the past 90
days.

The refund available is between 20-30% of the "You Saved" value on
receipts, depending on whether you choose a gift card or cash
refund.

You can make a claim between now an August 7th, 2017 if you have
an itemized receipt or statement. If not, you can submit a claim
form using information from your credit or debit card statements.
[GN]


HILTON HEAD: "Isaman" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Petra Isaman, Yilian Ramirez and Nallely Mendoza, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v.
Housekeeping Services of Hilton Head, LLC., Southern Tides
Cleaning LLC and David L. Myers, Individually, Defendants, Case
No. 9:17-cv-00800, (D.S.C., March 26, 2017), seeks liquidated
damages, compensatory damages, treble damages pursuant to the
South Carolina Payment of Wages Act, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs, front-pay, back-pay, and other such further relief as
allowed by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Housekeeping Services of Hilton Head, LLC., is a cleaning company,
providing resort housekeeping, residential maid service, business
janitorial services, as well large scale commercial laundry and
linens for the area's hotels, resorts, restaurants, and property
management companies.  Plaintiffs were employed at Defendants'
commercial laundry facility located at 10A Dunnalan's Alley,
Hilton Head, SC.

Plaintiffs were not compensated for hours rendered in excess of 40
hours per week, frequently worked through meal breaks, had to
clock out to use the restrooms and were required to attend pre-
shift meetings that were not counted as time worked, says the
complaint. Particularly, Plaintiff Isaman was allegedly terminated
for complaining. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
     MULLANEY LAW
     1037-D Chuck Dawley Blvd, Suite 104
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
     Tel: (800) 385-8160
     Email: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


IBEX CONSTRUCTION: Sued in N.Y. Sup. Ct. Over Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOOLEY ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. IBEX CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
LLC, and ANDY FRANKL, the Defendants, Case No. 651563/2017 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Mar. 24, 2017), seeks to recover from Ibex the sum of
$63,655.00, plus appropriate interest.

The Plaintiff entered into a subcontract agreement (Art of Shaving
Subcontract) with Ibex whereby Plaintiff agreed to furnish certain
labor, materials and equipment to perform electrical work,
including but not limited to demolition, roughing, lighting,
fixtures, devices and fire alarms, at the Art of Shaving Project,
and Ibex agreed to pay Plaintiff the lump sum and unit prices set
forth. During its performance of the Art of Shaving Subcontract,
Plaintiff performed additional and extra work at the Art of
Shaving Project at the special instance and direction of Ibex.
Plaintiff fully and duly performed all of the terms and conditions
on its part to be performed under the Art of Shaving Subcontract
in connection with the Art of Shaving
Project.

Ibex has materially breached the Art of Shaving Subcontract by
failing to fully and properly pay Plaintiff for the labor,
materials, work, equipment and services furnished at the Art of
Shaving Project. There remains a balance of $63,655.00, due and
owing to Plaintiff from Ibex for the labor, materials and
equipment furnished by Plaintiff at the Art of Shaving Project, no
part of which balance has been paid by Ibex, although duly
demanded.

Ibex is in the nonresidential construction business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josdnn P. Asselta, Esq.
          FORCHELLI, CURTO, DEEGAN SCHWARTZ, MINEO & TERRANA, LLP
          Dooley Electric Company, Inc.
          333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 1010
          Uniondale, NY 11553
          Telephone: (516) 248-1700


IDAHO STATE: Suit Says Violations Led to Amputations, Deaths
------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Boone at WMC Action News reports that Idaho inmates are
asking a federal judge to penalize the state after saying prison
officials repeatedly violated a settlement plan in a long-running
lawsuit over health care, leading to amputations and other serious
injuries and even some prisoners' deaths.

In a series of documents filed in federal court, the inmates'
attorney Christopher Pooser painted a bleak and often gruesome
picture of the alleged problems at the Idaho State Correctional
Institution south of Boise. The prison is the state's oldest, with
more than 1,400 beds, including special units for chronically ill,
elderly and disabled inmates.

Pooser and the inmates allege some prisoners were forced to
undergo amputations after their blisters and bedsores went
untreated and began to rot, and others with serious disabilities
were left unbathed or without water for extended periods and given
food only sporadically.

The prison's death rates outpaced the national average as well as
rates at other Idaho facilities, according to the documents. And
despite hearing evidence to the contrary, prison officials failed
to double-check the numbers when its health care contractor,
Corizon, reported being 100 percent compliant with state health
care requirements.

Meanwhile, prison officials were falsifying documents to make it
look like all employees were trained in suicide prevention when
many were not, the filings said.

The inmates are asking the judge to hold the state in contempt of
court and levy more than USD24 million in fines against the Idaho
Department of Correction. They say the state could cover some of
the fines by recovering money paid under its contract with
Corizon, but they also want the state to feel the budget hit so
prison leaders will be motivated to make a fix.

In a statement emailed to The Associated Press, Idaho's
corrections director, Henry Atencio, said he couldn't address the
specific claims in the motion for contempt because the allegations
are now before the court. But he said his agency has been making
an "all-out effort to bring the 36-year-old Balla case to a
successful resolution for all parties" for the past two years.
Corizon spokeswoman Martha Harbin said in an email that patient
privacy laws prevent the company from discussing specifics. But
she said the existence of a lawsuit doesn't necessarily mean there
was wrongdoing.

"We strive to provide quality care that meets the needs of our
patients and makes the best use of taxpayer resources," Harbin
wrote.

The case started in 1981 when so many inmates from the Idaho State
Correctional Institution began filing lawsuits that they
threatened to clog Idaho's federal court. A judge noted
similarities between the cases and combined them into one class-
action lawsuit, which became known as the "Balla case" after the
lead plaintiff, Walter Balla.

The claims ranged from overcrowding and excessive violence to
limited access to medical care. Some have been settled, but the
medical care complaints continue at the prison.

The lawsuit seemed close to a conclusion a couple of years ago
when all sides agreed to a deal in which the state would make
several improvements to medical care, and the court would oversee
the changes for two years to ensure Idaho officials followed
through.

Now Pooser and his clients say the state has violated the
settlement agreement more than 100 times.

In their latest court filings, they allege an inmate with
pneumonia was ignored until he developed a flesh-eating infection
and died of sepsis. Another inmate was forced to clean his own
open wound surrounding an intestinal injury with tap water and
paper towels, the documents said.

At one point, a doctor whose medical license had been restricted
because of sexual abuse and incompetence was allowed to work at
the facility, and was simply transferred to another prison for a
time after inmates complained. That doctor was fired after a
federal jury ruled against him in a separate lawsuit.

In his statement, Atencio said the Idaho Department of Correction
disclosed the problems to a federal judge and the plaintiffs when
an internal review found compliance issues in 2015. He said prison
officials promptly created a plan to correct the errors.

"We remain committed to providing oversight of our medical
contractor, Corizon, to ensure quality health care at ISCI and
throughout all IDOC facilities, and to working with the federal
court and the Balla representatives to bring this case to a
close," Atencio wrote.

Still, the inmates contend the problems have continued.
"Since 1985, IDOC has had ample opportunities to achieve
compliance . . . . but has repeatedly squandered those chances,"
their attorney wrote.

The state's contract with Corizon allows for a type of fine called
"liquidated damages" for failing to comply with the contract. At
the low end, the fines are USD464 per day, according to the
inmates. They are asking for nearly USD24.5 million in
compensation for the damages, based on the number of days the
state committed the 80 most serious violations listed in the case.
They also want the court to start the two-year monitoring period
over and levy additional fines to coerce the state into actually
fixing the problems.

The fines could be used to hire additional medical staff, expand
and modernize facilities and take other steps to improve the
health care problems at the prison, the attorney wrote. [GN]


ILLINOIS BELL: Lamarr Seeks Certification of Classes & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JACQUELYNE LAMARR. et al, On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ILLINOIS BELL
TELEPHONE COMPANY and AT&T CORP., et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:15-cv-08660 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for class
certification pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act:

   "all individuals who were and/or are currently employed by the
   Defendants, their subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors
   and/or successors, as non-exempt call center employees or
   other similarly titled positions at any time during the
   relevant statute of limitations who worked at least forty
   hours per week and whose actual time worked was rounded to
   their detriment".

The class includes several sub-classes:

Pre-shift:

   "Such employees who performed compensable work prior to their
   scheduled start time and who were not paid for all such time";

Meal break:

   "Such persons who, after logging out of CTI to begin their
   scheduled unpaid meal break, performed compensable work during
   their unpaid meal break and were not compensated for that
   time";

Post-Shift:

   "Such employees who were logged into CTI after the end of
   their scheduled shift, but who do not have a corresponding IEX
   exception for incidental overtime recorded for that time and
   were not compensated for that time"; and

Post-Shift:

   "Such persons who performed compensable work after the end of
   their scheduled shifts and after they logged out of CTI up to
   and through the time they logged out of their work stations
   and went home for the day, and were not compensated for that
   time".

In addition to granting conditional certification, Plaintiffs asks
that the Court order Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs the
following, within seven days of the Court's Order A list, in Excel
format, of all persons employed by Defendants in sales service and
similar positions in Defendants' call centers in Defendants'
Midwest Region from September, 2012 to the present, including
their name, last known address, telephone number, work and
personal email address, dates of employment, location(s) of
employment, last four digits of their social security number, and
date of birth.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bulZ8DPX

A copy of the Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of the Motion is
available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mxJ63Wta

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
          JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C.
          221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 789 9700

               - and -

          Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
          GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
          Chicago, IL 60601


INFINITI OF BAYSIDE: Chatooria Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joey Chatooria, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, v. Infiniti of Bayside, LLC,
and Titan Motor Group LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 700723/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Mar. 24, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid non-
overtime and overtime wages, and reimbursement for unlawful wage
deductions/work-related expenses pursuant to New York Labor Law
(NYLL).

The Plaintiff alleges on behalf of himself and a class of other
similarly-situated current and former employees who were employed
by Defendants as manual workers, within the six-year period
preceding the filing of this action to the date of disposition of
this action, pursuant to the NY Civil Practice Law and Rules 901,
that the Plaintiff and the Class:

     1) were employed by Defendants within the State of New York
        as manual workers;

     2) entitled to maximum liquidated damages (for the period
        after April 9, 2011) and interest for being paid wages,
        including overtime wages and non-overtime wages later
        than weekly; and

     3) entitled to costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the
        NYLL.

Infiniti of Bayside is a new and used car dealer which offers
sales, service, parts, and financing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: 718 740 1000
          Facsimile: 718 740 2000
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          LAVOTSHKIN LAW GROUP
          146 S. 4th St., Suite 8b
          Brooklyn, NY 11211
          Telephone: (718) 701 8308


INVENTURE FOODS: Sued in Ariz. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Schoenfeld, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Inventure Foods, Inc.; Terry McDaniel; and
Steve Weinberger, Case No. 2:17-cv-00910-HRH (D. Ariz., March 27,
2017), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that
the Company lacked adequate internal controls over accounting and
financial reporting; (2) that, as a result, the Company's
statements of operations in its fiscal year 2015 results press
release contained incorrect figures; and (3) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Inventure Foods'
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis.

Inventure Foods, Inc. purportedly markets and manufactures healthy
and natural specialty snack foods. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard G. Himelrick, Esq.
      TIFFANY & BOSCO, P.A.
      Seventh Floor Camelback Esplanade II
      2525 East Camelback Road
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 255-6000
      Facsimile: (602) 255-0103
      E-mail: rgh@tblaw.com

         - and -

      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com
              lportnoy@glancylaw.com
              clinehan@glancylaw.com

KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: "Monroy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Monroy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., Peter Riley, and Does
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC655345 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
March 27, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime,
waiting time penalties, civil penalties and damages, plus
interest, attorney's fees and costs under the California Labor
Code.

The Defendants own and operate department stores in Orange County,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph M. Hekmat, Esq.
      HEKMAT LAW GROUP
      11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1700
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (424) 888-0848
      Facsimile: (424) 270-0242
      E-mail: jhekmat@hekmatlaw.com

         - and -

      Jack Risemberg, Esq.
      RG LAWYERS, LLP
      15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1610
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 815-2727
      Facsimile: (818) 8152737
      E-mail: jr@rglawyers.com

KROGER CO: Rhodes et al. Action Remanded to Arkansas State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Leon Holmes of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted plaintiffs' motion to
remand to the Circuit Court of Pulaski County the case captioned,
KYLE RHODES, individually and as plaintiff class representative;
WESLEY ATWOOD, individually and as plaintiff class representative;
and SAMANTHA HUDON, individually and as plaintiff class
representative, Plaintiffs, v. KROGER CO., Defendant, Case No.
4:16CV00640 JLH (E.D. Ark.).

Kyle Rhodes, Wesley Atwood, and Samantha Hudon commenced this
putative class action in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County,
Arkansas, against Kroger Co. and two of its Arkansas district
managers, Andrea Tyson and Patrick Scherrey, challenging the
legality of portions of Kroger's discount program. Kroger offers
discounts to customers who apply for and use a Kroger Plus Card,
and one day a week Kroger offers Kroger Card customers over age 55
an additional discount of five percent.

The plaintiffs contend that Kroger's actions violate Ark. Code
Ann. Section 4-75-501(a)(2), which makes it unlawful for any
person or corporation willfully to fail to grant any purchaser of
a manufactured product a discount that is granted to other
purchasers of like quantities. As a remedy, the plaintiffs seek
between $200 and $1,000 for each purchase, which represents the
civil penalty provided in Ark. Code Ann. Section 4-75-501(b)(1).

Kroger first removed the action on June 1, 2015, asserting
subject-matter jurisdiction based on traditional diversity
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a) and based on the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)(2). The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand and this Court
remanded the action to the Circuit Court of Pulaski County,
holding that Arkansas citizens Tyson and Scherrey were not
fraudulently joined and thus traditional diversity was not a basis
for federal jurisdiction, and that CAFA's local controversy
exception applied and mandated remand.

Upon remand, the plaintiffs and Kroger briefed and argued a motion
to dismiss filed on behalf of all of the defendants. The state
court denied the motion as to Kroger but held sua sponte that the
complaint failed to state a claim against Tyson and Scherrey
because they were not engaged in the sale of any manufactured
product as is required for conduct to be unlawful under Ark. Code
Ann. Section 4-75-501(a).

After Tyson and Scherrey were dismissed, Kroger removed the action
a second time on September 2, 2016. Kroger asserts that because
the dismissal of local defendants Tyson and Scherrey rendered the
local controversy exception inapplicable, the case is removable
pursuant to CAFA.

In the instant motion, the threshold issue is whether the second
removal is timely.

In the Opinion and Order dated February 9, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/xdCY7e from Leagle.com, Judge Holmes held that
removal is untimely because the local controversy exception is not
an element of subject-matter jurisdiction and because it is not
"expressly provided by Act of Congress" that an action in which
the local controversy exception applies may not be removed, an
action in which the local controversy exception applies is
removable under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a).

Wesley Atwood, et al. are represented by:

      Gene A. Ludwig, Esq.
      Kale L. Ludwig, Esq.
      Kyle P. Ludwig, Esq.
      LUDWIG LAW FIRM, PLC
      1 Three River Drive
      Little Rock, AR 72223
      Tel: (800)950-1999

Kroger Co. is represented by Bruce A. McMullen, Baker, Esq. --
bmcmullen@bakerdonelson.com -- Joshua A. Mullen, Esq. --
jmullen@bakerdonelson.com -- and -- Mary Wu, Esq. --
mwu@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL &
BERKOWITZ -- James M. Simpson, Jr., Esq. -- simpson@fridayfirm.com
-- FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP


LLR INC: Faces "Goodwin" Suit in Ohio Over Defective Leggings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Caitlin Goodwin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LLR, Inc. d/b/a Lularoe c/o Incorp Services,
Inc., Case No. CV-17-877960 (Ohio Cmm. Pleas, March 27, 201), is
brought on behalf of all who purchased defective LuLaRoe leggings
manufactured outside of the United States.

LLR, Inc. sells shirts, skirts, dresses, and leggings to more than
35,000 retailers across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
      Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
      Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
      DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
      60 South Park Place
      Painesville, OH 44077
      Telephone: (440) 352-3391
      Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
      E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
              nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
              fbartela@dworkenlaw.com

         - and -

      Nolan T. James Jr., Esq.
      NOLAN JAMES LEGAL GROUP LTD.
      16651 Selby Cir
      Strongsville, OH 44136
      Telephone: (330) 237-9999
      E-mail: nolan@nolanjameslaw.com


LLR INC: "Webster" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled RACHAEL WEBSTER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LLR,
INC., d/b/a LuLaRoe, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00225-DSC
(W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following class:

      "all persons who were assessed sales tax on clothing
      purchases processed through Audrey, and whose purchases
      were delivered to a tax jurisdiction that does not permit
      sales tax on clothing; and

   2. appointing herself as the representative Plaintiff of the
      proposed class, and appointing R. Bruce Carlson (and the
      law firm Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP) and
      Kelly K. Iverson (and the law firm Cohen & Grigsby, P.C.)
      as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EI88aWf6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322 9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231 0246
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  kabramowicz@carlsonlynch.com
                  ktucker@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          COHEN & GRIGSBY, P.C.
          625 Liberty Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 297 4838
          E-mail: kiverson@cohenlaw.com


LMI AEROSPACE: Sued in E.D. Mo. Over Violations of Exchange Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
THE VLADIMIR GUSINSKY REV. TRUST, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LMI AEROSPACE,
INC., GERALD E. DANIELS, JOHN S. EULICH, DANIEL G. KORTE, SANFORD
S. NEUMAN, JUDITH W. NORTHUP, JOHN M. ROEDER, STEVEN SCHAFFER,
GREGORY L. SUMME, LARRY RESNICK, SONACA S.A., SONACA USA INC., and
LUMINANCE MERGER SUB, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-
01090-SPM (E.D. Mo., Mar. 24, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and
permanently enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a
proposed transaction, in the event Defendants consummate the
Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside or
awarding rescissory damages.

The case stems from a proposed transaction announced on February
17, 2017, pursuant to which LMI Aerospace, Inc. will be acquired
by Sonaca S.A., Sonaca USA Inc., and Luminance Merger Sub, Inc. On
February 16, 2017, LMI's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger (Merger Agreement) with
Sonaca. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
shareholders of LMI will receive $14.00 in cash for each share of
LMI common stock.

On March 15, 2017, Defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in
connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement.

LMI is a supplier of structural assemblies, kits and
components.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Miller, Esq.
          SWANSON MIDGLEY LLC
          4600 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 842 6100
          Facsimile: (816) 842 0013
          E-mail: jmiller@swansonmidgley.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


LYNDA VITRY: "Barahona" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Barahona, Vicente Munoz, Danilo Correa and Osman Pineda,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Lynda Vitry, Case No. 2:17-cv-01762, (E.D. La., March 1, 2017),
seeks unpaid overtime wages at the applicable rates, damages,
liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest and/or post-judgment,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this
action and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as construction, renovation
and property maintenance workers at Defendant's 14 rental
properties in New Orleans, Louisiana.

The case has been assigned to Judge Susie Morgan and Magistrate
Judge Karen Wells Roby.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gabriel O. Mondino, Esq.
      Cesar R. Burgos, Esq.
      Robert J. Daigre, Esq.
      Gabriel O. Mondino, Esq.
      George McGregor, Esq.
      BURGOS & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.
      3535 Canal Street, Suite 200
      New Orleans, LA 70119-6135
      Telephone: (504) 488-3722
      Facsimile: (504) 482-8525


M3 USA: Mediation Fails in Comprehensive Health's Junk Fax Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the case captioned, COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
OF THE PALM BEACHES, INC., and DR. ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C.,
Plaintiffs, v. M3 USA CORPORATION, and MDLINX, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 16-CV-80967-BLOOM/Valle (S.D. Fla.), failed to reach a
settlement, according to a Final Mediation Report filed March 9,
2017.

In January 2017, District Judge Beth Bloom of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied a
motion to dismiss as well as a motion to stay the case.

Plaintiffs Comprehensive Healthcare Systems of the Palm Beaches,
Inc. (Comprehensive) and Dr. Robert W. Mauthe (Mauthe), in their
Second Amended Class Action Complaint, assert claims for violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227
(TCPA) and conversion against Defendant, stemming from the
transmission of faxes to Plaintiffs and a class of similarly
situated individuals.

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant violated the TCPA by sending
unsolicited advertisements without prior express invitation or
permission and without a clear and conspicuously displayed opt-out
notice (Count I) and Plaintiffs also assert a claim for conversion
based upon Defendant's use of their faxes (Count II).

Defendant sought to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Rules of Federal Procedure for failure to state a
claim. The sole basis for dismissal raised by Defendant is that
the faxes sent to Plaintiffs are not advertisements within the
definition provided by the TCPA. Defendant argues that because
Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under federal law, the Court
should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
state law conversion claim.

In her Order dated January 10, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/1424eT from Leagle.com, Judge Bloom concluded that
Defendant's principal argument for dismissal of the conversion
claim in Count II fails.

Comprehensive Health Care Systems Of The Palm Beaches, Inc., et
al. are represented by Phillip A. Bock, Esq. --
phil@classlawyers.com -- BOCK & HATCH, LLC

M3 USA Corporation, et al. are represented by David Mitchell
Poell, Esq. -- dpoell@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD, MULLIN,
RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLC -- Mark David Schellhase, Esq. --
mark.schellhase@gray-robinson.com -- GRAY ROBINSON, PA


MARION-HARDIN: Court Dismisses "Bonsel" Claims as Untimely
----------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge James G. Carr of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted Defendant's motion
for judgment on the pleadings in the case captioned, Cory Bonsel,
et al., Plaintiffs. v. Marion-Hardin Corrections Commission,
Defendant, Case No. 3:16CV1988 (N.D. Ohio.).

A former detainee, plaintiff Cory Bonsel, alleges that the Marion-
Hardin Corrections Commission's "policy regarding the pre-
conviction booking and per diem fees is illegal" because it
violates his federal right to procedural due process and certain
provisions of Ohio law. Records from the Corrections Centers show
that Bonsel incurred $295.00 in fees and charges between June 14
and June 17. After his conviction, and presumably due to serving
the theft sentence at the Corrections Center, Bonsel incurred
roughly $10,000 in additional fees and charges.

He brings the putative class action seeking disgorgement of the
fees that the Commission unlawfully obtained, a declaratory
judgment "establishing that fees may be assessed only for post-
conviction processing and confinement costs," and an injunction
"preventing any further violations of the rights afforded to
individuals with respect to the assessment of pre-conviction
booking fees and per diem charges."

In the motion, the Commission argues that it is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law because: 1) Bonsel's claims are
untimely; 2) it is entitled to qualified immunity on the
procedural-due-process claim; 3) Ohio law affords it immunity on
Bonsel's state-law claim; and 4) because Bonsel's claims are
either time-barred or blocked by immunity rules, Bonsel lacks
standing to represent the class.

In his Order dated February 9, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/KR6Yfw from Leagle.com, Judge Carr found that the
claim is untimely because Bonsel knew or should have known about
those fees no later than June 19, 2013, and because he did not
file the suit until August 9, 2016.

Cory A. Bonsel is represented by Jeffrey C. Zilba, Esq. --
jzilba@gkplaw.net -- and Corey L. Tomlinson, Esq. --
ctomlinson@gkplaw.net -- GRESSLEY, KAPLI & PARKER, LLP

Marion-Hardin Corrections Commission is represented by J. Stephen
Teetor, Esq. -- steetor@isaacwiles.com -- Matthew S. Teetor, Esq.
-- mteetor@isaacwiles.com -- and Shawn Kincade Judge, Esq. --
sjudge@isaacwiles.com -- ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR


MDL 2633: Oregon Judge Trims Claims in Data Breach Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael H. Simon of the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon granted in part Premera Blue
Cross's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended fraud-based and
contract claims and several claims asserted by two named
Plaintiffs in the case captioned, IN RE: PREMERA BLUE CROSS
CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. This Document Relates to
All Actions, Case No. 3:15-md-2633-SI (D. Or.).

Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Defendant
Premera Blue Cross (Premera), a healthcare benefits servicer and
provider. On March 17, 2015, Premera publicly disclosed that its
computer network had been breached. Plaintiffs allege that this
breach compromised the confidential information of approximately
11 million current and former members, affiliated members, and
employees of Premera. Plaintiffs allege that after discovering the
breach, Premera unreasonably delayed in notifying all affected
individuals. Based on these allegations, among others, Plaintiffs
bring various state common law claims and state statutory claims.

On August 1, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Premera's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action
Allegation Complaint. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' fraud-based
claims and contract claims and gave Plaintiffs leave to replead.
On September 30, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Allegation Complaint (FAC).

Before the Court is Premera's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' FAC
(Motion). Specifically, Premera moves to dismiss Plaintiffs'
amended fraud-based and contract claims. Premera also moves to
dismiss several claims asserted by two named Plaintiffs, arguing
that those claims are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq.

In his Opinion and Order dated February 9, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/OUonyb from Leagle.com, Judge Simon granted as to
claims against Plaintiffs on (1) Plaintiffs' fraud-based claims
alleging active concealment of fraud are dismissed; (2)
Plaintiffs' fraud-based claims alleging affirmative
misrepresentations that are contained in Premera's Preferred
Bronze policy booklet are dismissed; (3) Plaintiffs' contract-
based claims alleging breach of express contract based on either
the Preferred Bronze policy or Premera's Code of Conduct are
dismissed; (4) Plaintiffs' contract-based claims alleging breach
of an implied term in an express contract is dismissed for those
Plaintiffs whose contract is governed by Washington law; and (5)
the alternative claim for breach of an implied-in-fact contract
asserted by Plaintiffs other than the Policyholder Plaintiffs is
dismissed and denied in all other respects.

In re Premera Blue Cross, represented by Daniel R. Warren, Esq.
-- dwarren@bakerlaw.com -- James A. Sherer, Esq. --
jsherer@bakerlaw.com -- and -- Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. --
pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP -- Darin M.
Sands, Esq. -- sands@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL, PC

All Plaintiffs, et al. are represented by Chase C. Alvord, Esq.
-- calvord@tousley.com -- Christopher I. Brain, Esq. --
cbrain@tousley.com -- Jason T. Dennett, Esq. --
jdennett@tousley.com -- and -- Kim D. Stephens, Esq. -- TOUSLEY
BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC -- Keith S. Dubanevich, Esq. --
kdubanevich@stollberne.com -- and -- Steve D. Larson, Esq. --
slarson@stollberne.com -- STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER
P.C.


MDL 2690: Parties to Seek Change in Schedule
--------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation and the other parties of the
MaxxForce Engine EGR Warranty Litigation intend to file a joint
motion with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois to request adjustment of the class action briefing
schedule, according to the Company's March 7, 2017, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended January 31, 2017.

On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. filed a putative class
action lawsuit against Navistar International Corporation ("NIC"),
Navistar, Inc. ("NI"), Navistar Canada Inc., and Harbour
International Trucks in Canada in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia (the "N&C Action"). Subsequently, six additional, similar
putative class action lawsuits have been filed in Canada (together
with the N&C Action, the "Canadian Actions").

From June 13-17, 2016, the court conducted a certification hearing
in the N&C Action. On November 16, 2016, the court certified a
Canada-wide class comprised of persons who purchased heavy-duty
trucks equipped with Advanced EGR MaxxForce 11, MaxxForce 13, and
MaxxForce 15 engines designed to meet 2010 EPA regulations. The
court in the N&C Action denied certification to persons who
operated but did not buy the trucks in question. The Company has
until March 31, 2017, to appeal the class certification decision,
if it chooses to do so. There are no court dates scheduled in any
of the other Canadian Actions at this time.

On July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative class
action lawsuit against NI in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (the "Par 4 Action").
Subsequently, seventeen additional putative class action lawsuits
were filed in various United States district courts, including the
Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
the Southern District of Florida, the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, the Southern District of Texas, the Western District
of Kentucky, the District of Minnesota, the Northern District of
Alabama, and the District of New Jersey (together with the Par 4
Action, the "U.S. Actions"). Some of the U.S. Actions name both
NIC and NI, and allege matters substantially similar to the
Canadian Actions. More specifically, the Canadian Actions and the
U.S. Actions (collectively, the "EGR Class Actions") seek to
certify a class of persons or entities in Canada or the United
States who purchased and/or leased a ProStar or other Navistar
vehicle equipped with a model year 2008-2013 MaxxForce Advanced
EGR engine. In substance, the EGR Class Actions allege that the
MaxxForce Advanced EGR engines are defective and that the Company
and NI failed to disclose and correct the alleged defect. The EGR
Class Actions assert claims based on theories of contract, breach
of warranty, consumer fraud, unfair competition, misrepresentation
and negligence. The EGR Class Actions seek relief in the form of
monetary damages, punitive damages, declaratory relief, interest,
fees, and costs.

On October 3, 2014, NIC and NI filed a motion before the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL
Panel") seeking to transfer and consolidate before Judge Joan B.
Gottschall of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois all of the then-pending U.S. Actions, as well
as certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits
pending in various federal district courts.

On December 17, 2014, Navistar's motion to consolidate the U.S.
Actions and certain other non-class action lawsuits was granted.
The MDL Panel issued an order consolidating all of the U.S.
Actions that were pending on the date of Navistar's motion before
Judge Gottschall in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "MDL Action"). The MDL Panel
also consolidated into the MDL Action certain non-class action
MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in the various
federal district courts.

At the request of the various law firms representing the
plaintiffs in the MDL Action, on March 5, 2015, Judge Gottschall
entered an order in the MDL Action appointing interim lead counsel
and interim liaison counsel for the plaintiffs. On May 11, 2015,
lead counsel for the plaintiffs filed a First Master Consolidated
Class Action Complaint ("Consolidated Complaint"). The parties to
the MDL Action exchanged initial disclosures on May 29, 2015. The
Company answered the Consolidated Complaint on July 13, 2015. On
May 27, 2016, Judge Gottschall entered a Case Management Order
setting a July 13, 2017, date for plaintiffs' class certification
motion. On September 22, 2016, lead counsel for the plaintiffs
filed a First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the
"Amended Consolidated Complaint"). The Amended Consolidated
Complaint added twenty-five additional named plaintiffs. NI and
NIC answered the Amended Consolidated Complaint on October 20,
2016. After a status hearing on November 30, 2016, the court
entered an order referring discovery matters to a magistrate judge
for supervision.

Pursuant to the magistrate's order, the parties jointly filed a
new proposed case management order on January 25, 2017 which
extended the fact discovery deadline to November 22, 2017 and
extended the completion of the class certification briefing to
April 24, 2018.

On January 26, 2017, the magistrate noted that the parties must
first adjust the class action briefing schedule with Judge
Gottschall before the deadlines for completing fact discovery
relevant to class certification can be adjusted. The parties
intend to file a joint motion with Judge Gottschall to request
adjustment of the class action briefing schedule.

The Company said: "Based on our assessment of the facts underlying
the claims in the above actions, we are unable to provide
meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of these
claims may impact our future consolidated financial condition,
results of operations, or cash flows."

Navistar International Corporation is an international
manufacturer of International(R) brand commercial and military
trucks, proprietary brand diesel engines, and IC BusTM ("IC")
brand school and commercial buses, as well as a provider of
service parts for trucks and diesel engines.  The Company's core
business is conducted in the North American truck and parts
markets, where the Company principally participates in the U.S.
and Canada school bus and Class 6 through 8 medium and heavy truck
markets.  The Company also provides retail, wholesale, and lease
financing services for its trucks and parts.


MDL 2738: "Crenshaw" Suit vs. Johnson & Johnson Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Deborah Crenshaw; and Ozzie Brown;
and Lucille Burks; and Cheryl Fitch and Zachariah Fitch; and
Dorothy Smith; and Toiya Vinson; and Benjamin Brock, Individually
and as Putative Administrator of the Estate of Lois Brock,
deceased; And William Dukes, as Putative Administrator of the
Estate of Andriea Dukes, deceased; and Benjamin Edwards,
Individually and as Putative Administrator of the Estate of
Shirley Edwards, deceased; and Joseph Guthrie, Individually and as
Executor of the Estate of Jeannivee Guthrie, deceased; and
Joenathan Harris, Individually and as Putative Administrator of
the Estate of Brunette Harris, deceased; and Leonard Hymes,
Individually and as Putative Administrator of the Estate of Judith
Hymes, deceased; and Walter Lloyd, Individually and as Putative
Administrator of the Estate of Marcia Lloyd, deceased; and Ninda
Rosser, Individually and as Putative Administrator of the Estate
of Julie Haynes, deceased; and Allison Salter, Individually and as
putative Administrator of the Estate of Merrion Wilks, deceased;
and Johnny Williams, Individually and as Putative Administrator of
the Estate of Annie Williams, deceased; the Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON
& JOHNSON, JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER PRODUCTS
COMPANY, and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., F.K.A. LUZENAC AMERICA,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00030 (Feb. 10, 2017), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey (Trenton) on March 17, 2017. The New Jersey District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01820 to the proceeding. The lead
case is 3:16-md-02738-FLW-LHG.

All Plaintiffs in the action seek recovery for damages as a result
of developing ovarian cancer, which was directly and proximately
caused by the conduct of the Defendants, the unreasonably
dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, and the attendant
effects of developing ovarian cancer.

Johnson & Johnson is New Jersey-based multi-national manufacturers
of pharmaceutical, diagnostic, therapeutic, surgical, and
biotechnology products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas F. Cuffie, Esq.
          THE CUFFEE LAWFIRM
          Attorneys for Plaintiff
          3080 Campbellton Road Southwest
          Atlanta, GA 30311
          Telephone: (404 -344 4242


MEAD JOHNSON: Faces "Rubin" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Reckitt
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rubin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Mead Johnson Nutrition Company, Peter Kasper Jakobsen,
James M. Cornelius, Steven M. Altschuler, Howard B. Bernick,
Kimberly A. Casiano, Anna C. Catalano, Celeste A. Clark, Stephen
W. Golsby, Michael Grobstein, Peter G. Ratcliffe, Michael A.
Sherman, Elliott Sigal, and Robert S. Singer, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00325-UNA (D. Del., March 27, 2017), is brought on behalf of all
public stockholders of Mead Johnson Nutrition Company, to enjoin
the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Mead Johnson
will be acquired by Reckitt Benckiser Group plc, through its
wholly owned subsidiary Marigold Merger Sub, Inc. for
approximately $17.9 billion.

As stated in the complaint, Mead Johnson filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy") with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, which recommends that Mead Johnson
stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. However,
says the complaint, the Proxy omits or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (i) Mead Johnson
management's projections, including the projections utilized by
the Company's financial advisors, Goldman, Sachs & Co. ("Goldman
Sachs") and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("Morgan Stanley"), in their
financial analyses; (ii) the valuation analyses prepared by
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley in connection with the rendering
of their fairness opinions; and (iii) material information
concerning the background of the process leading up to the
Proposed Transaction.

The complaint says the failure to adequately disclose such
material information constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act
as Mead Johnson stockholders need such information in order to
cast a fully-informed vote in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will
unlawfully divest Mead Johnson's public stockholders of the
Company's valuable assets without fully disclosing all material
information concerning the Proposed Transaction to Company
stockholders. To remedy the Defendants' Exchange Act violations,
the Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote unless and
until such Exchange Act violations are cured.

Located at 225 North Canal Street, 25th Floor, Chicago, Illinois
60606, Mead Johnson Nutrition Company manufactures infant formula
and flavored milk for toddlers, also vitamins and supplements for
pregnant or breastfeeding women, babies and toddlers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
      E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
              mrogovin@weisslawllp.com
              kkeenan@weisslawllp.com


MEAD JOHNSON: Faces "Solak" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Reckitt
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Solak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mead Johnson Nutrition Company, Steven M. Altschuler,
Howard B. Bernick, Kimberly A. Casiano, Anna C. Catalano, Celeste
A. Clark, James M. Corn Elius, Stephen W. Golsby, Michael
Grobstein, Peter Kasper Jakobsen, Peter G. Ratcliffe, Michael
Sherman, Elliott Sigal, Robert S. Singer, Reckitt Benckiser Group
PLC, and Marigold Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00324-UNA (D.
Del., March 27, 2017), is brought on behalf of all public
stockholders of Mead Johnson Nutrition Company, to enjoin the vote
on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Mead Johnson will be
acquired by Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC, through its wholly owned
subsidiary Marigold Merger Sub, Inc. for approximately $17.9
billion.

As stated in the complaint, Mead Johnson filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy") with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, which recommends that Mead Johnson
stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. However,
the Proxy omits or misrepresents material information concerning,
among other things: (i) Mead Johnson management's projections,
including the projections utilized by the Company's
financial advisors, Goldman, Sachs & Co. ("Goldman Sachs") and
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("Morgan Stanley"), in their financial
analyses; (ii) the valuation analyses prepared by Goldman Sachs
and Morgan Stanley in connection with the rendering of their
fairness opinions; and (iii) material information concerning the
background of the process leading up to the Proposed Transaction.
The failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as Mead Johnson
stockholders need such information in order to cast a fully-
informed vote in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The
Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest
Mead Johnson's public stockholders of the Company's valuable
assets without fully disclosing all material information
concerning the Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders. To
remedy the Defendants' Exchange Act violations, the Plaintiff
seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote unless and until such
Exchange Act violations are cured.

Located at 225 North Canal Street, 25th Floor, Chicago, Illinois
60606, Mead Johnson Nutrition Company manufactures infant formula
and flavored milk for toddlers, also vitamins and supplements for
pregnant or breastfeeding women, babies and toddlers.

Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC is a producer of health, hygiene and
home products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
      Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
      E-mail: gmn@whafh.com
              kcooper@whafh.com

MEGA VISION: Faces "Lewis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Elbert Lewis, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Mega Vision of Brooklyn, Inc., Vision
Express LLC, Lenoid Vayner, and/or any other related entities,
Case No. 506044/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 27, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an optician from
approximately August 2010 until August 2016.

The Defendants are providers of optometry services and vision care
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550
      E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com


MENARD INC: Acuity Says It Has No Duty to Indemnify
---------------------------------------------------
ACUITY, a Wisconsin mutual insurance company, the Plaintiff, v.
MENARD, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, and MICHAEL FUCHS and
VLADISLAV KRASILNIKOV, individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated individuals, the Defendants, Case No. 2017-
CH-04264 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Mar. 24, 2017), seeks a declaration that
it does not owe a duty to defend or indemnify Menards under a
policy of insurance issued to John A. Biewer Co. Inc. (Biewer),
with respect to a class-action complaint filed by Fuchs and
Krasilnikov, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals.

Acuity does not owe a duty to defend or indemnify Menards for one
or more of the following reasons, pleading hypothetically and in
the alternative:

     a. The underlying complaint alleges the natural and ordinary
        consequences of deceptive trade practices, and therefore
        does not allege any "occurrence" or "accident."

     b. The underlying complaint does not allege "property
        damage."

     c. The underlying complaint does not allege "bodily injury."

     d. The underlying complaint does not allege "personal and
        advertising injury."

The class action complaint generally alleges that Menards
advertises its lumber products with "inaccurate and false product
dimensions that do not correspond to the actual dimensions of the
products being advertised.[BN]

Menards is a chain of home improvement centers primarily in the
Midwestern United States. The privately held company,
headquartered in Eau Claire, Wisconsin.

Acuity is represented by:

          Joseph P. Postel, Esq.
          Lauren E. Rafferty, Esq.
          LINDSAY, PICKETT, RAPPAPORT & POSTEL, LLC
          10 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1301
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 800 6008
          E-mail: jpostel@lrplawfirm.com
                  lrafferty@lrplawfirm.com


MICHAELS COMPANIES: Appeal From "Whalen" Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal from the dismissal of the lawsuit arising from a data
security incident and titled Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores,
Inc., remains pending, according to The Michaels Companies, Inc.'s
March 7, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 28, 2017.

Five putative class actions were filed against Michaels Stores,
Inc., relating to the January 2014 data breach. The plaintiffs
generally alleged that MSI failed to secure and safeguard
customers' private information including credit and debit card
information, and as such, breached an implied contract and
violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (and other states'
similar laws). The plaintiffs are seeking damages including
declaratory relief, actual damages, punitive damages, statutory
damages, attorneys' fees, litigation costs, remedial action, pre
and post judgment interest, and other relief as available. The
cases are as follows: Christina Moyer v. Michaels Stores, Inc.,
was filed on January 27, 2014; Michael and Jessica Gouwens v.
Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on January 29, 2014; Nancy Maize
and Jessica Gordon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on February
21, 2014; and Daniel Ripes v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on
March 14, 2014. These four cases were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. On
March 18, 2014, an additional putative class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Mary
Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., but was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff on April 11, 2014 without prejudice to
her right to re-file a complaint. On April 16, 2014, an order was
entered consolidating the Illinois actions. On July 14, 2014, the
Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was
granted.

On December 2, 2014, Whalen filed a new lawsuit against MSI
related to the data breach in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores,
Inc., seeking damages including declaratory relief, monetary
damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, injunctive relief, pre and post judgment interest, and
other relief as available. The Company filed a motion to dismiss
which was granted on December 28, 2015, and judgment was entered
in favor of the Company on January 8, 2016.

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on January 27, 2016, appealing
the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

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

The Company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. The Company
cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss, or range of loss,
related to the lawsuit, if any.

Michaels Stores, Inc., is headquartered in Irving, Texas, and was
incorporated in the state of Delaware in 1983.  In July 2013, MSI
was reorganized into a holding company structure and The Michaels
Companies, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware in connection with
the reorganization.  With $5,197.3 million in sales in fiscal
2016, the Company is the largest arts and crafts specialty
retailer in North America (based on store count) providing
materials, project ideas and education for creative activities.


MICHAELS COMPANIES: Continues to Defend Suit by Store Managers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
putative class action lawsuit brought on behalf of store managers
throughout the state of California, according to the Company's
March 7, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 28, 2017.

On September 15, 2011, Michaels Stores, Inc., was served with a
lawsuit filed in the California Superior Court in and for the
County of Orange ("Superior Court") by four former store managers
as a class action proceeding on behalf of themselves and certain
former and current store managers employed by MSI in California.
The lawsuit alleged that MSI improperly classified its store
managers as exempt employees and as such failed to pay all wages,
overtime and waiting time penalties and failed to provide accurate
wage statements. The lawsuit also alleged that the foregoing
conduct was in breach of various laws, including California's
unfair competition law. On December 3, 2013, the Superior Court
entered an order certifying a class of approximately 200 members.
MSI successfully removed the case to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California and on May 8, 2014, the class
was decertified. Three of the four named plaintiffs' claims were
resolved in September 2014, but the individual claims of 26 former
class members remain pending in the Central District of
California.

In addition, a separate representative action brought on behalf of
store managers throughout the state is pending in the California
Superior Court, County of San Diego.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
defend the lawsuits vigorously. The Company does not believe the
resolution of the lawsuits will have a material effect on its
consolidated financial statements.

Michaels Stores, Inc., is headquartered in Irving, Texas, and was
incorporated in the state of Delaware in 1983.  In July 2013, MSI
was reorganized into a holding company structure and The Michaels
Companies, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware in connection with
the reorganization.  With $5,197.3 million in sales in fiscal
2016, the Company is the largest arts and crafts specialty
retailer in North America (based on store count) providing
materials, project ideas and education for creative activities.


MICHAELS COMPANIES: Partial Dismissal of FCRA Suits Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the lawsuits alleging violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act appealed the ruling partially granting The
Michaels Companies, Inc.'s motion to dismiss, according to the
Company's March 7, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 28,
2017.

On December 11, 2014, Michaels Stores, Inc., was served with a
lawsuit, Christina Graham v. Michaels Stores, Inc., filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by a former
employee. The lawsuit is a purported class action, bringing
plaintiff's individual claims, as well as claims on behalf of a
putative class of applicants who applied for employment with
Michaels through an online application, and on whom a background
check for employment was procured. The lawsuit alleges that MSI
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the New Jersey
Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide the proper
disclosure and obtain the proper authorization to conduct
background checks. Since the initial filing, another named
plaintiff joined the lawsuit, which was amended in February 2015,
Christina Graham and Gary Anderson v. Michaels Stores, Inc., with
substantially similar allegations. The plaintiffs seek statutory
and punitive damages as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Following the filing of the Graham case in New Jersey, five
additional purported class action lawsuits with six plaintiffs
were filed, Michele Castro and Janice Bercut v. Michaels Stores,
Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Michelle Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the Superior
Court of California for Sonoma County, Raini Burnside v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri, Sue Gettings v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, and Barbara
Horton v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California. All of the plaintiffs alleged
violations of the FCRA. In addition, the Castro, Horton and Janice
Bercut lawsuits also alleged violations of California's unfair
competition law. The Burnside, Horton and Gettings lawsuits, as
well as the claims by Michele Castro, have been dismissed. The
Graham, Janice Bercut and Michelle Bercut lawsuits were
transferred for centralized pretrial proceedings to the District
of New Jersey.

On January 25, 2017, the Company's motion to dismiss was partially
granted.

On February 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal,
appealing a portion of the ruling.

The Company intends to defend the remaining lawsuits vigorously.
The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss,
or range of loss, related to the lawsuits, if any.

Michaels Stores, Inc., is headquartered in Irving, Texas, and was
incorporated in the state of Delaware in 1983.  In July 2013, MSI
was reorganized into a holding company structure and The Michaels
Companies, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware in connection with
the reorganization.  With $5,197.3 million in sales in fiscal
2016, the Company is the largest arts and crafts specialty
retailer in North America (based on store count) providing
materials, project ideas and education for creative activities.


MINNESOTA: Appeals Court Reverses Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Renee Worke of the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed
denial of motion to dismiss and remanded action in the case
captioned, Timothy Hall, Jr., et al., Respondents, v. State of
Minnesota, et al., Appellants, Case No. A16-0874 (Minn. App.).

On April 8, 2015, respondents filed a proposed class-action
complaint against appellants, claiming that Minnesota's Unclaimed
Property Act (MUPA), with its intended purpose of protecting
consumers by placing unclaimed property in the state's custody
pending return to the rightful owners, was being used by the state
to seize private property and use it for the state's benefit
without any meaningful effort to locate the rightful owners.
Respondents claimed that the state failed to provide adequate
notice of its takings, which violated the Due Process Clauses of
the United States and Minnesota Constitutions, and that the
state's refusal to return interest that accrued on the property
while in the state's custody violated the Takings Clauses of the
United States and Minnesota Constitutions. Respondents alleged in
the complaint that the state holds approximately $606,000,000 in
abandoned property that could be affected by a decision and that
the proposed class would "likely include at least tens of
thousands of members."

Appellants moved to dismiss pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02
(a), (e), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On December 10,
2015, the district court denied the motion to dismiss with respect
to the claims. The district court determined that respondents
sufficiently alleged a due-process claim, because they alleged
that notice is not reasonably certain to inform those affected.

On January 14, 2016, appellants moved the district court for an
order certifying three questions as important and doubtful for
appellate review pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03(i):

     -- whether MUPA created "an unconstitutional taking by
        not entitling owners to interest on abandoned property
        after it is delivered to the commissioner."

     -- whether delivery of property to the commissioner under
        MUPA violated owners' procedural due-process rights.

     -- whether the state was a proper party to the action.

In her Opinion dated January 23, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/cOLhMd from Leagle.com, Judge Worke reversed the
district court's denial of appellants' motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, holding
that MUPA does not create an unconstitutional taking and because
MUPA satisfies procedural due process.  The action is remanded for
further proceedings.

Timothy Hall, Jr., et al. are represented by Daniel C. Hedlund,
Esq. -- dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com -- Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
-- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- and -- Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
-- jbourne@gustafsongluek.com -- GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC -- J. Gordon
Rudd, Jr., Esq. -- gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com -- and -- David
Cialkowski, Esq. -- david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com -- ZIMMERMAN
REED, PLLP -- Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. --
g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com -- and -- Brant D. Penney, Esq. --
b.penney@rwblawfirm.com -- REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD

State of Minnesota, et al. are represented by:

      Lori Swanson, Esq.
      Sarah L. Krans, Esq.
      MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL
      445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400
      Saint Paul, MN 55101
      Tel: (651)296-3353


MINOR LEAGUE: Players Ask Judge to Reverse Ruling in OT Pay Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christoe Green reports that both sides in the long-running legal
battle over whether minor league baseball players should be paid
overtime are asking a federal appeals court for another swing of
the bat.

Attorneys from Major League Baseball and more than 2,000 minor
leaguers asked a California court to reconsider a decision that
resurrected a closely watched class-action lawsuit. In legal
documents filed by MLB in March, attorneys objected to a decision
by Judge Joseph Spero that reversed a 2016 ruling decertifying the
class under federal and state laws. He rejected plaintiffs'
efforts to resurrect similar claims made under the laws of Arizona
and Florida, where baseball holds its pre-season spring training.

In a separate filing, attorneys for the players asked the appeals
court to revisit Spero's view on the claims made under Arizona and
Florida laws.

"We are pleased the judge agreed that the case was appropriate for
collective treatment and certified the claims of players in the
California league," said Aaron Ziegler --
azigler@koreintillery.com -- a partner with law firm Korein
Tillery who is representing the players, in a statement. "We are
disappointed the judge thought he was prohibited from including
players' claims under Arizona and Florida state law."
The lead plaintiff for the players is former University of
Missouri outfielder Aaron Senne, who was drafted in 2010 by the
Miami Marlins, earning a USD25,000 signing bonus.  He retired in
2013 at the age of 25 because of injuries. Since then, Senne
earned his college degree and now works for Dish Network.

Minor league players and coaches are paid by MLB, which also
provides them with equipment.  They typically earn between
USD3,000 and USD7,500 for a five-month season, while MLB argues
they aren't entitled to overtime despite often having to practice
or play six or seven days a week. The league also says players are
in a "short-term seasonal apprenticeship."  [GN]


MOTORCARS INC: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Torres" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Torres, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Motorcars, Inc., d/b/a Road Bear RV, Tourism Holdings
USA, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC655446
(Cal. Super. Ct., March 27, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay on-exempt Mechanics' overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a recreational vehicle rental
agency with multiple locations in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
      Maria L. Weitz, Esq.
      Neil M, Larsen, Esq.
      Alexander Gamez, Esq.
      BOUCHER LLP
      21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367-4903
      Telephone: (818)340-5400
      Facsimile: (818)340-5401
      E-mail: ray@boucher.la
              weitz@boucher.la
              larsen@boucher.la
              gamez@boucher.la


MRS. BLOOM'S DIRECT: "Saavedra" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Luna Saavedra, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mrs. Bloom's Direct, Inc., Mrs.
Bloom's Mobile LLC, Oren Shapiro and Maybelly Gamineo, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-02180, (S.D. N.Y., March 26, 2017), seeks to
recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests and costs
for overtime work for which they are entitled to under the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mrs. Bloom's is a flower business composed of two shops and more
than 14 locations in Duane Reade stores owned or managed by Oren
Shapiro and Maybelly Gamineo. Said flower shops are located at 200
Broadway, New York, New York 10038 and at 75 Ninth Avenue, New
York, New York 10011, with its business office located at 175
Clearbrook Rd., Suite 153, Elmsford, New York 10523, with
concessionaire locations in Duane Reade stores all around
Manhattan.

Luna was employed as a flower cutter, flower arranger, water
changer, counter attendant and delivery worker, regularly working
in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid overtime wages.
When assigned to the Duane Reade stores, she was required to punch
out, thus such hours rendered were not compensated. Defendants
also did not provide accurate statement of wages, thus failed to
account her overtime hours.

Plaintiff is represented pro se.

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


NATIONAL AUTO: Faces Suit Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres at Florida Record reports a Michigan consumer
has filed a class-action lawsuit accusing a West Palm Beach
company of using an unlawful telemarketing campaign.

Richard Frost filed a complaint individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated on March 21 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida against National Auto
Protection Corp. alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that his phone
number is registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. The
suit states that the defendant contracted him in January to sell
an extended warranty for his vehicle without his consent. The
plaintiffs hold National Auto Protection Corp. responsible because
the defendant allegedly contacted plaintiff without prior express
consent and unlawfully utilized an automatic dialer and automated
voice.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendant, certify class action, designate class representative
and counsel, statutory damages, declaratory judgment, disgorge any
ill-gotten funds, attorneys' fees, costs, and further relief that
the court deems reasonable. He is represented by Stefan Coleman of
Law Offices of Stefan Coleman in Miami.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Case
number 9:17-cv-80367 [GN]


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Tolands Sue Over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAQUELIA WASHINGTON TOLAND and GEORGIA TOLAND, individually and on
behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, a Delaware limited company, VERIPRO
SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 20,
the Defendants, Case No. RC7854212 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 24,
2017), seeks to recover actual and other damages sustained by
Plaintiffs and the members of the Class as a result of Defendants'
violations of Civil Code.

On November 2,2006, the Plaintiffs bought a condominium located at
1318 B Street, Unit B208 in Hayward, California as their personal
residence. The gross amount due on account of the purchase was
$429,162.77. Countrywide Bank, N.A. provided a purchase money
first mortgage for $332,000.00, and a purchase money second
mortgage for $83,000.00. Plaintiffs deposited $5,305.63 in escrow
on account. The seller covered $8,500.00 in closing costs.

Plaintiffs moved into the condominium and occupied it as a
personal residence. Bank of America, N.A., thereafter became the
successor to Countrywide Bank, N.A. and to Countrywide's ownership
of the two mortgages. Bank of America thereafter transferred the
first mortgage to the Federal National Mortgage Association
(FNMA).

In May 2012, the FNMA conducted a non-judicial foreclosure sale of
Plaintiffs' home based on non-payment of the first mortgage. The
foreclosure sale extinguished both the first and second mortgage
liens against the property. However, the foreclosure sale did not
yield sufficient funds to pay off the second mortgage, leaving an
unsatisfied balance (a "deficiency") on the second mortgage loan.

After the foreclosure, Bank of America transferred the second
mortgage loan to NATIONSTAR. NATIONSTAR has attempted to collect
an unsecured deficiency balance it claims Plaintiffs still owe on
their second mortgage loan. These collection efforts include, but
are not limited to, Nationstar's affiliate, Veripro, seeking to
collect the claimed deficiency.

Nationstar Mortgage, doing business as Champion Mortgage Company,
provides mortgage services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arthur D. Levy, Esq.
          Noah Zinner, Esq.
          HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          P.O. Box 29435
          Oakland, CA 94604
          Telephone: (415) 702 4551

               - and -

          Bryan Kemnitzer, Esq.
          Kristin Kemnitzer, Esq.
          KEMNITZER, BARRON & KRIEG, LLP
          445 Bush Street, 6th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone (415) 632 1900


NBTY INC: Faces "Alvarez" Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NBTY, Inc. The case
is styled as Rosa Alvarez, On Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NBTY, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, and Nature's Bounty, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00567-BAS-BGS (S.D. Cal., Mar.
22, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant.

NBTY, formerly known as Nature's Bounty, Inc., is an American
manufacturer of vitamins and nutritional supplements which are
distributed under many third party brands in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patricia N Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 798 4593
          Facsimile: (602) 274 1100
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com


NIMBLE STORAGE: "Ettel" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
David Ettel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nimble Storage, Inc., Suresh Vasudevan,
Varun Mehta, Frank Calderoni, James J. Goetz, William Jenkins Jr.,
Jerry M. Kennelly, William J. Schroeder, Bob Kelly, Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company and Nebraska Merger Sub, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01599 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 2017),
seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition
of Nimble Storage, Inc. by Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, and
rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger.  The
suit further seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

      David E. Bower, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
      Culver City, CA 90230
      Tel: (213) 446-6652
      Email: dbower@monteverdelaw.com


NORTHEAST HOME: "Winston" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHARA WINSTON, 13905 Royal Blvd., Garfield Heights, Ohio 44125, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. NORTHEAST HOME HEALTH SERVICES LLC c/o Statutory
Agent Faisal Ali 20600 Chagrin Blvd. Ste 415 Shaker Heights, Ohio
44122, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00628-PAG (N.D. Ohio, Mar.
24, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

The case a "collective action" instituted by Plaintiff as a result
of Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its non-exempt
home health aides, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for
the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, in violation of the
FLSA, as well as a "class action" pursuant to remedy violations of
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Northeast Home is a trusted provider offering quality non-medical
care and support in the comfort of your own home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORTHSTAR LOTTERY: Faces 2nd Lawsuit Over Defrauding Players
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mahr and Mathhew Walberg reports that a second lawsuit has
been filed accusing the Illinois Lottery's private manager of
defrauding players after a Tribune investigation found the lottery
did not award many of the biggest prizes in its largest instant
ticket games.

The lawsuit was filed in Cook County Circuit Court by two people
who describe themselves as longtime scratch-off players, and --
like the first one filed last month in downstate St. Clair County
-- it seeks class-action status to cover all players who bought
tickets for the games.

The latest lawsuit also cited a December Tribune investigation
that examined the lottery's practices in the years after the state
turned over management to a private firm, Northstar Lottery Group.
The Tribune studied the 17 biggest-prize instant games that began
and ended in the five years since Northstar took over in mid-2011.

Reporters found that under Northstar, the number of tickets
printed for games dramatically increased, allowing the lottery to
offer bigger and better prizes. That helped entice players to buy
more instant tickets than ever. But as sales dropped in many
games, Northstar pushed to end those games' ticket sales before
all, or sometimes any, of the grand prizes were awarded.

Less than 60 percent of the grand prizes in those games were
awarded, a lower rate than in other states the Tribune examined
and lower than when Illinois ran the lottery on its own. The
Tribune also reported that because of the way games ended, the
lottery often paid a lower percentage of revenue than the games
were designed to pay.

Northstar has said the odds for players didn't change based on
when games ended. But, similar to the first lawsuit, the latest
one alleges the practice lowered players' odds and payout rates.
Two vendors, International Game Technology and Scientific Games,
own Northstar. Neither firm immediately responded to questions
about the lawsuit. Previously, they have said they acted only in
the best interest of players and Illinois by removing the games
that performed poorly and adding more popular ones.

The latest lawsuit was filed on behalf of players Dennis Atteberry
and Tamara Burton. Their attorney, Larry Drury, said he couldn't
speculate on whether both lawsuits would be merged.

"Each of the cases will proceed along their own way," he said.
"They have their case there, and we have our case here."

The lawsuit comes as a state House committee is expected to hold
hearings this spring on Northstar's management of the lottery in
light of the Tribune's investigation, lawmakers have told the
Tribune.

The first lawsuit has been moved to federal court at Northstar's
urging, and remains pending. [GN]


NUTRISYSTEM INC: Del. Court Says Removal Provision Not Valid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, HAROLD FRECHTER, Plaintiff, v. DAWN M.
ZIER, MICHAEL J. HAGAN, PAUL GUYARDO, MICHAEL D. MANGAN, ANDREW M.
WEISS, ROBERT F. BERNSTOCK, JAY HERRATTI, BRIAN P. TIERNEY, and
NUTRISYSTEM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 12038-VCG (Del. Ch.), Vice
Chancellor Sam Glasscock III of the Delaware Court of Chancery
denied Defendants' motion to dismiss, granted summary judgment on
Plaintiff's Count II of Complaint and withdrew Count I by
stipulation of Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is a shareholder of Defendant Nutrisystem, Inc. and
has owned his shares at all relevant times. Nutrisystem is a
Delaware corporation with its corporate headquarters in Fort
Washington, Pennsylvania. The Defendants consist of members of the
Nutrisystem Board of Directors (the Board) as well as Nutrisystem.
The Plaintiff purports to bring the class-action on behalf of all
public stockholders of the Company.

The Plaintiff filed his Verified Class Action Complaint on
February 24, 2016 (the Complaint) pleading two counts. In Count I,
the Plaintiff alleges a breach of fiduciary duty against the
Defendants. The Plaintiff contends that the directors breached the
duty of loyalty by enacting an unlawful bylaw to entrench
themselves in office. In Count II, the Plaintiff seeks a
declaratory judgment that the Removal Provision is in violation of
Delaware Code Title 8 Section 141(k).

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on May 27, 2016 and
the Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on Count II on
August 9, 2016. The Plaintiff represented at Oral Argument that,
should the Court find in his favor on Count II, he would not
pursue Count I.

In the Memorandum Opinion dated January 24, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/N1gt4W from Leagle.com, the Court rejected
defendants' argument and held that the Removal Provision was
inconsistent with Section 141(k) of the DGCL because Section
141(k) explicitly provides for a majority stockholder vote for the
removal of directors.  In so holding, the Court explained that
Section 141(k) is only permissive in the sense that stockholders
may choose to remove directors, but they are not required to do
so.  The Court stated:

    "Under the Removal Provision, however, a simple majority of
Nutrisystem stockholders may not exercise such power; the bylaw
is, unambiguously, inconsistent with the statute.  Defendants'
construction of Section 141(k), that a majority may -- but only if
the corporation's bylaws so permit -- remove directors, renders
the "majority" provision essentially meaningless, and leaves the
statutory provision an effective nullity.[6]"

Accordingly, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss and
granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Count
II of his complaint.  As stipulated, plaintiff withdrew Count I.

Judge Glasscock held that Plaintiff's Count II turns purely on the
interpretation of a section of the Delaware General Corporation
Law (DGCL) and Defendants' construction of Section 141(k) renders
the "majority" provision essentially meaningless, and leaves the
statutory provision an effective nullity.

Harold Frechter is represented by Jessica Zeldin, Esq. --
jzeldin@rmgglaw.com -- ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A. -- Carl
L. Stine, Esq. -- cstine@wolfpopper.com -- and -- Fei-Lu Qian,
Esq. -- fqian@wolfpopper.com -- WOLF POPPER LLP
Dawn M. Zier, et al. are represented by M. Duncan Grant, Esq. --
grantm@pepperlaw.com -- Jay A. Dubow, Esq. -- dubowj@pepperlaw.com
-- and -- Christopher B. Chuff, Esq. -- chuffc@pepperlaw.com --
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP

                           *     *     *

K&L Gates' Lisa R. Stark, Taylor B. Bartholomew wrote that, in
Frechter v. Zier, C.A. No. 12038-VCG (Del. Ch. Jan. 24, 2017), the
Delaware Court of Chancery held that a corporation's bylaw,
requiring a supermajority stockholder vote for the removal of
directors, was invalid.  According to the Court, the supermajority
bylaw was inconsistent with Section 141(k) of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "DGCL"), which
provides that, except with respect to corporations having a
staggered board or cumulative voting, any director may be removed
with or without cause by the holders of a majority of the
outstanding voting power of the corporation.  Unlike some other
provisions of the DGCL, Section 141(k) does not expressly provide
for a default rule that applies "unless otherwise provided in the
certificate of incorporation or bylaws."[1]  According to the
Court, the majority rule set forth in Section 141(k) could not be
altered by a bylaw provision.

According to the K&L Gates article, given Frechter, corporations
should review their bylaws to ensure that such bylaws do not
contain any voting requirement for the removal of directors that
would be inconsistent with the majority voting requirement as set
forth in Section 141(k) of the DGCL.  Any such provisions must be
contained in the certificate of incorporation to be valid.  This
is because Section 102(b)(4) of the DGCL permits a corporation to
place in its certificate of incorporation "[p]rovisions requiring
for any corporate action, the vote of a larger portion of the
stock or of any class or series thereof, or of any other
securities having voting power . . . than is required by this
chapter."[7]  As noted by the Court, the DGCL does not contain a
similar provision with respect to bylaws.[8]

This decision also has broader implications for any bylaw
provision requiring supermajority stockholder votes to take action
for which the DGCL provides a specific voting threshold.  Post-
Frechter, some examples of potentially problematic bylaw
provisions include bylaws providing for a supermajority
stockholder vote for the approval of mergers, significant asset
sales and dissolutions, all of which explicitly require a simple
majority vote of a corporation's stockholders under the DGCL.[9]
Corporations should consider moving any such supermajority voting
requirements from bylaws to the certificate of incorporation.

However, bylaw provisions imposing supermajority voting
requirements for the amendment of the bylaws by stockholders are
likely still valid following Frechter.  Specifically, Section
109(a) of the DGCL, while granting the inalienable right to
stockholders to amend the bylaws, does not specify a default
voting standard for such action.[10]  When read together with
Section 216 of the DGCL, which permits a corporation to specify in
its bylaws the required vote for corporate action "[s]ubject to
this chapter in respect of the vote that shall be required for a
specified action,"[11] Section 109(a) of the DGCL arguably permits
bylaw provisions requiring supermajority stockholder votes for the
amendment of the bylaws.[12]

Finally, as part of its analysis in Frechter, the Court addressed
the precedential value of bench rulings when it pointed to the
Court's recent bench ruling in In re VAALCO Energy, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation as supporting its decision.[13]  In a
footnote, the Court stated that by referring to the bench ruling,
the Court did "not mean to imply that bench decisions are part of
the case-law of this Court, or encourage citation thereto."[15]
The Court's remarks suggest that the precedential value of bench
rulings should be considered by practitioners to be limited.

A full-text copy of the K&L Gates article is available at
https://is.gd/pDdwXY


OCEAN POWER: No One Appeals Final OK of Securities Suit Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
The time to file an appeal from the final judgment of Ocean Power
Technologies, Inc.'s $3 million settlement of a consolidated
securities lawsuit has expired without any appeal being filed, the
Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 7, 2017, for the quarter period ended
January 31, 2017.

The Company and its former Chief Executive Officer Charles
Dunleavy were named as defendants in consolidated securities class
action lawsuits that were pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey captioned In Re: Ocean Power
Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 14-3799
(FLW) (LHG).

On May 5, 2016, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Class Settlement ("Stipulation") in which they agreed
to a settlement of the consolidated securities class action
lawsuits, subject to Court approval. The Stipulation provides,
among other things, for a settlement payment by or on behalf of
the Company of $3.0 million in cash, of which the Company would
pay $0.5 million and the Company's insurer would pay $2.5 million,
and the issuance by the Company of 380,000 shares (valued at $0.6
million on the date the Stipulation was signed by the parties) of
its Common Stock to the class members. In connection with the
settlement, the parties have agreed to execute mutually agreeable
releases. The amounts agreed in the Stipulation, including the
amount to be contributed by the Company's insurance carrier, were
reflected in the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements as of
April 30, 2016.

In July 2016, the Company paid the $0.5 million portion of the
settlement and the remaining balance of $2.5 million was paid by
the Company's insurer in August 2016. On November 14, 2016, the
Court held its previously scheduled Settlement Hearing to consider
whether to grant final approval of the settlement, and on November
15, 2016, the Court issued its Final Judgment approving the
settlement and dismissing the proceeding with prejudice. The
380,000 shares of common stock were issued on November 22, 2016.

The time to file an appeal from the Final Judgment has expired
without any appeal being filed.

Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., was incorporated in 1984 in New
Jersey, commenced business operations in 1994 and re-incorporated
in Delaware in 2007.  The Company is developing and
commercializing its proprietary systems that generate electricity
by harnessing the renewable energy of ocean waves. The Company
uses proprietary technologies that convert the mechanical energy
created by the heaving motion of ocean waves into electricity. The
Company has designed and continues to develop the PowerBuoy
product line, which is based on modular, ocean-going buoys, which
the Company has been periodically ocean testing since 1997.


OHIO: Judge Rejects Request to Dismiss Disability Case
------------------------------------------------------
NBC 4 reports that a federal judge has rejected requests by Ohio
Gov. John Kasich and several state officials to dismiss a lawsuit
that alleges the state has effectively segregated people with
intellectual and developmental disabilities in institutions by
failing to provide accessible community- or home-based services.

Judge Edmund Sargus Jr. said that sovereign immunity granted to
the Republican governor does not apply in the case and the lawsuit
can proceed. He said the state waives its immunity in such cases
by accepting federal funds.

Disability Rights Ohio filed the complaint on behalf of six people
the group says are, or are at risk of being, "needlessly
institutionalized" because of barriers to more integrated
residential, employment or day services.

The suit seeks class-action status for about 27,800 disabled
people in similar situations.

Sargus rejected all the agency directors' legal arguments for
dismissing the case. However, he rejected claims against Kasich
that involved the Americans with Disabilities and Social Security
acts, agreeing that both are federal laws that the governor has a
limited role in enforcing.

Dan Tierney, a spokesman for the attorney general's office, said
the state was disappointed with the judge's decision but was
prepared to move forward to the next stage of litigation.

The state estimates about 6,400 disabled Ohioans live in so-called
intermediate care facilities, which have eight beds or more.
Providers are responsible for all aspects of the person's care,
including medical needs, transportation and habilitation. The suit
alleges most have little to no contact with their nondisabled
peers.

"Their lives are highly regimented and controlled, with little
privacy, independence, or personal autonomy," the suit says.
The state contends the lawsuit is based on inaccurate information,
and says people who want to leave institutionalized settings now
have an opportunity to do so. [GN]


OPTIMUM EMPLOYER: Gloria Seeks Compensation for All Hours Worked
----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN GLORIA, on behalf of himself and others that are
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. OPTIMUM EMPLOYER SOLUTIONS
LLC and DOES 1-25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC653343
(Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 24, 2017), seeks compensation for all hours
worked; all penalties, liquidated damages, and other damages
permitted by law; restitution and disgorgement of all benefits
obtained by Defendants from their unlawful business practices;
injunctive and declaratory relief; punitive damages, all forms of
equitable relief permitted by law; and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs for violations of the California Labor Code, and the
California Business and Professions.

The Plaintiffs work at Defendants' facilities mainly consists of
providing massages to customers of Defendants. When Plaintiffs are
not providing massages, or other such services to customers of
Defendants, they perform various other tasks at Defendants'
facilities.

As Plaintiffs are engaged in "piece-rate" work for Defendants,
California law requires that Defendants compensate Plaintiffs for
rest and recovery periods, and other nonproductive time, separate
from any piece-rate compensation. However, Defendants do not
follow California law, and they do not compensate Plaintiffs for
rest and recovery periods, and other nonproductive time, separate
from the piece-rate compensation provided to Plaintiffs by
Defendants.

Optimum Employer Solutions is a human resources outsourcing
company that helps small to midsize businesses manage their
employer obligations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Burton, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 568 2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568 2556
          E-mail: mburton@audetlaw.com


PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Wins Final OK of KB Partners Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pain Therapeutics, Inc., said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the District Court
entered final approval of its settlement and administratively
closed the docket of the lawsuit entitled KB Partners I, L.P.,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Pain Therapeutics, Inc., Remi Barbier, Nadav Friedmann and Peter
S. Roddy, No. 11-cv-01034 (W.D. Tex.).

On December 2, 2011, a purported class action was filed against
the Company and its executive officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas alleging, among other things,
violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  At a preliminary settlement conference on September
1, 2016, the Court approved a Stipulated Settlement Agreement.

Following a hearing on December 16, 2016, the Court issued its
final approval for the Stipulated Settlement Agreement and
administratively closed the docket.

Pain Therapeutics, Inc. develops proprietary drugs that offer
significant improvements to patients and healthcare professionals.
The Company generally focuses its drug development efforts on
disorders of the nervous system, such as chronic pain.


PAPPAS COMPANY: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Sanchez and Eduardo Guevara, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated persons, known and unknown, the
Plaintiffs, v. Pappas Company, Ltd., and John Pappas, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02284 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 24, 2017),
seeks redress for Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), for
Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
employees overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek.

The Defendants' unlawful compensation practices have denied
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons their earned and
living wages.

Defendants operate a company called Pappas Company, Ltd., located
at 2100 Johns Ct., Glenview, IL 60025.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Raisa Alicea, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski, Ste. 200
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 800 1017
          E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Subsidiary Venmo
-------------------------------------------------
Cara Salvatore at Law360 reports that PayPal Holdings Inc.
shareholders hit the company and insiders with a derivative class
action on March 24 over claims that poor governance allowed
subsidiary Venmo to play fast and loose with consumer information
and practices.

Lead plaintiff and shareholder Steve Seeman says that beginning in
July 2015 and continuing to the present, executives and board
members have shirked their responsibility to the company and
likely wasted millions of dollars of its money by allowing Venmo
to get in hot water with the Federal Trade Commission and Texas'
consumer watchdog.

The board members "failed to disclose that: (1) Venmo was engaging
in trade practices that were unfair and/or deceptive; and (2) the
revelation to the public of Venmo's unfair and/or deceptive trade
practices while being under the guidance and control of PayPal was
likely to affect the success and prospects of Venmo and/or subject
PayPal to increased regulatory scrutiny. . . the company's public
statements referenced herein were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times," Seeman says in the shareholder derivative
action.

Seeman says the execs and directors shirked their oversight duties
and, when they communicated with the public, failed to mention the
Venmo trade practices issues, situations that allegedly
constituted "breaches of fiduciary duty . . . waste of corporate
assets, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement,
and violations of Section 14(A) of the Exchange Act."

PayPal did not immediately respond to a request for comment on its
own behalf and on the behalf of the individual defendants.

PayPal's acquisition of payment technology company Braintree in
2013 also brought it Venmo. At that time, PayPal was owned by
eBay. The next year, eBay spun off PayPal, now bundled with Venmo,
all according to the complaint.

The signal that not all was well came in April 2016 when a PayPal
quarterly filing revealed that the FTC was investigating Venmo's
practices, Seeman said. He believes that investigation is
continuing.

The state of Texas latched on to the issue, but didn't wait for
the FTC to wrap up its work, quickly reaching its own settlement
with Venmo in May 2016, Seeman sad. The state's specific
complaints were that Venmo didn't tell its users how it would
exploit their phone contacts or how it would publicize their
transactions, he said.

"As a result, consumers may have publicly exposed private
information regarding their payments," a Texas press release from
that period said, as quoted in March 24's complaint.

A two-month-long stock drop followed, during which PayPal's stock
price went from about USD40 to about USD34, the shareholders say.

And yet, in contrast, "Due to the [prior] artificial inflation of
the company's stock price caused by the foregoing
misrepresentations, certain individual defendants profited
handsomely from their engagement in insider sales of company
stock," the shareholders say, another alleged signal of poor
company stewardship.

The company has squandered millions of dollars by having to
respond to the FTC and the Texas attorney general and by wrongly
allowing the board members to cash out, the shareholders complain.

The individual defendants include PayPal CEO Daniel Schulman, CFO
John Rainey, former interim CFO Patrick Dupuis, director Wences
Casares, director Jonathan Christodoro, chairman of the board and
former eBay CEO John Donahoe, director David Dorman, and director
Gail McGovern.

Seeman is represented by Brian Farnan -- bfarnan@farnanlaw.com --
and Michael Farnan -- mfarnan@farnanlaw.com -- of Farnan LLP and
Timothy W. Brown of The Brown Law Firm PC.

Counsel information for PayPal and the individual defendants was
not immediately available.

The case is Seeman v. Schulman, et al., case number 1:17-cv-00318,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. [GN]


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Elliston" Suit in N.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates LLC. The case is captioned as Dan Elliston,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00804-M (N.D. Tex., Mar. 22, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn.

PRA is a publicly traded debt buyer based in Norfolk, Virginia.
PRA was listed in the Federal Trade Commission's Report on the
Debt Buying Industry as one of the largest debt buyers in the
US.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Walt D Roper, Esq.
          THE ROPER FIRM PC
          3001 Knox Street, Suite 405
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Telephone: (214) 420 4520
          Facsimile: (214) 856 8480
          E-mail: walt@roperfirm.com


PRECISION CASTPARTS: Faces Suit Over Toxic Air Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------
Huntington News reports that Precision Castparts, the parent of
Huntington's Special Metals, faces a Portland, Oregon suit by six
neighbors alleging toxic air emissions have harmed their health
and decreased property values.

Two complaints have been filed that allege releasing significant
amounts of arsenic, nickel, and chromium, and other toxic
materials and heavy metals into the air.

A member of the South Portland Air Quality coalition, which has
protested the company's pollution in recent months, applauded the
legal action. "Where government regulators have long ignored the
well-being of the community and have failed to keep Precision
Castparts accountable for air and water pollution, we hope the
class action lawsuit will keep the company accountable for its
industrial pollution," said Amy O'Connor in the Portland Tribune
dated July 14, 2016.

The complaint states (as quoted in the Portland Tribune):
"Prolonged exposure to the pollutants emitted from PCC is
potentially catastrophic to human health." It says people are
exposed to the pollution via skin contact and inhalation, with the
ingestion of contaminated soils and dust, and with the consumption
of produce grown within the plume of contamination.

"Because PCC's emissions not only contaminate the air, but also
contaminate the soil, grass, plants and homes throughout the
community, people living in this neighborhood continue to be
exposed to dangerous levels of hazardous pollutants on a daily
basis," the suit alleges. "Thus, even if PCC ceased its South
Portland Operations today, plaintiffs' and class members'
properties would remain contaminated," and would "continue to be
exposed to these contaminants." [GN]


PSYCHEMEDICS CORP: Faces Two Shareholder Class Suits in Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Psychemedics Corporation is facing two putative class action
lawsuits initiated by shareholders in Massachusetts, according to
the Company's March 7, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On February 02, 2017, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit,
styled Daly v. Psychemedics Corporation, et al., was filed against
the Company and certain executive officers in the federal district
court for the District of Massachusetts. Daly purports to bring
the action on behalf of the Company's shareholders, who purchased
the Company's stock between July 26, 2016 and January 31, 2017.

On February 3, 2017, a second putative shareholder class action
lawsuit, styled Baughman v. Psychemedics Corporation, et al. was
filed against the Company and certain executive officers in the
federal district court for the District of Massachusetts. Baughman
purports to bring the action on behalf of the Company's
shareholders, who purchased the Company's stock between February
28, 2014 and January 30, 2017.

Both complaints allege generally that the Company violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making allegedly false and/or misleading statements in connection
with the purported conduct of the Company's independent
distributor in Brazil. Each action seeks unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and it
intends to vigorously defend them. While the ultimate outcome of
individual legal claims is inherently unpredictable, the Company
believes that the final resolution of these actions will not have
a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial
position, liquidity or capital resources.

Psychemedics Corporation is a Delaware corporation organized in
1986 and headquartered in Acton, Massachusetts.  The Company
provides testing services for the detection of drugs of abuse
through the analysis of hair samples.  The Company's testing
methods utilize a patented technology that digests the hair and
releases drugs trapped in the hair without destroying the drugs.


REEDER CHEVROLET: "White" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------
DAVID M. WHITE; and XAVIER ALLMON, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, v. REEDER
CHEVROLET, INC.; QUINLAN MOTORS, INC.; and QUINLAN MOTORS, LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00107-PLR-CCS (E.D. Tenn., Mar.
24, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid compensation, and equal amount
of liquated damages, and/or prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees,
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA).

For at least three years preceding the filing of this action,
Reeder Chevrolet has allegedly maintained a corporate policy of
refusing to pay its lube technicians overtime compensation in
violation of the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated employees for whom Reeder Chevrolet has
willfully misclassified as exempt from overtime compensation
and/or failed to properly pay overtime wages.

Reeder Chevrolet is a privately held car dealer company in
Knoxville, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard E. Collins. Esq.
          COLLINS & DOOLAN, PLLC
          422 S. Gay St., Suite 301
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Telephone: (865) 247 0434
          E-mail: richard@collinsdoolan.com


REPUBLIC SCHOOLS: Judge Orders Class Action Status in TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Gonzales at Tennessean reports that a judge has granted
class action status in the suit against a Nashville charter school
accused of spamming parents with text messages.

U.S. District Court Judge Waverly Crenshaw ordered on March 21 the
class action status, allowing Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings to
represent those who received messages from charter operator
RePublic Schools Nashville to promote enrollment at their schools.
Parents were sent text messages by the charter in the 2015-16
school year.

The law firm estimates that there are approximately 8,000
individuals who will be represented. The lawsuit seeks to recover
USD500 per text, or USD1500 per person.

The class action status order says the lawsuit will represent "all
individuals who were sent and received a text to their cellular
telephones by RePublic Schools Nashville ... during the time
period August 17, 2015, through January 15, 2016, and whose
cellular phone number was obtained by (the charter) from the
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools database."

The suit contends that RePublic Schools Nashville violated the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act by allegedly sending
messages through a commercial auto-dialing service without the
consent of recipients. It claims parents received the first set of
mass text messages on phones on Nov. 16, 2015 and that three
additional installments were made through Jan. 12, 2016.
RePublic Schools Nashville, for its part, has said they are
confident they are in full compliance with the law. [GN]


ROAR CONSTRUCTION: Tiffany & Knutson Sue over Robocalls
-------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Tiffany and Erik Knutson, Individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Roar Construction,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00593-JM-BGS (S.D. Cal.,
Mar. 24, 2017), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from
the illegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently, knowingly,
and/or willfully contacting Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs' cellular
telephones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), thereby invading Plaintiffs' privacy.

The Plaintiffs are individual citizens and residents of the County
of San Diego, in the State of California. Plaintiffs are both real
estate agents in the area of San Diego, CA, and real estate was
the subject of Defendant's automated marketing call.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          Kevin Lemieux, Esq.
          HYDE AND SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233 7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
                  kevin@westcoastlitigation.com


S. DONADIC INC: "Munoz" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN MUNOZ, Individually and on BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SUMMONS
COLLECTIVE PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. S.
DONADIC, INC., S. DONADIC CONTRACTING INC., S. DONADIC WOODWORKING
INC., and STEVE DONADIC, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants,
Case No. 704029/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Mar. 24, 2017), seeks to
recover statutory minimum wage, overtime pay, liquidated damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA)and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

During the of employment of Plaintiff by Defendants, The Plaintiff
worked well in excess of 40 hours per week, over 10 hours per day,
6 days a week, including holidays. Plaintiff and, upon information
and belief, the Collective Plaintiffs were not paid any overtime
premiums for work in excess of 40 hours per week or spread of
hours of pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment period, Defendant
did not provide him with any method to track his time worked
accurately. Plaintiff was not compensated at the statutory minimum
wage for much of his employment or provided overtime premiums for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff
frequently worked in excess of 10 hours per day, yet Defendants
failed to pay the spread of hour premiums. From the beginning of
his employment period, Plaintiffs wages were not accurately
reflected in paystub, wage statement or any form of record showing
his hours worked, rates of pay, or any other payment information.

The Defendant is a construction management firm specializing in
NYC's high end residences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sang J. Sim, Esq.
          PARK & SIM GLOBAL LAW GROUP LLP
          39-01 Main Street, Suite 608
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 445 1300


SAN JUAN COUNTY, NM: Judge Grants Prelim Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Kellog at Albuquerque Journal reports that a federal judge
has granted preliminary approval for a settlement of a class-
action lawsuit regarding the alleged illegal detention of
immigrants at the San Juan County Adult Detention Center.

The proposed settlement could cost the county as much as
USD724,000 and require it to implement new policies regarding
inmates and their immigration status or national origin. Under the
settlement, all claims made by the plaintiffs against the
detention center would be released.

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 19, 2014, by Somos Un Pueblo Unido,
a Santa Fe-based immigration rights group, on behalf of dozens of
plaintiffs who believed their civil rights were violated after
they were held at the jail on U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, or ICE, immigration detainers.

John C. Bienvenu, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, said
the proposed settlement is an important step for setting a
precedent in regard to how county jails should respect immigration
detainers only when accompanied by a judge's order or warrant. He
said if jail officials comply with immigration detainers without
judicial orders, they are exposing themselves to violations of the
U.S. Constitution.

Somos Un Pueblo Unido Executive Director Marcela Diaz said in a
press release that the group is pleased the county is willing to
settle and institute policies to protect the civil rights of every
resident.

Plaintiff Susana Palacios-Valencia, who was one of the original
plaintiffs identified in the lawsuit, is scheduled to received
USD25,000, and Somos Un Pueblo Unido could receive USD15,000 if
the settlement is approved. Palacios-Valencia claimed in the
lawsuit she had been held more than a week on an immigration
detainer in April 2012.

Also in the proposed settlement, 192 individuals detained at the
jail on an ICE immigration detainer in the three years before the
lawsuit was filed can submit a claim to receive USD2,000 each.
And Travelers Insurance, the county's insurer, also will pay
USD300,000 for the plaintiffs' attorneys fees and expenses as part
of the settlement.

Federal law states jails can maintain custody of individuals up to
48 hours before transferring them into ICE custody or releasing
them.

The lawsuit states the alleged incidents took place after a policy
adopted by the San Juan County Board of Commissioners on July 1,
2014, prohibited the detention center from honoring detainment
requests unless the individual is charged under federal statues or
booked on state or local charges, according to Daily Times
archives.

The stipulation of agreement in the case states that the policies
"were developed as a result of plaintiffs' and plaintiffs'
counsel's efforts preceding and during this lawsuit."

As part of the proposed settlement, an immigration detainer must
be accompanied by a warrant or order signed by a judge in order
for an immigrant to be detained or delivered into ICE custody.

County Chief Operations Officer Mike Stark said that part of the
proposed settlement is the same as the 2014 policy, which is
current.

Representatives of the San Juan County Sheriff's Office and the
Farmington Police Department both said the proposed settlement
will not affect their departments' policies.

Bienvenu said portions of the proposed settlement will introduce
additional safeguards for inmates at the jail.

For instance, jail employees will not ask about an individual's
immigration status or national origin and such information will be
treated as confidential, according to Bienvenu. And a notice will
be posted in the booking area of the adult detention center
notifying inmates they are not obligated to speak to or meet with
ICE officials.

P. Scott Eaton, one of the attorneys for the county in the case,
said recent federal court cases determined that detainers are not
mandatory orders from the federal government, and local law
enforcement officials don't have an obligation to enforce them.
For this lawsuit, Eaton said the county simply honored a written
request by government officials to hold Palacios-Valencia,
believing in good faith that it was appropriate and lawful. He
added the county never intended to do anything in violation of the
law.

A hearing is scheduled for possible approval of the proposed
settlement on Aug. 10 in an Albuquerque federal court.

Joshua Kellogg covers crime, courts and social issues for The
Daily Times. He can be reached at 505-564-4627. [GN]


SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Suit over Defective Hard Drives Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, IN RE SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC LITIGATION.
CONSOLIDATED ACTION, Case No. 16-cv-00523-JCS (N.D. Cal.).,
Seagate on March 24 filed its Answer to the Plaintiffs' Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint.

In February, Senior District Judge James G. Carr of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
granted in part Seagate's motion to dismiss the case.

Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Seagate,
alleging that Seagate misrepresented certain hard drives and
delivered defective drives to consumers. According to Plaintiffs,
Seagate has continuously and falsely marketed these model number
ST3000DM001 "Barracuda" hard drives as "reliable, dependable, and
suitable for use in Network Attached Storage (NAS) and Redundant
Array of Independent Disks (RAID) configurations." Plaintiffs
allege that the Barracuda drives had a "latent, model-wide defect"
that caused them to fail at annual rate "as high as 47.2%" and
that the drives "are not designed for certain types of home RAID
configurations."

The nine named plaintiffs are citizens of nine different states,
each of whom purchased at least one Seagate Barracuda hard drive
from an authorized retailer." Each named plaintiff also alleges
that at least one of his Barracuda drives failed under warranty.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of individuals who
purchased at least one Seagate model ST3000DM001 or, in the
alternative, nine statewide subclasses of purchasers.

Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of express and implied
warranty (Claims 4 through 7), violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and the consumer protection statutes of the eight
other states of the named plaintiffs' citizenship (Claims 1
through 3 and 8 through 15), and unjust enrichment (Claim 16).

Seagate moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Seagate
argues that Plaintiffs' warranty claims are also subject to Rule
9(b) because Plaintiffs allege "a unified course of fraudulent
conduct." Seagate contends that Plaintiffs' allegations do not
show any violation of its express warranty, because Plaintiffs
acknowledge that Seagate provided replacement drives as required
by the terms of its warranty.

In his Order dated February 9, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/p8Haf7 from Leagle.com, Judge Carr granted Seagate's
motion to dismiss as to (1) Plaintiffs' express warranty claims
(including to the extent such claims are based on the essential
purpose doctrine or the Song-Beverly Act); (2) Plaintiffs' implied
warranty claims under the California Commercial Code; (3)
Plaintiffs' affirmative misrepresentation claims based on
Seagate's statements about the drives' read error rate, NAS
capabilities, AcuTrac technology, and general reliability and
performance; (4) Plaintiffs' omissions claims based on NAS
capabilities and read error rates; (5) all CLRA claims by
Plaintiff John Smith; and (6) Plaintiffs' claims under the
"unlawful" and "unfair" prongs of the UCL to the extent that they
depend on theories dismissed in the context of other claims.
Seagate's motion is denied as to Plaintiffs' remaining claims.

Christopher A. Nelson, et al. are represented by Ashley A. Bede,
Esq. -- ashleyb@hbsslaw.com -- Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. --
sscarlett@hbsslaw.com -- Steve W. Berman, Esq. --
sberman@hbsslaw.com -- and -- Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. --
jfriedman@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP -- Bryan
L. Clobes, Esq. -- bclobes@caffertclobes.com -- and -- Nyran Rose
Rasche, Esq. -- nrashce@caffertyclobes.com -- CAFFERTY CLOBES
MERIWETHER SPRENGEL LLP

            -- and --

      Marc Adam Goldich, Esq.
      Noah Axler, Esq. Esq.
      AXLER GOLDICH LLC
      1520 Locust Street, Suite 301
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Tel: (267)534-7400

Seagate Technology LLC is represented by Anna S. McLean, Esq. --
amclean@sheppardmullin.com -- David Edward Snyder, Esq. --
dsnyder@sheppardmullin.com -- Lien Hoang Payne, Esq. --
lpayne@sheppardmullin.com -- Mukund Hari Sharma, Esq. --
msharma@sheppardmullin.com -- Neil A. Friedman Popovic, Esq. --
npopovic@sheppardmullin.com -- and -- Tenaya M. Rodewald, Esq. --
trodewald@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON
LLP


SETERUS INC: Discovery in "Blake" Suit Due Feb. 2018
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, GEOFFREY BLAKE, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SETERUS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-21225-CIV-JLK (S.D. Fla.), Senior Judge
James Lawrence King on March 16, 2017, signed off on a Scheduling
Order setting this timeline:

     Final Pretrial Conference set for May 4, 2018 10:00 a.m.
     in Miami Division;

     Jury Trial set for July 9, 2018 9:00 a.m. in Miami Division;

     Calendar Call set for July 9, 2018, 10:00 a.m. in Miami
     Division;

     All hearings will be held in Courtroom II, Eleventh Floor;

     Discovery due by February 28, 2018;

     Motions due by March 5, 2018; and

     Pretrial Stipulation due by April 27, 2018.

The court held that the parties' Joint Motion to Enter Scheduling
Order is terminated.

On March 15, 2017, Seterus filed its Answer and Affirmative
Defenses to Blake's Amended Class Action Complaint.

The putative class action arises from a dispute between a
Plaintiff mortgagor and his Defendant loan servicer. The
Plaintiff, Geoffrey Blake, executed a promissory note and mortgage
for $333,750 in August 2007. Plaintiff alleges that he defaulted
on his loan in October 2010, and foreclosure proceedings were
initiated on June 28, 2012. In June 2014, Plaintiff, through his
foreclosure attorney, wrote a letter to Defendant inquiring as to
the amount of money required to reinstate his loan. On June 30,
Defendant wrote Plaintiff a response letter stating that the
reinstatement loan amount was $92, 938.74 if received by June 30,
2014, or $94,895.49 if received by July 18, 2014.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was not authorized to include
estimated fees and costs in the reinstatement amount. Accordingly,
on March 7, 2016, Plaintiff sent a cure letter to Defendant. When
Defendant failed to remove the estimated charges, Plaintiff filed
the instant lawsuit. As to damages, Plaintiff alleges that had
Defendant not included estimated fees in the loan reinstatement
charges, Plaintiff could have and would have initially paid the
full reinstatement amount. Plaintiff additionally seeks damages
for the costs and fees he has incurred as a result of litigation,
the interest incurred on his loan, the $106,277 increase of his
principal balance on the loan, and the emotional distress he has
suffered.

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that by tacking estimated
fees onto the reinstatement amount, Defendant knowingly violated
the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUPTA), and the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA).

Defendant moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, asserting that
1) Plaintiff failed to plead that Defendant had the requisite
actual knowledge of its FCCPA violation, 2) the state claims are
barred by Florida's litigation privilege, and 3) reinstatement
letters are not protected by RESPA, or alternatively, the
reinstatement letters satisfied RESPA's requirements.

In his Order dated February 9, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/9E9KEm from Leagle.com, Judge King granted dismissal
as to Count I of the complaint because the alleged wrongful act
did not occur in the course of trade or commerce and denied as to
the FCCPA and RESPA claims finding that consideration of the
litigation privilege is premature.

Geoffrey Blake is represented by Darren R. Newhart, Esq. --
darren@cloorg.com -- and -- Jack Dennis Card, Jr., Esq. --
dennis@cloorg.com -- CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A. -- James
Lawrence Kauffman, Esq. -- jkauffman@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY &
GLASSER, LLP

Seterus, Inc. is represented by Allen Paige Pegg, Esq. --
allen.pegg@hoganlovells.com -- and -- Jason David Sternberg, Esq.
-- jason.sternberg@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP


SFILATINO LLC: "Morgan" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IGNATIOS MORGAN, on his own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SFILATINO LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, and ANGELO QUAGLINI, an individual, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21124-JAL (S.D. Fla., Mar. 24, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime
wage compensation, liquidated damages, and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA).

Defendants failed to give Plaintiff and those similarly situated
proper notice of the tip credit provisions. As a result of the
illegal tip-sharing scheme, Defendants did not satisfy the
requirements of 29 U.S.C. 203(m) during the Relevant Time Period
and thus cannot apply Class Members' tips towards satisfaction of
Defendants' minimum wage obligation, and must therefore pay
Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, the full applicable
minimum and overtime wage for all hours worked. In addition to the
illegal tip-sharing scheme, Defendants "shaved" hours from
Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, and did not pay all
compensable hours worked, both minimum wage and overtime wage.

As a result of Defendants having shaved compensable hours,
Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, are entitled to the full
minimum wage for each regular hour worked and not paid, and the
full overtime wage of one and one-half times regular pay for each
overtime hour worked and not paid.

Defendants operate a restaurant named Pane & Vino, in Miami-Dade
County, located at 1450 Washington Avenue, Miami Beach,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
          17 East Flagler St. Suite 223
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358 6800
          Facsimile: (305) 358 6808
          E-mail: Robert@kuvinlaw.com


SILVER CARE: Faces "Matson" Suit in District of New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SILVER CARE
OPERATIONS, LLC. The case is captioned as LISA MATSON, on behalf
of herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SCO,
SILVER CARE OPERATIONS, LLC doing business as ALARIS HEALTH AT
CHERRY HILL; SOUTH CENTER STREET NURSING LLC, doing business as:
ALARIS HEALTH AT ST. MARY'S; and AVERY EISENREICH, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01916 (D.N.J., Mar. 23, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: "Rubio" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Samuel Rubio, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated employees, and on behalf of
the general public, the Plaintiff, v. Sprint/United Management
Company and Sprint Communications Company, L.P., the Defendant,
Case No. BC643194, was removed from the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on March
22, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02231
to the proceeding.

Sprint/United Management Company, Inc. is based in Overland Park,
Kansas. It operates as a subsidiary of Sprint Nextel Corp.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SR PALMDALE: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Mattison" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Holland Mattison, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals v. SR Palmdale FD, Inc., d/b/a Famous Dave's
Barbecue; SR Long Beach FD, Inc., d/b/a Famous Dave's Barbecue; SR
Simi Valley FD, Inc., d/b/a Famous Dave's Barbecue; SR Tracy FD,
Inc., d/b/a Famous Dave's Barbecue; SR Vista FD, Inc., d/b/a
Famous Dave's Barbecue; SR Restaurant Holdings Group, Inc., d/b/a
Famous Dave's Barbecue; Kurt Schnieter, and Does 1-70, Inclusive,
Case No. BC655463 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 27, 2017), is an action
for damages for unpaid overtime and regular wages, unpaid meal and
rest break premiums, an unlawful tipping policy, conversion,
waiting time penalties, failure to pay wages within the
appropriate time, failure to provide accurate itemized statements,
failure to provide paid sick days under the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate Famous Dave's Barbecue restaurant
in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kyle Todd, Esq.
      Zachary Ritter, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KYLE TODD
      611 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
      Los Angeles, CA 90017-2906
      Telephone: (323) 208-9171
      Facsimile: (323) 693-0822
      E-mail: kyle@kyletodd.com
              zachary@kyletodd.com


STATE STREET: "Leal" Hits Trust Fund Mismanagement
--------------------------------------------------
German Leal and Esperanza Pena on behalf of themselves and the
Baxter International Inc. and Subsidiaries Incentive Investment
Plan, and all other similarly situated plan participants and
beneficiaries, Plaintiffs, v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., State
Street Global Advisors, and State Street Global Markets, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10512 (D. Mass., March 25, 2017)
seeks imposition of a constructive trust on any amounts by which
any Defendants were unjustly enriched at the expense of
Plaintiffs.  The suit also seeks costs, attorney's fees,
surcharge, equitable restitution and other appropriate equitable
and injunctive relief for breaches of fiduciary duties under the
provisions of the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act of
1974.

Leal and Pena are participants and beneficiaries in the Baxter
International Inc. and Subsidiaries Incentive Investment Plan.

The complaint says Defendants systematically overcharged plan
participants and beneficiaries for expenses from so-called SWIFT
messaging services. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial
Telecommunication or SWIFT messages are secure electronic messages
used to effectuate securities trades and related financial
transactions, including payments in excess of the actual cost of
providing those services.

State Street Bank and Trust Company serves as the Trustee for the
Baxter International Inc. & Subsidiaries Incentive Investment
Plan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq.
      184 High Street
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (617) 357-9700
      Email: jonathan@erisattorneys.com

             - and -

      Todd Schneider, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
      Emeryville, CA 94608
      Tel: (415) 421-7100
      Fax: (415) 421-7105
      Email: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com

             - and -

      Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      8501 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
      Scottsdale, AZ 85253
      Tel: (480) 428-0145
      Fax: (866) 505-8036
      Email: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com

             - and -

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      T. David Copley, Esq.
      Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Phone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
             dcopley@kellerrohrback.com
             lgerber@kellerrohrback.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (510) 463-3900
      Fax: (510) 463-3901
      Email: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com


STATE STREET: Judge to Allow Objections to Legal Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
Brian Amaral at Law360 reports that a federal judge in
Massachusetts said on March 24 that he would like to let class
members in a USD300 million settlement with State Street Corp.
over its foreign exchange practices object to the allegedly
overstated legal fees in the case, once the special master is
finished with his probe.

Senior U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf said in March 24's order that
his thinking had evolved about the complicated issues in the
controversial case after hearing from Labaton Sucharow LLP and the
Center for Class Action Fairness.

Judge Wolf proposes allowing class members to object to the USD75
million in fees, which Labaton has acknowledged were overstated,
after a special master is finished with his investigation,
according to the order. He originally said he would give them 45
days from being notified of the issues, and now wants to notify
the class members of ones that have come up since signing off on
the settlement in November. At the time, there were no objections.

Retired federal judge Gerald Rosen will be paid as much as USD2
million from Labaton and two other firms' legal fees to probe the
irregularities in the firms' fees request.

Judge Wolf said at a hearing earlier this month that the lawyers
in the case had led him to believe that their calculation of
attorneys' fees was based on what the firms regularly billed
clients for work. Labaton and the Thornton Law Firm told him at
the hearing they never billed clients for their time, but instead
only worked on contingency.

"I think there are probably many other judges that made the same
mistake -- have understood the representations made the way I
have, for many years," Judge Wolf said at the time.

The USD300 million settlement put to rest foreign exchange
investors' allegations that State Street regularly charged hidden
markups on indirect foreign exchange transactions.

Lawyers for the investors were paid out via the lodestar
method. The lodestar method is calculated by taking the amount
that would have been charged to paying clients and multiplying it
-- a difficult task when, in the case of Labaton and Thornton,
they don't have paying clients at all, but instead take home a
slice of a successful settlement or go home empty-handed.

In calculating the lodestar for this case, several lawyers were
double-counted as having worked for Thornton and Labaton,
amplifying the amount that they would have earned by some 9,000
hours.

In addition, some attorneys told the Boston Globe that they were
paid as little as USD25 per hour, even though their regular rate
was cited in the lodestar method as more than USD400.

The upcoming report and recommendation by the retired judge is
just one problem for Thornton, which the Globe has also reported
is being investigated for alleged political straw donations. The
paper has also reported on a series of donations that Labaton and
Thornton lawyers have made to the political leaders of pension
funds that later hired the firms to file lawsuits.

The Center for Class Action Fairness and its attorney, Ted Frank,
have asked to be allowed to follow along in the case as an amicus
or a guardian for the interests of the class. As of March 24,
Judge Wolf hadn't yet ruled on that aspect.

Labaton Sucharow is represented by Joan Lukey --
joan.lukey@choate.com -- of Choate Hall & Stewart LLP.

Thornton Law Firm is represented by Brian Kelly  --
bkelly@nixonpeabody.com -- of Nixon Peabody LLP.

The case is Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. State Street
Bank & Trust Co., case number 1:11-cv-10230, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. [GN]


STEVENS VAN LINES: Trial in "Britts" Suit Continued to August
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, STANFORD BRITTS, Plaintiff, v. STEVENS VAN
LINES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:15 CV 1267 (N.D. Ohio), Judge
Donald C. Nugent issued on March 30, 2017, a Marginal Entry Order
granting plaintiff's Motion for continuance of March 24, 2017
trial.  The Trial is resent for August 14, 2017, at 8:30 a.m.

Mr. Britts filed the Motion to continue Trial on March 23.
Defendant filed its response on March 28.

In January 2017, Judge Nugent granted a motion to vacate an
Opinion denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I
and granted dismissal of Counterclaim Counts II and IV in the
case.

Mr. Britts filed a putative Class Action Complaint against Stevens
Van Lines on June 24, 2015.  Mr. Britts is an Ohio resident who on
April 20, 2005, entered into an "Independent Contractor's
Agreement" (the Lease) with Stevens indicating that Mr. Britts was
the owner of a 2000 Volvo and that he granted the use of the
vehicle to Stevens. The Agreement provides that Michigan law
governs the contract.

On November 22, 2013, Mr. Britts was involved in a motor vehicle
accident while operating under the Lease. Mr. Britts alleges that
his vehicle sustained major damage and that he lost several
thousand dollars in other property. Mr. Britts further alleges
that when he pursued an insurance claim, Stevens did not produce a
copy of the requested insurance policy, and offered Mr. Britts a
settlement that did not cover his alleged damages.

In his Class Action Complaint, Mr. Britts alleged three causes of
action: (1) violation of (Truth in Leasing (TIL) regulations,
brought under 49 U.S.C. Section 14704(a); (2) breach of contract
or unjust enrichment; and (3) fraud or negligent
misrepresentation. On December 18, 2015, Stevens filed a
Counterclaim against Mr. Britts alleging that Mr. Britts, directly
and through Counsel, improperly and purposefully interfered with
current and prospective business relationships and damaged its
business and reputation.

As it relates to the putative Class Action Complaint, Stevens'
filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on August 4, 2016,
arguing that Mr. Britts' breach of contract and fraud claims fail
because Stevens did in fact procure insurance coverage for its
owner-operators. Stevens also argues that Mr. Britts' claims in
Count II and III do not sufficiently set forth causes of action,
and Mr. Britts is merely trying to "incorporate by reference" the
claims presented in Count I. Stevens filed its Motion for Summary
Judgment on Count I on November 1, 2016. In summary, Stevens
argues that Mr. Britts "cannot establish detrimental reliance or
actual damages for a technical violation of the TIL regulations
when the charge-backs were disclosed on settlement statements."
Stevens also argues that Mr. Britts has expressly and/or impliedly
waived his right to damages relating to the charge-backs.

Mr. Britts filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Stevens'
Counterclaim on November 1, 2016, arguing that Mr. Britts cannot
be held liable for the alleged libel and other torts allegedly
committed by his attorneys. Stevens filed its Opposition Brief on
December 1, 2016, arguing that whether Plaintiff can be held
vicariously liable, and whether his attorney's statements violated
the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ODTPA), or were
defamatory, is a question of fact for the jury.

In his Memorandum and Opinion dated January 27, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/S6RnGP from Leagle.com, Judge Nugent held that
Stevens is not entitled to summary judgment as to Count I based
upon the contractual waiver argument because public policy weighs
strongly in favor or preventing contractual limitations on the
ability of plaintiffs to bring suit to protect rights otherwise
guaranteed by the TIL Regulations. Stevens' motion for summary
judgment as to Counts II and III is granted because he is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law as it relates to the unjust
enrichment claim and Mr. Britts cannot demonstrate that Stevens
made false statements or representations to the owner-operators by
collecting charge-backs for insurance it knew or should have known
it wasn't procuring. The Court granted Mr. Britts' motion for
Summary judgment on Counterclaims II and IV because there is no
evidence that could support a finding that Mr. Britts is
vicariously liable for the LGM communications Stevens has
challenged.

The Court's January order set the trial for April 24, 2017 at 8:30
a.m.

Stanford Britts is represented by:

      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      Thomas C. Merriman, Esq.
      David L. Marburger, Esq.
      Edward S. Jerse, Esq.
      Drew T. Legando, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN
      1360 W 9th St #200,
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (216)522-9000

Stevens Van Lines, Inc., et al. are represented by David M.
Krueger, Esq. -- dkrueger@beneschlaw.com -- Eric Larson Zalud,
Esq. -- ezalud@beneschlaw.com -- and -- Richard A. Plewacki, Esq.
-- rplewacki@beneschlaw.com -- BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN &
ARONOFF


SUNRUN INC: Hoffman et al. Appeal Dismissal Order to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, CAROLE LEE GREENBERG, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNRUN
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-2480-CRB (N.D. Cal.),
Murray Hoffman, Ali B. Zanjani, Gregory and Lillian Lennox Family
Trust, Teresa Nicastro, who are parties-in-interest in the case,
have taken an appeal from the Court's granting a motion to
dismiss, with prejudice.

Hoffman et al. filed a notice of appeal on March 10, 2017, to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff Carole Greenberg brought a class action against
Defendant Sunrun, Inc. (Sunrun), its officers, directors, and
underwriters on May 6, 2016 under sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 after she and other investors took
heavy losses on Sunrun stock.

Several other related class actions were filed in federal court
and consolidated with Greenberg's. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated
class action complaint on October 21, 2016.

The proposed class consists of "all those who purchased Sunrun
common stock pursuant or traceable to Sunrun's August 5, 2015
initial public stock offering." They maintain that Sunrun misled
investors by (1) telling them in its Prospectus that the company
focused on "favorable policy environments," (2) omitting crucial
details about Nevada's SB 374, (3) glossing over high growth and
increasing concentration in Nevada, (4) boasting about "long term
savings" and "predictable pricing," and (5) failing to disclose
ongoing legal proceedings as required by law.

Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to plead
facts.

In his Order dated February 9, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/zVikww from Leagle.com, Judge Breyer held that the
complaint does not plead facts that entitle the plaintiff to
relief and fall short of the heightened pleading requirements of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA).  The Court
also concluded that leave to amend would be futile.

Carole Lee Greenberg is represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Louis C. Ludwig, Esq. - lludwig@pomlaw.com -
- and -- Joshua B. Silverman, Esq. -- jsilverman@pomlaw.com --
POMERANTZ LLP

David Moss, et al. are represented by John T. Jasnoch, Esq. --
jjasnoch@scott-scott.com -- SCOTT + SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

Sunrun Inc., et al. are represented by Anna Erickson White, Esq.
-- awhite@mofo.com -- Robert L. Webb, Esq. -- rwebb@mofo.com --
and -- Su-Han Wang, Esq. -- swang@mofo.com -- MORRISON AND
FOERSTER LLP


STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Sales Assocs. Must Be Paid Separate Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Carlton, Esq., at Bass, Berry & Sims PLC, in an article for
JD Supra Business Advisor, wrote that employers who pay employees
commissions should evaluate their compensation schemes to ensure
compliance with California law in light of the California Court of
Appeals' recent ruling in Vaquero, et al. v. Stoneledge Furniture,
LLC. In Vaquero, the court of appeals held that employers who pay
employees on a commission basis must pay employees a separate
minimum wage for rest periods.  Paying employees purely on draw
and commission is no longer sufficient, even if the average wage
equals, or is in excess of, the statutorily required minimum wage.

Ricardo Bermudez Vaquero and Robert Schaefer worked as sales
associates for a retail furniture company doing business in
California as Ashley Furniture HomeStores.  The company paid the
employees on a commission basis.  According to the company's
commission compensation pay agreement, if a sales associate failed
to earn minimum pay of at least USD12.01 per hour[1] in
commissions during any pay period, the company would pay the
employee a draw against future advanced commissions.  However, in
no event would an employee be paid less than the California
minimum wage for every hour worked.  The company paid all sales
associates for all hours worked, and the company instructed all
associates to clock in at the start of each shift and then out and
back in for meal periods and finally out again at the end of their
shift.  Sales associates did not clock out for rest periods and
therefore received the company's minimum pay for any rest periods
taken.

After the company terminated Vaquero and Schaefer's employment,
the two former associates filed a putative class action against
the company, claiming that the company failed to provide paid rest
periods in accordance with California Labor Code Section 226.7 and
the applicable wage order, failed to pay all wages owed upon
termination under Section 203, and committed unfair business
practices in doing so.  The company moved for summary judgment,
arguing that the rest period claim failed as a matter of law
because the company paid its sales associates a guaranteed minimum
for all hours worked, including rest periods.  The trial court
granted the company's motion and entered judgment for the
company.  The court found that the company's payment system
specifically accounted for all hours worked and guaranteed that
all sales associates would be paid USD12.01 for each of those
hours.  In addition, "By tracking all the hours that its sales
associates and employees were present at the facility, including
rest periods, [the company] was able to ensure that the
compensation it paid its employees via commission would never fail
to include payment for the time employees spent taking their
mandatory rest periods."  Without examining the remaining claims,
the court concluded that they all failed because they were
derivative of the rest period claim.  The former sales associates
appealed.

Noting that state wage and hour laws should be liberally construed
in favor of protecting workers, the California Court of Appeals
for the Second Appellate District reversed.  The court explained
that the California wage orders (and, as applicable here, Wage
Order No. 7) require that employers count "rest period time" as
"hours worked for which there shall be no deduction from wages,"
and this language has been interpreted by California courts as
requiring employers to "'separately compensate' employees for rest
periods where the employer uses an 'activity based compensation
system'," such as a commission-based payment scheme, that does not
directly compensate for rest periods.  In other words, employers
may not comply with rest period obligations by providing higher
piece-rate or commission pay because such payment schemes
effectively "average pay to comply with the minimum wage law
instead of separately compensating employees for their rest
periods at the minimum or contractual hourly rate."  Employers
must instead separately compensate employees for rest periods at
the required minimum wage or contractual rate.  After all, an
employee who is paid by the piece or a commission cannot add to
their wage during rest breaks, and compensation plans that do not
compensate employees directly for rest periods undermine the
protective policy by discouraging employees from taking rest
breaks.

Employers who pay their employees commissions should immediately
review their commission compensation plans to ensure compliance.
Failure to pay employees directly for each rest period could
result in substantial liability.  "If an employer fails to provide
an employee a meal or rest or recovery period in accordance with a
state law . . . the employer shall pay the employee one additional
hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for
each workday that the meal or rest or recovery period is not
provided." Cal. Lab. Code Section 226.7(c).  These premiums can
add up quickly for large employers and provide plaintiffs'
attorneys with a prime opportunity for costly class action
litigation.

[1] The company's minimum pay was later reduced to the then
California minimum wage of USD10 per hour. [GN]


TEMPUR SEALY: Johnson & Weaver Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP announced on
March 24 that a class action has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of Tempur Sealy International, Inc.
("Tempur Sealy" or the "Company") (NYSE: TPX) common stock during
the period between July 28, 2016 and January 27, 2017, inclusive
(the "Class Period").  Defendants are Tempur Sealy, Scott L.
Thompson, and Barry A. Hytinen.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this
action, have any questions concerning this notice, or your rights
or interests, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please
include your phone number.  If you are a member of this class, you
can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class
action online at http://www.johnsonandweaver.com. Any member of
the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Tempur Sealy and certain of its officers
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Tempur
Sealy develops, manufactures, and distributes bedding products
worldwide.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose adverse information regarding Tempur Sealy's
business and prospects, including, among other things: (i) that
prior to and during the Class Period, Mattress Firm Holding Corp.
("Mattress Firm"), the Company's largest customer which accounted
for approximately 25% of the Tempur Sealy's 2015 net sales, had
been engaged in active negotiations to be acquired and that any
such acquisition was reasonably likely to have a material adverse
effect in Tempur Sealy's 2016 third and fourth quarter operating
results; (ii) that during the Class Period, Tempur Sealy was
engaged in active discussions with Mattress Firm concerning
modifications to their long-term supply agreements; (iii) that
Mattress Firm had been seeking significant economic concessions
from Tempur Sealy during the Class Period; (iv) that defendants
lacked a reasonable basis for the Company's positive statements
associated with Mattress Firm; and (iv) that, based on the
foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about Tempur Sealy's then-current business and future
financial prospects.

On January 27, 2017, Tempur Sealy announced that it would cease
doing business with Mattress Firm during the first quarter of
2017.  In response to this news, the complaint alleges, the price
of Tempur Sealy common stock plummeted USD20.19 per share over a
two-day period, or nearly 32%, to close at USD43.00 per share on
January 31, 2017.

The complaint further alleges that defendants were motivated to
engage in the course of conduct alleged therein to allow Company
insiders to sell more than USD8.2 million of Tempur Sealy common
stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Tempur Sealy's common stock during the Class Period. [GN]


TL TRANSPO: Faces Suit Over Workers' Compensation Acts Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres at Penn Record reports that two delivery drivers have
filed a class action lawsuit against TL Transportation LLC, citing
alleged breach of contract, unpaid wages, violation of applicable
minimum wage law and violation of Workers' Compensation acts.

Tyhee Hickman and Shanay Bolden filed a complaint on behalf of
others similarly situated on March 8 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the
defendant failed to pay adequate compensation to the plaintiffs
for their work.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they
suffered damages from not being paid for all hours worked during
their employment. The plaintiffs hold TL Transportation
responsible because it allegedly failed to pay minimum and
overtime wages to the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek back pay damages,
unpaid overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, court
costs and any further relief the court grants. They are
represented by Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen -- sschalman-bergen@bm.net
-- and Camille Fundora -- cfundora@bm.net  of Berger & Montague
P.C. in Philadelphia.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case
number 2:17-cv-01038-GAM [GN]


TMBC LLC: Judge Says Doc-Prep Fees Violate Missouri State Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charmaine Little at St. Louis Record reports that the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently said that "doc-prep"
fees violate Missouri UPL statute and confirmed the application of
the out-of-state class members in the lawsuit.

Robert and Janet McKeage sued TMBC LLC, Tracker Marine Retail LLC
and Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC in a doc prep fee UPL class-action
lawsuit after the retailer charged them a USD75 document fee when
selling boats and trailers with agreements overseen by Missouri
law.

TMBC is the parent company of Tracker Marine Retail, which is the
parent company of Bass Pro Outdoor World.

The plaintiffs said in the Missouri state court filing that the
retailer was not following state law. The trial court ruled in the
plaintiffs' favor after it was discovered that the retailer
included this fee on 100,000 applications across the United
States. Summary judgment was granted to the class and treble
damages were awarded for USD21,735,754. Attorney fees worth over
USD2.4 million were also awarded to the plaintiffs out of the
common fund.

The retailer appealed that ruling, stating each contract was
unique and the district court did not interpret the Missouri
statute correctly. It also said that transactions outside of
Missouri should not have been included in the judgment. The
plaintiffs took another step with a cross-appeal.

The court decided that the McKeage's class-action claim was valid
despite TMBC's appeal.

"The district court determined that the class members were
properly identified, TMBC's conduct in charging a document fee
constituted unauthorized law business, Missouri law applied to
transactions that occurred outside Missouri, and damages should be
awarded based on the entire document fee," according to the court
opinion.

The opinion didn't surprise Maurice Wutscher LLP attorney Coleman
Braun.

"I don't think that it's that surprising of a ruling to be honest
with you," Braun, who wrote an article on the case, told the St.
Louis Record. "I guess some use the word 'unique.' But these legal
prep fees as 8th Circuit recognizes, there are several state case
laws that says you're charging these type of fees by non-lawyers
and it is unauthorized practice of business law."

He said that he thinks the district and state courts did "the
appropriate analysis limiting these sales agreements" that the
retailer tried to conduct.

"I think that's (the retailer's) issue," he said.

As for the circuit court agreeing that the case should include
out-of-state applications, Braun said that lines up with the law,
as well.

"Since this is the retailer's choice, why would the court not
enforce it against them," Braun said. "To me, it wasn't that
unpredictable. I think it's well reasoned. I don't think it's
surprising given the state law interpreting the Missouri statute.
I don't think any of the determination as class certification are
out of the ordinary. I think it's a good opinion."

The lower court's ruling to pay the class from the common fund was
also overturned. [GN]


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Court OKs Settlement in Macondo Well-Related MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana entered a final order and
judgment approving the PSC Settlement Agreement that the Company
entered into with the Plaintiff Steering Committee.

On April 22, 2010, the ultra-deepwater floater Deepwater Horizon
sank after a blowout of the Macondo well caused a fire and
explosion on the rig off the coast of Louisiana.  At the time of
the explosion, Deepwater Horizon was contracted to an affiliate of
BP plc. (together with its affiliates, "BP").  Following the
incident, the Company has been subject to civil and criminal
claims, as well as causes of action, fines and penalties by local,
state and federal governments.  Litigation commenced shortly after
the incident, and most claims against the Company were
consolidated by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana (the "MDL Court").  A significant
portion of the contingencies arising from the Macondo well
incident has now been resolved as a result of settlements with the
U.S. Department of Justice (the "DOJ"), BP and the states of
Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas (collectively,
the "States").  Additionally, the Company entered into the PSC
Settlement Agreement.

         Litigation Settlements and Insurance Recoveries

The Company said: "On May 20, 2015, we entered into a confidential
settlement agreement with BP plc. together with its affiliates
("BP") to settle various disputes remaining between the parties
with respect to the Macondo well incident.  Pursuant to the terms
of the agreement, we received from BP a cash payment of $125
million in July 2015 to partially reimburse us for legal fees
incurred by us.  Additionally, in connection with the settlement,
BP agreed to discontinue its attempts to recover as an additional
insured under our liability insurance program.  As a result, we
submitted claims to our insurers and, in the year ended December
31, 2015, we received aggregate cash proceeds of $538 million from
insurance for recovery of previously incurred losses."

"On May 29, 2015, together with the Plaintiff Steering Committee
(the "PSC"), we filed a settlement agreement (the "PSC Settlement
Agreement") in which we agreed to pay a total of $212 million,
plus up to $25 million for partial reimbursement of attorneys'
fees, to resolve (1) punitive damages claims of private
plaintiffs, businesses, and local governments and (2) certain
claims that BP had made against us and had assigned to private
plaintiffs who previously settled economic damages claims against
BP.  The PSC Settlement Agreement is subject to approval by the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the
"MDL Court") and acceptance by a minimum number of plaintiffs.  In
June 2016 and August 2015, we made a cash deposit of $25 million
and $212 million, respectively, into an escrow account pending
approval of the settlement by the MDL Court.  As of February 16,
2017, the aggregate cash balance of our escrow accounts was $237
million."

"Effective October 13, 2015, we finalized a settlement agreement
with the states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and
Texas (collectively, the "States"), pursuant to which the States
agreed to release all of their claims against us arising from the
Macondo well incident.  On October 22, 2015, we made an aggregate
cash payment of $35 million to the States."

"Pursuant to a cooperation guilty plea agreement by and among the
U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and certain of our affiliates
(the "Plea Agreement"), which was accepted by the court on
February 14, 2013, we agreed to pay a criminal fine of $100
million and to consent to the entry of an order requiring us to
pay $150 million to the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation and
$150 million to the National Academy of Sciences in scheduled
installments through February 2017.  In each of the years ended
December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, we made an aggregate cash
payment of $60 million.  On February 14, 2017, we made an
aggregate cash payment of $60 million, representing the final
installment due under the Plea Agreement."

"Pursuant to a civil consent decree by and among the DOJ and
certain of our affiliates ("the Consent Decree"), which was
approved by the court on February 19, 2013, we agreed to pay a
civil penalty totaling $1.0 billion, plus interest at a fixed rate
of 2.15 percent.  In the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014,
we made an aggregate cash payment of $204 million and $412
million, respectively, including interest, representing the final
installments due under the Consent Decree."

       Macondo Well Incident Commitments and Contingencies

The Company said: "In the year ended December 31, 2015, in
connection with the settlements, as further described below, we
recognized income of $788 million ($735 million, or $2.02 per
diluted share, net of tax) recorded as a net reduction to
operating and maintenance costs and expenses, including $538
million associated with recoveries from insurance for our
previously incurred losses, $125 million associated with partial
reimbursement from BP for our previously incurred legal costs, and
$125 million associated with a net reduction to certain related
contingent liabilities, primarily associated with contingencies
that have either been settled or otherwise resolved as a result of
settlements with BP and the PSC."

"We have recognized a liability for the remaining estimated loss
contingencies associated with litigation resulting from the
Macondo well incident that we believe are probable and for which a
reasonable estimate can be made.  At December 31, 2016 and 2015,
the liability for estimated loss contingencies that we believe are
probable and for which a reasonable estimate can be made was $250
million, recorded in other current liabilities.  The remaining
litigation could result in certain loss contingencies that we
believe are reasonably possible.  Although we have not recognized
a liability for such loss contingencies, these contingencies could
result in liabilities that we ultimately recognize."

"We recognize an asset associated with the portion of our
estimated losses that we believe is probable of recovery from
insurance and for which we had received from underwriters'
confirmation of expected payment.  Although we have available
policy limits that could result in additional amounts recoverable
from insurance, recovery of such additional amounts is not
probable and we are not currently able to estimate such amounts
(see "-Insurance coverage").  Our estimates involve a significant
amount of judgment."

                         Plea Agreement

The Company said: "Pursuant to the plea agreement (the "Plea
Agreement"), one of our subsidiaries pled guilty to one
misdemeanor count of negligently discharging oil into the U.S.
Gulf of Mexico, in violation of the Clean Water Act ("CWA") and
agreed to be subject to probation through February 2018.  The DOJ
agreed, subject to the provisions of the Plea Agreement, not to
further prosecute us for certain matters arising from the Macondo
well incident.  We also agreed to make an aggregate cash payment
of $400 million, including a criminal fine of $100 million and
cash contributions of $150 million to the National Fish & Wildlife
Foundation and $150 million to the National Academy of Sciences,
payable in scheduled installments.  In each of the years ended
December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, we made an aggregate cash
payment of $60 million in satisfaction of amounts due under the
Plea Agreement.  At December 31, 2016 and 2015, the carrying
amount of our liability for settlement obligations under the Plea
Agreement was $60 million and $120 million, respectively.  The
final installment of $60 million is due on February 14, 2017."

                         Consent Decree

"Under the civil consent decree (the "Consent Decree"), we agreed
to undertake certain actions, including enhanced safety and
compliance actions when operating in U.S. waters.  The Consent
Decree also requires us to submit certain plans, reports and
submissions and also requires us to make such submittals available
publicly.  One of the required plans is a performance plan
approved on January 2, 2014, that contains, among other things,
interim milestones for actions in specified areas and schedules
for reports required under the Consent Decree.  Additionally, in
compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree and upon
approval by the DOJ, we retained an independent auditor to review
and report to the DOJ our compliance with the Consent Decree and
an independent process safety consultant to review report and
assist with the process safety requirements of the Consent Decree.
We may request termination of the Consent Decree after January 2,
2019, provided we meet certain conditions.  The Consent Decree
resolved the claim by the U.S. for civil penalties under the CWA.
The Consent Decree did not resolve the U.S. claim under the Oil
Pollution Act ("OPA") for natural resource damages ("NRD") or for
removal costs.  However, BP has agreed to indemnify us for NRD and
most removal costs (see "-BP Settlement Agreement").  We also
agreed to pay civil penalties of $1.0 billion plus interest.  In
the year ended December 31, 2015, we made a cash payment of $204
million, including interest, representing the final installment
due under the Consent Decree."

                     BP Settlement Agreement

"On May 20, 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with BP
(the "BP Settlement Agreement").  Under the BP Settlement
Agreement, BP agreed to indemnify us for compensatory damages,
including all NRD and all cleanup and removal costs for oil or
pollutants originating from the Macondo well.  BP also agreed to
cease efforts to recover as an unlimited additional insured under
our insurance policies and to be bound to the insurance
reimbursement rulings related to the Macondo well incident.  We
agreed to indemnify BP for personal and bodily injury claims of
our employees and for any future costs for the cleanup or removal
of pollutants stored on the Deepwater Horizon vessel.
Additionally, we mutually agreed to release and withdraw all
claims we have against each other arising from the Macondo well
litigation and to refrain from making statements regarding gross
negligence in the Macondo well incident.  In July 2015, pursuant
to the BP Settlement Agreements, we received $125 million from BP
as partial reimbursement of the legal costs we incurred in
connection with the Macondo well incident.  We believe the BP
Settlement Agreement resolved all Macondo well-related litigation
between BP and us, and the indemnity BP committed to provide will
generally address claims by third parties, including claims for
economic and property damages, economic loss and NRD.  However,
the indemnity obligations do not extend to fines, penalties, or
punitive damages."

                    PSC Settlement Agreement

"On May 29, 2015, together with the PSC, we filed a settlement
agreement (the "PSC Settlement Agreement") with the MDL Court for
approval.  Through the PSC Settlement Agreement, we agreed to pay
a total of $212 million, plus up to $25 million for partial
reimbursement of attorneys' fees, to be allocated between two
classes of plaintiffs as follows: (1) private plaintiffs,
businesses, and local governments who could have asserted punitive
damages claims against us under general maritime law (the
"Punitive Damages Class"); and (2) private plaintiffs who
previously settled economic damages claims against BP and were
assigned certain claims BP had made against us (the "Assigned
Claims Class").  A court-appointed neutral representative
established the allocation of the settlement payment to be 72.8
percent paid to the Punitive Damages Class and 27.2 percent paid
to the Assigned Claims Class.  In exchange for these payments,
each of the classes agreed to release all respective claims it has
against us.  Members of the Punitive Damages Class were given the
opportunity to opt out of the PSC Settlement Agreement before
September 23, 2016, and 36 claimants timely opted out, to pursue
punitive damages claims against us.  Six of these 36 claimants
later revoked their opt out requests.  In June 2016 and August
2015, we made a cash deposit of $25 million and $212 million,
respectively, into escrow accounts pending approval of the
settlement by the MDL Court.  At December 31, 2016 and 2015, the
aggregate balance in escrow was $237 million and $212 million,
respectively, recorded in other current assets."

On February 15, 2017, the MDL Court entered a final order and
judgment approving the PSC Settlement Agreement that the Company
entered into with the PSC on May 29, 2015.  The ruling is subject
to appeal.  Any notice of appeal must be filed by March 17, 2017.

                         Pending claims

The Company said: "As of December 31, 2016, numerous complaints
remain pending against us, along with other unaffiliated
defendants in the MDL Court.  We believe our settlement with the
PSC, if approved by the MDL Court, will resolve many of these
pending actions.  As for any actions not resolved by these
settlements, including any claims by individuals who opted out of
the PSC Settlement Agreement, claims by the Mexican government
under OPA and maritime law and federal securities actions, we are
vigorously defending those claims and pursuing any and all
defenses available."

                       Insurance coverage

"At the time of the Macondo well incident, our excess liability
insurance program offered aggregate insurance coverage of $950
million, excluding a $15 million deductible and a $50 million
self-insured layer through our wholly owned captive insurance
subsidiary.  This excess liability insurance coverage consisted of
a first and a second layer of $150 million each, a third and
fourth layer of $200 million each and a fifth layer of $250
million.  We have recovered costs under the first four excess
layers, the limits of which are now fully exhausted.  We have
submitted claims to the $250 million fifth layer, which is
comprised of Bermuda market insurers (the "Bermuda Insurers").
The Bermuda Insurers have asserted various coverage defenses to
our claims, and we have issued arbitration notices to the Bermuda
Insurers.  In the year ended December 31, 2016, we recognized
income of $30 million, recorded as a reduction in operating and
maintenance costs and expenses, associated with claims confirmed
by certain underwriters, and we received cash proceeds of $20
million.  We continue to pursue claims submitted to the Bermuda
Insurers, but we cannot give any assurance that we will
successfully recover additional proceeds under the available
policy limits."

Transocean Ltd. is a leading international provider of offshore
contract drilling services for oil and gas wells.  As of February
9, 2017, the Company owned or had partial ownership interests in
and operated 56 mobile offshore drilling units; its fleet
consisted of 30 ultra-deepwater floaters, seven harsh environment
floaters, three deepwater floaters, six midwater floaters and 10
high-specification jackups; and the Company also had four ultra-
deepwater drillships and five high-specification jackups under
construction or under contract to be constructed.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Not Included in Supreme Court's Certiorari Grant
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in a separate case, not
involving Transocean Ltd., which raised the same issues on which
the Second Circuit dismissed a former shareholder's claim against
Transocean, according to the Company's March 7, 2017, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "On September 30, 2010, a proposed federal
securities class action was filed against us in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  In the action, a
former shareholder of the acquired company alleged that the joint
proxy statement related to our shareholder meeting in connection
with the merger with the acquired company violated various
securities laws and that the acquired company's shareholders
received inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of
the alleged violations and sought compensatory and rescissory
damages and attorneys' fees.  On March 11, 2014, the District
Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the claims
as time-barred.  Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit"), but on March 17,
2016, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal.  Plaintiffs filed
a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on
August 12, 2016."

On January 13, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in
a separate case, not involving Transocean, which raised the same
issues on which the Second Circuit dismissed the claim against
Transocean.  The U.S. Supreme Court's ultimate determination of
this separate case may affect the time-barred dismissal of the
case involving Transocean.

Transocean Ltd. is a leading international provider of offshore
contract drilling services for oil and gas wells.  As of February
9, 2017, the Company owned or had partial ownership interests in
and operated 56 mobile offshore drilling units; its fleet
consisted of 30 ultra-deepwater floaters, seven harsh environment
floaters, three deepwater floaters, six midwater floaters and 10
high-specification jackups; and the Company also had four ultra-
deepwater drillships and five high-specification jackups under
construction or under contract to be constructed.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Starr" Class Suit in Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------
Michele Starr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Transworld Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00937-TWP-
DML (S.D. Ind., March 27, 2017), arises out of the Defendant's
attempt to collect a delinquent consumer debt by pulling or
accessing consumers credit report after receiving notice that the
consumer had filed for bankruptcy.

Transworld Systems, Inc. is in the business of providing accounts
receivable, debt recovery, and past due accounts services for
businesses, medical companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
      5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
      Indianapolis, IN 46227
      Telephone: (317) 780-8300
      Facsimile: (317) 217-1320
      E-mail: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Former Students File Claims to Get Money Back
---------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Griffin, Nelli Black, and Curt Devine at CNNMoney report that
thousands of former enrollees at Trump University are one step
closer to getting back at least some of their money.

More than 3,700 of them have filed claims as part of last year's
USD25 million settlement agreed to by President Donald Trump,
according to an attorney for the plaintiffs in the case. About
7,000 former students were eligible to submit claims, but the
deadline to file was March 6.

If the court approves the settlement, former students are
projected to receive back about 80% of the money they spent on
live seminars or mentorships from the now-defunct, real estate
education program, says Rachel Jensen, the class counsel for
students nationwide.

The settlement brings the possible closure of three lawsuits that
claimed Trump University defrauded students and threatened to drag
Trump into court early into his presidency.

A court hearing will be held on March 30 to decide whether to
approve the settlement, though one risk is a late challenge from a
former student. Sherri B. Simpson of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida filed
an objection to the settlement with U.S. District Judge Gonzalo
Curiel in San Diego, where the cases have been consolidated.
Simpson, who says she spent about USD20,000 on Trump University
courses in 2010, told CNN she wants more from the President than
just a portion of her money back.

"What he did to me and what he did to everybody else was really
fraudulent and I'd really like to take him to trial. I'd like to
hold him accountable," Simpson said.

Simpson said in addition to a refund and three times the amount
she spent on the programs, she also wants an apology from
President Trump.

John F. Banzhaf III, a law professor at George Washington
University, said Simpson's objection could delay or even derail
the settlement, because if the judge rules in her favor, the
settlement would have to be adjusted to allow additional students
to opt-out. If the judge rejects her argument, she could appeal.
"What she is doing could torpedo the settlement. If the court
grants her request, it means she would be free to sue Donald Trump
on her own," Banzhaf said.

Trump University is the defunct, for-profit real estate seminar
business Trump launched in 2005. It promised to teach students
investing techniques they could use to get rich in real estate --
just like Trump.

Some students ended up paying tens of thousands of dollars. While
the initial Trump University seminar was free, teachers would then
upsell them for another program. A "one-year apprenticeship,"
which was effectively a three-day seminar along with the phone
number for a "client advisor," cost USD1,495, according to court
documents. A "mentorship" cost at least USD10,000 and the most
expensive, the "Gold Elite" program, cost USD35,000.

Trump University effectively closed in 2010, the same year the New
York Department of Education directed the program to stop
operating without a license.

Was it a fraud? In advertisements, Trump said he "hand-picked" the
instructors himself, but during a deposition, Trump did not
remember a single instructor when a list of names was read.
Lawsuits also argued the program was marketed as a university when
it was not licensed.

The first of the three lawsuits was filed in 2010. Ultimately,
there were two class action suits and a suit from the New York
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

Donald Trump agreed to settle on November 18, just 10 days after
his victory. It saved the president from having to testify in a
trial in San Diego.

The settlement is a complete turnaround from Trump's earlier
position on the lawsuits. "This is a case I could have settled
very easily, but I don't settle cases very easily when I'm right,"
he said in March 2016 at a Republican presidential debate.

"We are pleased to announce the complete resolution of all
litigation involving Trump University," a Trump Organization
spokesperson said at the time of the settlement.

"While we have no doubt that Trump University would have prevailed
at trial based on the merits of this case, resolution of these
matters allows President-Elect Trump to devote his full attention
to the important issues facing our great nation."

Trump has remained defiant about the settlement, even suggesting
in a Tweet in June he may re-open his shuttered school in the
future. When the settlement was reached, then President-elect
Trump tweeted: "I settled the Trump University lawsuit for a small
fraction of the potential award because as President I have to
focus on our country."

Felicisimo Limon, one of the former students who submitted a
claim, told CNN he lost about USD30,000 on real estate courses he
called, "all lies."

Limon, a retired Navy veteran, and his wife attended a free
seminar near San Francisco in 2008. He says Trump University
representatives convinced him to pay thousands of dollars for
seminars he later realized did not include any advanced real
estate techniques.

"I am really happy there is a settlement. I was not looking
forward to a court fight with Donald Trump," Limon told CNN on
March 20.

Limon says he submitted a claim for USD29,000 of more than
USD30,000 he believes he is owed.

He says the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan New York, which
is administrating the settlement, asked him for receipts of his
payments. And after several years Limon says some of his receipts
are missing.

He isn't sure of what the final amount of his settlement will be
but joked that he deserves more than he put in.

"I think they had my money for so long, they should give me
interest on top of it," he said.

Bob Guillo, another former student profiled by CNN, said he's out
USD35,000 and that he deserves all his money back. Though he
thinks the settlement is unfair, the 77-year old retiree doesn't
want to go through a drawn out lawsuit.

The USD25 million settlement will be divided with about USD21
million going to students covered in two California class-action
suits and USD4 million going to additional students covered by the
suit filed by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
The attorneys involved waived all fees. [GN]


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Okays $25MM Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Spagat, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
judge on March 31 approved an agreement for President Donald Trump
to pay $25 million to settle lawsuits over his now-defunct Trump
University, ending nearly seven years of legal battles with
customers who claimed they were misled by failed promises to teach
success in real estate.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel said the agreement represents
an "extraordinary amount" of money for customers to recover.
Plaintiff attorneys say about 3,730 people will get at least 90
percent of their money back.

The ruling settles two class-action lawsuits and a civil lawsuit
by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman that had dogged the
Republican businessman throughout the presidential campaign.

Trump fueled the controversy by repeatedly assailing Judge Curiel,
insinuating that the Indiana-born judge's Mexican heritage exposed
a bias.

Trump had vowed never to settle.  But he said after the election
that he didn't have time for a trial, even though he believed he
would have prevailed.

The White House referred requests for comment to the Trump
Organization, which didn't immediately respond. Under terms of the
settlement, Trump admits no wrongdoing.

Attorneys for the former customers say the money will allow people
to retire debt-free and overcome other financial obstacles.  The
attorneys waived their fees, raising individual payments.

"Over the past seven years, our goal has always has been to help
these everyday Americans move forward with their lives," attorney
Amber Eck said.

The Democratic New York attorney general said the ruling "will
provide relief -- and hopefully much-needed closure -- to the
victims of Donald Trump's fraudulent university."

"Trump University's victims waited years for compensation, while
President Trump refused to settle and fought us every step of the
way -- until his stunning reversal last fall," said
Mr. Schneiderman, who is contributing $1.6 million of his $4
million portion of the settlement to former customers.

The lawsuits alleged that Trump University gave nationwide
seminars that were like infomercials, constantly pressuring people
to spend more and, in the end, failing to deliver. Political
rivals used Trump's depositions and extensive documents filed in
the lawsuits to portray him as dishonest and deceitful.

Judge Curiel, in a 31-page decision accompanying his order, said
exceptionally high payouts and objections from only two of an
estimated 7,000 eligible former customers weighed in favor of his
approval.

The judge strongly rejected a request by a Florida woman who
argued that she should have been given more opportunity to opt out
of the settlement. If he had agreed, the prospect of more
litigation would have likely derailed the deal.

Judge Curiel agreed with attorneys for Trump and those suing him
that customers were properly warned that the deadline to opt out
was in November 2015.  He said Sherri Simpson, who paid $35,000 in
2010 for Trump University's "Gold Elite" mentorship program and
later appeared in anti-Trump campaign ads, missed her chance.

During an hour-long hearing on March 30, Ms. Simpson's attorney,
Gary Friedman, argued that language in the 2015 notice implied
that customers would be given another opportunity to opt out and
sue Trump on their own.

Customers were "provided, in no uncertain terms, notice of the
right to opt out, and of the binding consequences of electing not
to opt out," Judge Curiel wrote.  "It clearly appraised Class
Members that if they wished to bring a separate lawsuit against
Defendants, they had to elect to opt out immediately."

Judge Curiel also denied an objection from another customer,
Harold Doe, who sought more money.

Clearing those final hurdles brought closure to the trio of
lawsuits, the first of which was filed in April 2010.

When attorneys reached a deal shortly after Trump's election,
Judge Curiel said he hoped it would be part of "a healing process
that this country very sorely needs."  A month later, he granted
it preliminary approval.

The agreement came 10 days before a trial was set to begin in San
Diego, sparing Trump what would have been a major distraction
during his transition to the White House.


UBER: Appeals Court Weighs Arguments in Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports an appeals court in New York has weight arguments
over the rights of customers to sue Uber. The case may have wider
implications for internet businesses and mobile services.

According to the case, customers give up their rights to sue the
company when they register for the ride-sharing service. Arguing
for Uber, an attorney urged the three-judge panel in the 2nd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals to send the case into arbitration. [GN]


UBER: Counsel Says Riders Have No Right to Sue
----------------------------------------------
Will Sable Courtney at The Drive reports that's why you always
read the fine print. On March 24, Uber claimed in U.S. district
court that users of the ride-hailing app surrender their right to
sue the company by agreeing to the terms of service of the popular
app, and urged the court to divert a current lawsuit against Uber
to an alternate means of settlement.

Uber's representative, Theodore Boutrous, asked a three-judge
panel from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York to
send a class action lawsuit filed by Spencer Meyer of Connecticut
regarding surge pricing practices to arbitration, according to
Reuters.

Uber, like many Silicon Valley companies, includes a line in its
terms of service that requires users to settle legal disagreements
with the company via private arbitration in lieu of a traditional
trial.

A previous request by Uber to send Meyer's case to arbitration was
shot down last year by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, who said
the practice of hiding arbitration agreements in terms of service
threatened the basic right to a jury trial. "This most precious
and fundamental right can be waived only if the waiver is knowing
and voluntary," he said, according to Reuters.

Boutrous stated that no other judge has ruled in the same manner
as Rakoff when faced with a similar user agreement.

Meyer's rep, Jeffrey Wadsworth, said it was not reasonable to
expect customers to understand complex legal issues -- such as
giving up the right to sue -- when accepting a terms of service
agreement.
To register means to put your name on an official list," Wadsworth
said, according to Reuters. "It does not mean you're engaging in
some complex contractual transaction."

But some members of the panel sounded less convinced of the
plaintiff's argument this week, according to Reuters. Judges Reena
Raggi and Susan Carney reportedly pointed out that by providing
credit card info, people signing up for Uber were going beyond
simply registering on a list. [GN]


USC: Judge Nixes Attempt to Compel Plaintiffs to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Meier at LA Business Journal reports a federal judge on
March 23 shot down an attempt by the University of Southern
California to compel plaintiffs to private arbitration, instead
pushing forward the class action litigation related to allegations
that the university's retirement plans were rife with excessive
fees and costs.

U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips denied USC's request
to move the case out of federal court jurisdiction and into
binding arbitration, despite a dearth of case law addressing the
interaction between arbitration clauses and protections afforded
plan holders under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA). While that lack of guidance gave the judge pause, she
made it clear USC's request to remove the case from the court
system was unpersuasive.

"Defendants would have the Court draw a line between (1)
participants' ability to release their right to pursue a plan's
claims and (2) participants' ability to release their right to
pursue a plan's claims in court," Phillip's opinion reads.
"Defendants, however, have offered no support for why this line
should be drawn."

The lawsuit, filed in August, claims USC retirement plan
administrators breached their fiduciary duty to plan members.
Plaintiffs allege that more than 28,000 plan members were swindled
out of millions because USC overpaid for fees and services
provided by third-party advisors.

The case was brought on behalf of plan holders by Jerry Schlichter
of St. Louis, Missouri-based Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, who said
in a statement that Phillips got it right.
"We are pleased that the District Judge has denied the defendants'
motion to compel arbitration and we are look forward to proceeding
with the case," Schlichter said. "Arbitration is not the right
venue for ERISA litigation and we are delighted the court has
recognized that."

USC did not immediately respond to request for comment. [GN]


VALE SA: Court Annuls Nearly All Parts of Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Eisenhammer at Reuters reports Brazilian miner Vale SA
said on March 24 the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York annulled nearly all parts of a class action
lawsuit against the company and executives over the collapse of a
tailings dam in Brazil in 2015.

The only parts of the case that remain ongoing are linked to
specific statements made by Vale in 2013 and 2014, and a
conference call in November 2015, the company said. [GN]


VERITAS CONSULTANT: "Gonzales" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Lisandra Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Veritas Consultant Group, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01319 (E.D. Pa., March 24, 2017),
seeks back pay damages including unpaid overtime compensation,
unpaid spread of hours payments and unpaid wages and prejudgment
interest, liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses and
attorneys' fees resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Veritas Consultant Group, LLC, does business as Moravia Health
Network, a Delaware limited liability company with its
headquarters and principal place of business in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. It is a provider of integrated healthcare services,
offering home care and health services where Plaintiff works as a
home health aide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Richard M. Simins, Esq.
      Jackson E. Warren, Esq.
      MONTGOMERY McCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS LLP
      123 South Broad Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19109
      Telephone: (215) 772-1500
      Facsimile: (215) 772~7407
      Email: rsimins@mmwr.com
             jwarren@mmwr.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Emissions Cheating Internal Probe May Take Time
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Volkswagen board chairman Hans
Dieter Poetsch says he doesn't expect an internal investigation
into the German automaker's cheating of U.S. diesel emissions
standards, which became public in September 2015, to be wrapped up
by year's end.

Mr. Poetsch, who was quoted in the April 1 edition of the
Frankfurter Allegemine Zeitung newspaper, said that law firm Jones
Day has made good progress in its investigation, commissioned by
Volkswagen, but that it will "probably take longer than the end of
2017."

He says it's clear that "Volkswagen made serious mistakes" and the
company's cooperating with authorities with the "highest
transparency."

He says the company's also trying to inform the public as much as
possible "within the legal boundaries" but that while
investigations are ongoing "it would be unacceptably risky for the
company to present its own report."


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settles Emissions Claims by 10 States for $157MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Volkswagen is paying more than
$157 million to 10 states to settle environmental lawsuits over
the company's diesel emissions-cheating scandal.

The company says the money will go to Connecticut, Delaware,
Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont and Washington. All 10 states follow California's
clean air standards.

The settlement covers 3-Liter six-cylinder diesel engines and is
separate from a $603 million agreement reached last year with 44
states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico that covered 2-liter
engines.

The March 30 settlement is the first time the 10 states have won
penalties from an automaker under their own emissions laws, New
York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said on March 30 in a
statement.

Setting that precedent is important now because President Donald
Trump has proposed budget cuts for federal environmental
enforcement "which would leave states like New York and California
as the first line of defense for the environment," the statement
said.

Volkswagen has admitted to programming its diesel engines to
activate pollution controls during government treadmill tests and
turning them off for roadway driving.

VW has paid out more than $20 billion to buy back or repair cars
and pay criminal and civil fines and legal settlements related to
the scandal.


WELLS FINANCIAL: Shareholders File Class Action Over Proposed Sale
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports shareholders claim in a class
action that Wells Federal Bank's proposed USD40 million sale to
Citizens Community Bancorp undervalues Wells shares and is the
product of a flawed process.

The lead plaintiff is Paul Parshall. The defendants are Wells
Financial Corp.; James D. Moll; Randel I. Bichler; Gerald D.
Bastian; David Buesing; Richard A. Mueller; and Citizens Community
Bancorp Inc. [GN]


* Don't Stumble Now on Construction Defects Reform
--------------------------------------------------
Denver Post reports that this could be the year that Colorado
stops talking about construction defects tort reform -- the
problem of too many frivolous lawsuits being filed against
builders for flaws in construction -- and move on to other
pressing issues in the state.

Lawmakers are tantalizingly close to passing two bills that
represent considerable compromise on the issue. House Bill 1279
and Senate Bill 45 could curb predatory lawsuits that have cropped
up under Colorado laws. The system is so broken that developers
have almost stopped building multi-family units that are for sale
and instead are building apartments or other rental units to avoid
costly litigation and costly liability insurance.

We've already urged lawmakers to approve SB 45 which would allow a
judge to proportionally assign responsibility for defense costs
and potential awards based on actual responsibility for the flaw.
Believe it or not, that doesn't happen now. If the defect is leaky
windows, the painter and landscape architect share the same
responsibility for court costs as the general contractor and the
window installer. It's completely nonsensical.

SB 45 has been awaiting a second committee hearing in the Senate
for several weeks now, despite bipartisan support from Senate
President Kevin Grantham and House Speaker Crisanta Duran. We
certainly hope that delay doesn't spell trouble for a good
solution to one small problem.

In a similar vein, it's hard to find a problem with HB 1279.
Even the staunchest advocate of homeowners' rights to sue could
see logic in requiring a majority vote of those who own units in
the building to approve a class action lawsuit before a homeowners
association files one.

Gaining such a coalition not only protects builders from frivolous
lawsuits, but also protects condo owners from the possibility a
class action lawsuit gets filed, takes a year to settle and
encumbers the property in a legal limbo that makes selling or
refinancing difficult.

Rep. Lori Saine, a Republican co-author of HB 1279, calls that
situation "financial house arrest."

The bill requires a simple majority of unit owners to vote in
favor of taking legal action against a builder, instead of just a
majority of members of the HOA. It also provides guidelines of
disclosures on behalf of the homeowners association seeking to
file suit and allows the builder to address the HOA before a vote
is taken. That presentation can include an offer to fix the
problem instead of going to court.

But unlike other, more drastic bills, this one does not require
that builders first get a right to remedy the problem, and it also
doesn't require that the issue go to mediation before hitting the
courts.

Furthermore, the bill would protect homeowners from nefarious
builders who intentionally hold a majority of units for themselves
to block litigation or write into HOA rules that the developer
holds a majority vote on the board until seven years (the statute
of limitations for defects claims) have passed.

What a smart middle ground Saine and Rep. Alec Garnett, a
Democrat, seem to have struck on this bill.

Additionally, even if the majority of unit owners refuse to file a
lawsuit, nothing prohibits an individual unit owner from pursuing
their own lawsuit.

These two bills could do much to thaw Colorado's frozen market for
multi-family units, and could also help lower the cost of
construction and thus the cost of condos. [GN]


* House Bill Would Significantly Change Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
J. David Brittingham, Esq., and Thomas Kemp Jr., Esq., at Dinsmore
& Shohl LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that on March 9,
2017, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Fairness in
Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 (H.R. 985). The bill,
introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-
Va.), proposes significant changes to the procedures used in
federal court class actions and multidistrict litigation
proceedings in an attempt to "assure fairer, more efficient
outcomes for claimants and defendants." The bill now moves to the
U.S. Senate, where an earlier, similarly-named proposal stalled
last year after passing the House.

Along with attempting to "assure fair and prompt recoveries for
class members and multidistrict litigation plaintiffs with
legitimate claims," the bill aims to "diminish abuses in class
action and mass tort litigation that are undermining the integrity
of the U.S. legal system." To accomplish this, the bill mandates
the following changes to class action procedures in federal court:

   -- Requires all class members to have suffered the "same type
and scope of injury";

   -- Requires disclosure of any relationship between class
counsel and class representatives;

   -- Requires class members be ascertainable as a prerequisite
for class certification;

   -- Delays payment of class counsel's fees until after
settlement distribution is complete;

   -- Ties calculation of class counsel fees to the actual payout
to class members;

   -- Ties calculation of fees in injunctive classes to the value
of injunctive relief;

   -- Requires class counsel to report settlement data before
recovering fees;

   -- Limits issue class certification to situations where the
entire case meets certification requirements;

   -- Stays all discovery during the pendency of any motion to
transfer, motion to dismiss, motion to strike class allegations,
or other motion to dispose of the class allegations;

   -- Requires disclosure of third-party funders supporting the
class; and

   -- Allows immediate appeals from orders granting or denying
class certification.

The bill also includes new mandates on plaintiffs in consolidated
multidistrict litigation proceedings in federal court. These
changes include:

   -- Addressing misjoinder of plaintiffs in personal injury and
wrongful death actions;

   -- Requiring plaintiffs in multidistrict litigation proceedings
to provide evidentiary support of their injuries and causes;
Requiring all parties to agree to trial in any specific
multidistrict litigation case; and

   -- Ensuring at least 80 percent of recovery obtained in any
multidistrict litigation proceeding goes to the plaintiffs in that
action.

The bill passed the House by a 220-201 vote, which was split
almost entirely down party lines (no Democrats voted for the bill
and only 14 Republicans voted against it). Proponents of the bill
argue that the proposed changes will ensure absent class members,
not plaintiffs' attorneys, benefit from class actions, while those
opposed claim the sweeping provisions will cut off court access
for consumers, workers, investors and civil rights plaintiffs. If
enacted, the bill would apply to pending as well as future
litigation and would be the most significant class action
legislation since the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

Considerably, those reforms were passed the last time Republicans
controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House, making
passage of the bill appear more likely here than the last time
around.


* Presentation Matters When Seeking to Compel Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reported that a pair of recent opinions
proves that when it comes to compelling arbitration in a consumer
class action, presentation of the arbitration clause may matter
more than favorable Supreme Court precedent.

First, in Norcia v. Samsung Telecommunications America, the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court decision denying
Samsung's motion to compel arbitration in a case concerning
misrepresentations about the Samsung Galaxy S4 phone.

Second, in Johnson v. Uber Technologies, the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to compel
arbitration in a putative class action against the ride hailing
app, Uber. In both instances, the courts declined to compel
arbitration because the courts found the consumers did not form an
enforceable arbitration agreement. These opinions reinforce
earlier decisions, and make it clear that businesses should
consider the presentation of the arbitration clause to their
consumers regardless of whether the business is selling its
services or products in traditional packaging or electronically.
The plaintiff in Norcia alleged that Samsung misrepresented the
performance of the Galaxy S4 phone. Samsung moved to compel
arbitration based on an arbitration clause contained in a warranty
brochure placed in the Galaxy's box. Samsung contended the
warranty slip was akin to a shrink-wrap license, which has been
held to be an enforceable contract, but the court rejected
Samsung's position. The lower court denied the motion to compel
after concluding that no arbitration agreement had been formed
between Samsung and Galaxy consumers. The appellate court affirmed
and explained that putting a shrink-wrap license on the outside of
the box allows a consumer to open the shrink-wrap and thereby take
an affirmative step indicating their consent to be bound by the
terms of the shrink-wrap license. A warranty slip inside the box,
however, does not require the same affirmation step by the
consumer; a consumer can simply open the box and discard the slip.
Samsung also argued the arbitration clause was enforceable because
it was analogous to a warranty term, which does not require the
consumer to consent. The 9th Circuit disagreed and held that
warranties arise as a result of the mere sale of a product and
that unlike a warranty, an arbitration contract imposes binding
obligations on the consumer.

Johnson involved a totally different type of product, but the
court reached a similar conclusion and applied similar reasoning.
The plaintiff in Johnson alleged that Uber sent him unsolicited
text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act. Uber moved to compel arbitration based on the existence of an
arbitration clause in Uber's current electronic account
registration application. Uber presented evidence showing that its
current registration process required consumers to click through
and indicate their agreement to be bound by an arbitration clause.
The court, however, denied Uber's motion to compel because it
found that Uber failed to present any evidence about the process
that existed in 2013, when the plaintiff had signed up for the
service. The court also took judicial notice of a court document
filed by Uber in a different case describing a different account
registration process in 2014. The court thus concluded Uber had
not met its burden of showing that Uber consumers had consented to
arbitration in 2013.

Norcia and Johnson provide valuable lessons for businesses that
sell products in traditional packaging, like phones, and
businesses that sell services online or via an app, like ride
sharing. The plaintiffs prevailed in both cases because the
defendants could not show the consumers had taken any action to
demonstrate consent to be bound by an arbitration agreement. In
both cases, the court denied motions to compel despite favorable
precedent and the presumptively enforceable nature of arbitration
agreements and class-action waivers.

Enforcement of an arbitration clause may be as simple as opening a
package or clicking a button on an app, but businesses should
ensure they keep packaging and account applications up-to-date or
they face the possibility of litigating a consumer class action
instead of arbitration. [GN]




* Trump's Pick for Supreme Court Denies He's Against Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Kamasek at Legal Newsline reports Neil Gorsuch, President
Donald Trump's pick to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the U.S.
Supreme Court, denied he is against class action lawsuits.

Nominated by Trump in January, Gorsuch faced four days of
confirmation hearings by the U.S. Senate this week.

Gorsuch, a conservative who serves as a judge on the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, told senators March 21 he is not
necessarily pro-defense, as some have suggested.

"I represented class actions and people fighting class actions,"
he said. "I ruled for and against class actions. It depends on
facts presented to me."

Gorsuch said his most recent class action case involved residents
who lived near the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons facility, 16 miles
northwest of Denver.

The residents, he explained, filed a class action for damage to
their property. The plant, for more than four decades,
manufactured plutonium triggers for the nation's Cold War nuclear
weapons stockpile.

"It took 25 years up and down the system," Gorsuch told senators.
"I issued a decision saying, 'Stop, enough, they win.' I believe
it has been finished and they have been paid, and although it has
been so long, that it has been their children getting the money."

In 2015, Gorsuch, writing for a majority of the Tenth Circuit,
instructed a trial court to enter judgment for the plaintiffs in
the case.

"We can imagine only injustice flowing from any effort to gin up
the machinery of trial for a second pass over terrain it took
fifteen years for the first trial to mow through," Gorsuch wrote
in the 38-page opinion. "Injustice not only in the needless
financial expense and the waste of judicial resources, but
injustice in the human costs associated with trying to piece
together faded memories and long since filed away evidence, the
emotional ordeal parties and witnesses must endure in any retrial,
the waste of the work already performed by a diligent and properly
instructed jury, and the waiting -- the waiting everyone would
have to endure for a final result in a case where everyone's
already waited too long."

The class action lawsuit, filed in 1990, was settled in May for
USD375 million by Rockwell International Corp. and Dow Chemical
Co. The two companies operated the Rocky Flats facility.

Gorsuch has authored only a handful of opinions on class actions,
providing little insight into whether he would fill Scalia's role
as a class action foe.

Scalia, who served on the nation's highest court for nearly 30
years, often expressed strong opinions against the class action
mechanism.

"Judge Gorsuch's class action opinions reflect his well-known
commitment to a textual construction of statutes and an incisive,
pungent writing style," according to a recent survey by Carlton
Fields attorneys. "They do not reflect, however, an ideological
bias either in favor or against class actions in general."

Scalia's death in February 2016 has left eight justices on the
court, split 4-4 between being fairly conservative and fairly
liberal.

It was Scalia who authored the Supreme Court's 5-4 opinion in AT&T
Mobility v. Concepcion.

In April 2011, the court ruled that companies can enforce
contracts that bar class action lawsuits. That means businesses
that include arbitration agreements with class action waivers can
require consumers to bring claims only in individual arbitrations,
rather than in court as part of a class action.

Experts called the decision a "game-changer" for class action
litigation.

If confirmed by the Senate, Gorsuch's views on class actions could
come into play sooner than later.

In January, the nation's high court granted petitions for writ of
certiorari, or review, in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Ernst &
Young v. Morris and NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA Inc.

At issue in the cases is the validity of class action waiver
clauses in employer/employee arbitration agreements.

Some experts in the class action field expected the three cases to
be set for oral argument at the end of the current session. The
Supreme Court holds oral argument between October and April, and
the cases had been allotted a total of one hour for argument,
according to the court's Jan. 13 order list.

If the court had heard arguments by April, a decision could have
been handed down by late June or early July, when the court
recesses for the summer.

However, according to a Reuters report last month, the high court
notified the lawyers involved that the three cases, which were
consolidated, will be scheduled for argument in the 2017 term.

The 2017 term starts in October.

That means a decision likely won't be reached until late this year
or even early 2018.

It also means that, by then, the court more than likely will be
back to its full nine justices.

However, Senate Democrats have threatened to filibuster Gorsuch.

Under Senate rules, 60 votes are required to overcome a
filibuster. Republicans have 52 seats in the Senate, but they
could use their majority to change the rules to lower the minimum
threshold. [GN]


                         *********


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  * * *