CAR_Public/170412.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Wednesday, April 12, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 73



                            Headlines

ACCEL LOGISTICS: Faces "Phillips" Suit Over FLSA "Violation"
ADVANCED RECOVERY: "Powell" Sues for OT, Missed Break Premium
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Supreme Court Hears ERISA Class Action Cases
AIR METHODS: Faces "Cowan" Suit in District of Colorado
AIRFLOW COOLING: "Muta-Ali" Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wages

APPLIED MACHINERY: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
ARGOS THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Maurer" Lawsuit Under Securities Act
ARKANSAS: Top Court Dismisses Ex-Troopers' Class Action Suit
AUSTRALIA: Court Orders Disclosure of Docs in Live Cattle Ban Suit
AUTONATION INC: Face Class Action Over Unpaid Wages

BAGGIO LTD: Faces "Zepeda" Suit in S.D. New York
BELL: Faces Suit Over False Advertisment of Fibe Services
BENCHMARK HOSPITALITY: Faces "Riley" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
BILL WHATCOTT: Judge Tosses CAD100MM++ Defamation Suit
BLU PRODUCTS: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Adups Spyware in Phones

BLUE APRON: "Lopez" Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
BVM BRIDGES: Faces "Whitaker" Suit in Middle District of Florida
CANADA: Three Homosexuality Suits vs. Military Merged
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Class Action Could be Landmine for the Battalion
CELLCEUTIX CORP: Judge Denies Bid for Sanction in "Zagami"

CERNX MN: "Brown" Seeks OT, Reimbursements, Missed Break Premium
CREDIT CORP: "Zilbert" Sues Over FDCPA Breach
D-ZEE TEXTILES: Senior Care Sues over Unsolicited Fax Messages
DO & CO CHICAGO: "Woods" Hits Illegally Procured Background Check
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Welfare Fund Sues over Amitriptyline Prices

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Avezbadalov" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Gadomski Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reports
ESSENDANT CO: "Sinay" Suit Removed to Cent. Dist. Calif.
FOUGERA PHARMA: Teachers' Fund Sues Over Overpriced Fungicide
FRESH VIEW: Faces "Sparrow" Suit in S.D.N.Y.

GAMESTOP CORP: "Brier" Suit Moved to N.D. Cal. Federal Court
GLOBAL A&T: Marble Ridge Files Lawsuit Over Debt Exchange
GOLDEN AGE: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Wages
HONGHUA AMERICA: Faces "Gomez" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
J. CREW: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Rubin" Suit

JJM BEN FOODS: "Alagheband" Asserts Discrimination, Seeks OT Pay
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Leslie" Suit in Middle District Florida
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Paolini" Suit Under Securities Act
KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM: "Sauceda" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Law
KEDREN COMMUNITY: "Robinson" Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages

KKW TRUCKING: Judge Denies Renewed Bid to Dismiss "Demmings" Suit
KROGER CO: "Perez" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court
LG CONTRACTING: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
LIPOCINE INC: "Lewis" Securities Suit Transferred to D. Utah
MAJOR LEAGUE: Soccer Clubs Lose Suit Against Players Union

MAJOR LEAGUE: Judge Grants Soccer Players' Bid to Dismiss Suit
MLS PLAYERS: Court Nixes Class Action Over Transfer Fees
MONSANTO COMPANY: "Rawa" Sues Over Herbicide False Label
NBTY INC: Suit Says Biotin Product Has No Health Benefits
NEA DELIVERY LLC: "Thomas" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

NEW YORK: Court Orders Permanent Injunction in Medicaid Suit
NIKE RETAIL: "Hamid" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court
NORWIN TECH: "Ringler" Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursements
ONAGOFLY: Faces Class Action Over Low Quality Drone
OTTAWA: Faces Suit Over LGBTQ Purge

PATELCO CREDIT: Faces "Gadomski" Suit Under Credit Reporting Laws
PHB INC: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay Under FLSA
PLAINS ALL: Texas Judge Tosses Securities Class Action Suit
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Inflated Vocations Revenue, Suit Says
PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: "Archavage" Remanded to Pa. State Court

PROGRESSIVE CORP: MSP Recovery Sues over Medicare Act Violations
PROGRESSIVE FINANCIAL: Faces "Huntley" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
PROPULSION CONTROLS: "Ramirez" Suit Moved to San Diego Court
RADIO RENTALS: Thorn Group Confirms Suit Over Lending Practices
READY PAC PRODUCE: "Torres" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Overtime

RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Faces "Menza" Suit in D.N.J.
RED PARROT: Senior Care Sues Over Unsolicited Advertisements
RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Faces "Jairam" Lawsuit Over Convenience Fee
REVLON CONSUMER: NY Court Grants Prelim OK of Class Settlement
RUBY TUESDAY: Settles Sharholders' Suit for $5-Mil.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Allegedly Spies on Consumer, Class Says
SHIPLEY DO-NUT FLOUR: "Sanchez" Seeks Overtime Pay
SHO-ME POWER: 8th Cir. Partly Affirms Ruling Landowners' Suit
SILVER BAY: Merger Deal Inadequate, "Scarantino" Says
SMITH FOOD: Faces "Doak" Suit in Northern District of Georgia

STARBOARD GROUP: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
SUNIVA INC: Faces "Lam" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Faces "Poudy" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
TOWER PALLET: "Jones" Suit Alleges FLSA, Wisc. Law Violations
VALEANT PHARMA: Ackman's Suit May Cost Pershing Investors $75MM

VALLEY NATIONAL: Faces "Gaston" Suit in E.D. New York
VISA INT'L: Nuts for Candy Files Anti-trust Case
WELLS FARGO: "Barbose" Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
WELLS FARGO: Gadomski Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reports
WESTERN UNION: "Herman" Securities Suit Transferred to D. Col.

WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Ahold Suit in S.D.N.Y.
WISE FOODS: Faces "Alce" Suit in Southern District of New York
ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: "Parshall" Suit Alleges Securities Act Breach

* Fairness in Suit Litigation Act of 2017 Faces Uncertain Future
* Retirement System Drops Law Firm After Tiny Payouts in Suits



                            *********


ACCEL LOGISTICS: Faces "Phillips" Suit Over FLSA "Violation"
------------------------------------------------------------
LANCE PHILLIPS, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ACCEL LOGISTICS INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-00035-BL (N.D. Tex., March 14, 2017), alleges that
although Mr. Phillips regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a
week, Accel Logistics failed to pay him overtime in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Accel Logistics Inc. is an oilfield service company.  Lance
Phillips worked as a sand coordinator for Accel Logistics Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shane Mcguire, Esq.
     THE MCGUIRE FIRM, PC
     102 N. College St., Suite 301
     Tyler, TX 75702
     Phone: 903-630-7154
     Fax: 903-630-7173
     E-mail: shane@mcguirefirm.com

        - and -

     Derek Braziel, Esq.
     LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
     1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
     Dallas, TX 75702
     Phone: 214-749-1400
     Fax: 214-749-1010
     E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com


ADVANCED RECOVERY: "Powell" Sues for OT, Missed Break Premium
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Powell, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Advanced Recovery System, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00607, (M.D. Fla., April 5, 2017),
seeks unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants operate an addiction clinic center in Winter Park,
Orange County FL where Powell worked as a behavioral technician.
Plaintiff claims overtime pay for hours rendered in excess of 40
per week, worked through meal breaks but was deducted 30 minutes
as break time and was not given accurate wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donna V. Smith, Esq.
      Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, PA
      1110 N Florida Ave., Ste. 300
      Tampa, FL 33602-3343
      Tel: (813) 224-0431
      Fax: (813) 229-8712
      Email: dsmith@wfclaw.com


ADVOCATE HEALTH: Supreme Court Hears ERISA Class Action Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
James F. Seamann III, Esq., and Rene E. Thorne, Esq., at Jackson
Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that
on March 27, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the
consolidated "church plan" cases, Advocate Health Care Network v.
Stapleton, St. Peter's Healthcare System v. Kaplan, and Dignity
Health v. Rollins. As an initial matter, unless the Senate
confirms Neil Gorsuch in the very near future, the case will be
decided by an eight-Justice court. While it's impossible to say
for sure how Justices will vote, there may be cause for optimism
for the Defendants (against whom the lower courts ruled in all
three cases).

At first, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan both seemed hostile to the
Defendants' view of the construction of the church-plan
exemption.  But this view seemed to change during the Plaintiffs'
presentation.  Justice Sotomayor commented to Plaintiffs' counsel
"I'm torn," and -- saying that ERISA's church-plan provision
"could be read either way" -- asked counsel how to "break the
tie."  Both Sotomayor and Kagan also appeared to struggle with the
idea that Plaintiffs' reading would likely exclude some of the
organizations that the 1980 amendments to the church plan
exemption were intended to encompass.

Justices Alito and Kennedy seemed to focus on church-plan
sponsors' long-standing reliance on the IRS/PBGC interpretations
of the exemption.  Defendants' counsel noted that their liability
for penalties alone could exceed USD66 billion.  Justice Alito
seized on Plaintiffs' counsel suggestion that the church-plan
cases were "primarily about forward-looking relief" (as opposed to
penalties), going so far as to ask counsel to disavow seeking
penalties in light of Defendants' reliance on IRS letters.

Justice Kennedy also seemed concerned that hundreds of plans had
sought and obtained the blessing of the IRS and/or PBGC, and could
still face liability 30 years later.  Chief Justice Roberts
appeared to align with this view, asking Plaintiffs' counsel why
those agencies took a view opposite to Plaintiffs' interpretation.
Not surprisingly, Justice Ginsberg seemed to be squarely in
Plaintiffs' camp, and dismissed other Justices' concerns by noting
that the lower courts could fashion a remedy that takes
Defendants' good faith into account.

Justice Breyer took a pragmatic approach -- he asked several
hypotheticals, pressing Plaintiffs' counsel to say whether a plan
would be a church plan in each scenario.  This line of questioning
seemed to highlight for Justice Sotomayor that Plaintiffs' reading
would deny church-plan status to many of the plans that lobbied
for the 1980 amendments.

As usual, Justice Thomas was silent throughout.

In short, although any prediction would be speculative, the
Justices' questions suggest that Alito and Kennedy would take the
defense view, based on the reliance concerns, likely joined by
Roberts.  And it's probably safe to assume Justice Thomas would
side with these Justices.

Justices Sotomayor and Kagan could go either way, but if they
adopt the Defendants' view of the statute, it will probably be
based on their concerns that the Plaintiffs' reading ignores the
purpose of the 1980 amendments (i.e., exempting plans maintained
by church-affiliated groups).  If the conservative wing of the
Court holds together, then the addition of either Sotomayor or
Kagan would yield a victory.

However, if the usual ideological split prevails, a 4-4 tie would
leave the adverse rulings intact. [GN]


AIR METHODS: Faces "Cowan" Suit in District of Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Air Methods
Corporation. The case is captioned as Randal Cowan and Keith
Kranhold, Executor of, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Estate of Kenneth Kranhold, the Plaintiffs, v.
Air Methods Corporation and Rocky Mountain Holdings LLC, Case No.
1:17-cv-00791-RM (D. Colo., Mar. 29, 2017). The case is assigned
to Hon. Judge Raymond P. Moore.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard Joseph Burke, Esq.
          Quantum Legal LLC-St. Louis
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1310
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (847) 433 4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433 2500
          E-mail: Richard@Qulegal.com


AIRFLOW COOLING: "Muta-Ali" Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abdu Musa Muta-Ali, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Airflow Cooling & Heating, Inc.
and Naeem Mohammed, as an individual, Defendants, Case No.
243/2017 (N.Y. Sup., January 10, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime
wages, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs of this action together with
reasonable attorneys' fees and such further relief pursuant to New
York Labor Laws.

Plaintiff worked as HVAC technician for the Defendant's air-
conditioning company. Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff
the legally prescribed minimum wage for his hours worked from in
or around March 2015 to November 2016.

Request for Judicial Intervention was filed on April 5, 2017.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Tel: (718)263-9591

Defendant is represented by:

      PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
      35-10 Broadway, Suite 201
      Astoria, NY 11106
      Tel: (718) 777-0400


APPLIED MACHINERY: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN DE DIOS HERNANDEZ on behalf of himself individually, and ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. APPLIED MACHINERY
CORPORATION, NABORS CORPORATE SERVICES INC., and NABORS INDUSTRIES
INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00989 (S.D. Tex., March 31,
2017), alleges that Defendants do not pay their Welders overtime
as required by the Fair Labor Standards; instead, they pay Welders
straight time, not time and a half for overtime hours worked.

Applied Machinery Corporation manufactures drilling rigs for
customers in the oil and gas industry. Defendants Nabors
Industries Inc. and Nabors Corporate Services Inc. provide
drilling services for its customers throughout the oil and gas
industry. Defendant Nabors Industries Inc. and Nabors Corporate
Services Inc. retained Applied Machinery Corporation to assist in
building land rigs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
     THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
     3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
     Houston, TX 77054
     Phone: (832) 778-8182
     Fax: (832) 778-8353
     E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


ARGOS THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Maurer" Lawsuit Under Securities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY MAURER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ARGOS THERAPEUTICS INC., JEFFREY ABBEY,
LORI HARRELSON and RICHARD KATZ, Defendants, Civil Action No.
1:17-cv-216 (M.D.N.C., March 14, 2017), alleges that Defendants
issued statements that are false and/or misleading and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects in violation of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act.

Argos' most advanced product candidate is AGS-003, also called
rocapuldencel-T, for the treatment of metastatic renal cell
carcinoma (mRCC) and other cancers.  AGS-003 is being evaluated in
a pivotal ADAPT Phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of mRCC
(ADAPT), which was initiated in January 2013.

Specifically, the case alleges that the Defendants issued
statements were false and misleading and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) the Arcentis technology platform was not viable; (ii)
ADAPT was likely to be discontinued, and (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial statements, as well as
Defendants' statements about Argos' business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Argos Therapeutics Inc. is an immune-oncology company focused on
the development and commercialization of individualized
immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer and infectious
diseases based on a proprietary technology platform called
Arcelis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Janet Ward Black, Esq.
     Nancy Meyers, Esq.
     WARD BLACK LAW
     208 West Wendover Avenue
     Greensboro, NC 27401-1307
     Phone: 336-333-2244
     Fax: 336-379-9415
     E-mail: jwblack@wardblacklaw.com
             nmeyers@wardblacklaw.com

        - and -

     Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
     Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq.
     LEVI & KORINSKY LLP
     733 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Phone: 203-992-4523
     Fax: 212-363-7171
     E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
             sbartone@zlk.com


ARKANSAS: Top Court Dismisses Ex-Troopers' Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Walkenhurst at Arkansas Online reports the state Supreme
Court on March 29 dismissed a class-action lawsuit brought by
retired Arkansas State Police troopers that alleged changes to the
organization's Deferred Retirement Option Plan were
unconstitutional.

Maj. Cleve Barfield, Cpl. Ricky Briggs, Capt. Loyd Franklin, Capt.
Myron Hall, Lt. Glenn Sligh and Sgt. Mack Thompson sued the
Arkansas State Police Retirement System and its board of trustees
over changes to the way interest rates were calculated.

Calculations for the interest rates on the state police's Deferred
Retirement Option Plan were established when the program was
founded in 1995. The Legislature passed a law in 2007 that allowed
the trustees to set the rate, which they lowered in 2009. Troopers
in the retirement system benefit based on the interest rates.

Pulaski County Circuit Judge Mackie Pierce certified the lawsuit
for class-action status in 2013, potentially allowing as many as
70 retired state troopers to join the lawsuit, which sought either
a remedy to the interest rates or monetary damages.

Attorneys for the retirement system and its board of trustees
argued that they had sovereign immunity from being sued, the
troopers sued too late, the troopers did not explore all other
potential remedies before suing, and the troopers failed to
properly demonstrate why they could be entitled to relief.

Pierce rejected the state's claim of sovereign immunity, ruling
that the retirement system funds in question were not a part of
the state treasury but existed because of member contributions. In
other words, the money belonged to the officers, not the state.
Pierce granted summary judgment in favor of the troopers in
December 2015 and awarded monetary damages.

The retirement system's board of trustees appealed Pierce's
decision.

On March 29, the Supreme Court released an opinion reversing
Pierce's decision and dismissed the troopers' claim entirely.
The court ruled that the people sued were sued in their official
capacities, thus the troopers had sued "the State," which has
sovereign immunity from lawsuits.

Further, the funds in question concern the state treasury, the
court ruled. Members are not required to contribute, but their
employer -- Arkansas State Police -- does. When the retirement
system faced a shortfall in 2009, the state Legislature authorized
USD9 million to help sustain it, the court noted.

"Thus, appellees are incorrect that their suit does not implicate
the state treasury, and we hold that the circuit court erred in
finding that appellants were not immune for this reason,"
Associate Justice Courtney Hudson Goodson wrote in the majority
opinion.

While sovereign immunity has exceptions that include the
constitutional-rights violations the troopers alleged, the court
sided with the trustees' argument that exceptions don't apply to
claims that seek monetary damages.

"We have never recognized this exception to allow a claim for
damages to proceed against the State," Goodson wrote.

Further, trustees deliberately reduced the interest rate and did
not commit an error that may have made them liable under state
law, the court ruled. [GN]

The case is ARKANSAS STATE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND KIRK
BRADSHAW, JOHN W. ALLISON, BRANT TOSH, BLAKE WILSON, DONNIE
UNDERWOOD, JOE MILES, AND DR. JOHN SHELNUTT, IN THEIR OFFICIAL
CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE ARKANSAS
STATE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Appellants, v. GLENN SLIGH, MYRON
HALL, RICKY BRIGGS, LOYD FRANKLIN, MACK THOMPSON, CLEVE BARFIELD,
AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellees, No. CV-16-304 (Ark.).

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Patricia Van Ausdall Bell, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellants.

C. Burt Newell, for appellees.


AUSTRALIA: Court Orders Disclosure of Docs in Live Cattle Ban Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Manicaros at NT News reports the Federal Court has ruled in
favour of cattlemen requiring the disclosure of all documents part
of the AUD600-million class action emanating out of the 2011 live
export ban.

Emails from Gillard Government advisers instructed to use the
private accounts of the Minister at the centre of class action
have not been produced by the Commonwealth, undermining the
litigants case, the application to the Federal Court alleges.
In a "Document Discovery Application" in the Brett Cattle Company
v Senator the Honourable Joe Ludwig in Sydney today, lawyers for
the cattlemen, Minter Ellison, said the application had been
forced on them in order to prove Mr Ludwig acted unlawfully in
enacting the ban.

Mr. Ludwig suspended the export of livestock on the back of a Four
Corners story about the killing process of cattle.

In response to the win, NT Cattlemen's Association chief executive
officer Tracey Hayes said the application had to be made despite
the "Commonwealth promising to behave like a model litigant".
"It is astounding that we have had to fight so hard to get this
material, for Joe Ludwig to have to be ordered to provide it," she
said. "These documents will assist the NTCA, who is strongly
supported by the Australian Farmers' Fighting Fund, to run the
case listed for July this year.

"We look forward to Joe Ludwig attending the trial in July to
answer the issues before him. He owes that to all of those
affected. Although the industry is doing well you can't shut up
shop for 2 years and not still be hurting financially today. Some
farmers had to sell their properties as a result of this ban -- a
ban seemingly timed to create the most financial damage to our
industry.

"We still hold some hope that the Commonwealth will sit down and
discuss this claim with us."

Industry believes crucial documents emanating from Mr. Ludwig's
office have not been 'discovered' (produced by the Commonwealth).
The application identified Mr. Ludwig used private email accounts
to communicate with his staff, including the accounts --
agfishforest@gmail.com -- and -- jludwig@bigpond.net.au

It alleges no emails, texts or other electronic communications
have been discovered by Mr. Ludwig had been sourced.

There are few discovered emails between the Minister and his key
Ministerial staff including Minister Ludwig's Chief of Staff.

Communications from the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, or any
of Mr Ludwig's cabinet colleagues have not been searched for, they
say in breach of his discovery obligations. Some documents may
never recovered because "the Department's servers that held the
accounts were "decommissioned" and loaded onto backup tapes late
in 2015.

The application said the Commonwealth said there 'is no guarantee
that the tapes can be recovered successfully.

"It appears that Ministerial staff were instructed to send
materials to these private email addresses. Materials we have seen
include a government brief and media talking points -- we cannot
know what else may have been sent to this account or how common
this practise is or was." [GN]


AUTONATION INC: Face Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy at Law360 reports that a proposed class of
salespeople hit AutoNation Inc. with a wage and hour suit on March
30, telling a California state court that the auto dealer paid
them on commission while overworking them and not paying overtime.

Led by Tarek Abu-Hajar, a former AutoNation salesman, the proposed
class claims that the retailer didn't provide its sales staff with
rest breaks, pay them overtime, or pay all required wages when
they left the company. AutoNation is also accused of violating the
California Unfair Competition Law.

Abu-Hajar is seeking to represent a class comprising any current
or former California residents who sold vehicles for AutoNation at
any point starting four years ago on March 29.

During the class period, AutoNation based its salespeople's pay on
sales commissions, which Abu-Hajar said failed to compensate them
for breaks and violated other labor laws.

Specifically, sales staff were paid advances on commissions at
about USD10 per hour, and AutoNation clawed that amount back when
its salespeople were paid commissions, Abu-Hajar said.

When the staff worked more than eight hours a day or 40 hours a
week, they didn't get overtime, he said, adding that they often
worked 60-hour weeks.

In addition to the lack of overtime, the sales staff's job duties
made it impossible for them to take duty-free breaks, since they
were required to be on call or otherwise ready to help customers.

Abu-Hajar filed a similar complaint in California federal court,
but the complaint was refiled in state court with some
modifications.

AutoNation could not be reached for comment on March 30.

Abu-Hajar is represented by Joshua Haffner --
JH@Haffnerlawyers.com -- and Graham G. Lambert --
GL@Haffnerlawyers.com -- of Haffner Law PC.

Counsel information for AutoNation was unavailable on March 30.

The case is Tarek Abu-Hajar et al. v. AutoNation Inc., case number
BC655607, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles. [GN]


BAGGIO LTD: Faces "Zepeda" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baggio, Ltd. The
case is styled as Emiliano Nieto Zepeda, Alan Yair Dominguez
Galleres, Luis Guzman, and Sergio Alarcon Mendoza, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Baggio, Ltd., Jointly and Severally; Mario Fava, Jointly and
Severally; and Tarcisio Fava, Jointly and Severally, the
Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-02290 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 29, 2017).

Founded in 2001, Baggio Ltd is a small organization in the
restaurants industry located in Scarsdale, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


BELL: Faces Suit Over False Advertisment of Fibe Services
---------------------------------------------------------
Jason Magder at Montreal Gazette reports that Bell's Fibe service
is misleading customers because of claims the service delivers a
fibre optic network to homes, a new lawsuit claims.

Quebec's Superior Court authorized a class-action lawsuit on March
29 against the company for falsely advertising its Fibe television
and Internet service.

Bell Fibe is an Internet-delivered television service that uses
Bell's fibre optic internet network. However, in many cases, the
fibre optic wiring is sent to what's called a neighbourhood node,
and then connected to homes through old-fashioned copper phone
wires for the last kilometre or so.

A brief submitted to the court highlighted several promotional
advertisements including a brochure from 2012, that said the
network is "made up of 100 per cent fibre optic connected directly
to each home." Bell writes in small print on the brochure that the
fibre wires are available only where technology permits.

In a 2015 interview, however, Shawn Omstead, vice-president of
residential products who manages Fibe, told Postmedia the Fibe
experience the consumer receives doesn't differ whether the cable
is directly connected to the home, or through a phone wire from a
neighbourhood node.

"I don't think, at the end of the day, a customer cares how it
gets delivered," he said. "If I have Fibe on FTTH (fibre to the
home) or FTTN (fibre to the node), in terms of the way (customers)
watch, there's nothing that we differentiate in the service. We
haven't felt the need to talk about that difference."

C├Čte-St-Luc resident Shay Abicidan, however, disagrees. Named as
the first plaintiff in the class-action suit, he said he started
the action because he wants Bell to pay for lying to customers.
"To put it short, I was misled, along with a few hundred thousand
customers," Abicidan said. "I didn't get what I was promised."
He said he thought Bell was providing a service of fibre optic
Internet, but found out by speaking with friends that the wires
entering his house were not fibre optic cables.

"And then when I went to the garage and looked at the wires, it
was clear they were not fibre optic cables," Abicidan said.

Because of how class-action lawsuits work in Quebec, people who
belong to the group are automatically enrolled in the suit. In
this case, anyone who was a Bell Fibe subscriber between the years
2012 and 2017 is eligible to receive compensation if a judge rules
against Bell.

Joey Zukran, Esq. -- jzukran@lpclex.com -- at LPC Avocat Inc., the
lawyer heading the case against Bell said the amount of damages
claimed will be made public in a future court filing.


BENCHMARK HOSPITALITY: Faces "Riley" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Benchmark
Hospitality of Westchester, LLC. The case is captioned as Amanie
Riley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Benchmark Hospitality of Westchester, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02374 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 3, 2017).

Benchmark Hospitality International is a recognized global leader
in the management and marketing of resorts, hotels and conference
centers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is 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


BILL WHATCOTT: Judge Tosses CAD100MM++ Defamation Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Gledhill at Christian reports that a judge in Canada has
thrown out a CAD100 million-plus class-action defamation lawsuit
brought by homosexual activists against a Christian group.

The plaintiffs claimed that people taking part in Toronto Pride
last year were defamed when the Christian group, led by Bill
Whatcott, dressed up as green 'gay zombies' and handed out
'information leaflets' designed to look like packets of condoms.

In his judgment, Justice Paul Perell dismissed the case on a
technicality, ruling that plaintiffs Christopher Hudspeth and
George Smithermen could not claim defamation of an entire group,
such as those taking part in the Pride Parade or the 'LGTBTQ2SI'
community.

He writes, 'The civil law, generally speaking, is concerned with
the civil rights of individuals. The doctrinal problem is there is
no common law cause of action by a community for defamation,
intentional infliction of mental distress, and civil conspiracy to
injure.'

He does say however that the information packets were 'hate
speech' and therefore not covered by a defence of 'legitimate
exercise of freedom of expression'.

And he says the gay activists can continue the action if they can
produce individuals claiming to be defamed, injured, or inflicted
by mental distress by the information packets. He gave them 30
days to find any such individuals.

LifeSite News also reports that Perell ordered Whatcott to deliver
the names some of those who helped hand out the packets and the
financial backers who helped pay for the exercise. This was
because knowing their identities was necessary to the legal action
being continued.

Whatcott says on his own website that he would rather go to jail
than hand over the names of his friends and supporters.

He says: 'There could be serious repercussions for me, including
prolonged jail time if I don't comply with the order to disclose
the names of my supporters. Generally, Christians should comply
with secular courts, but not when complying harms the innocent or
when the order is unjust in the eyes of God.

'I don't actually want to be put in jail indefinitely for
contempt, or have to spend the rest of my life making it as
difficult as possible to prevent these hate-filled homosexuals
from taking my property or somehow getting access to who my
friends and supporters are and then going after their homes and
life savings.' [GN]


BLU PRODUCTS: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Adups Spyware in Phones
----------------------------------------------------------------
DARREN MARTINEZ AND JOE MOCNIK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, vs. BLU PRODUCTS, INC.,
and SHANGHAI ADUPS TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-02507 (C.D. Cal., March 31, 2017), alleges that Defendants
knew that its cellular phones utilized the Adups Spyware but
caused the software to be installed because it financially
benefitted from the software through the use and review of the
data intercepted.

Blu Products, Inc. is a Miami, Florida-headquartered mobile phone
manufacturer.  Shanghai Adups Technology Co., Ltd. develops and
implements software that controls the functionality of cellular
telephones (generally referred to as "firmware").

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Tel: (213) 785-2610
     Fax: (213) 226-4684
     E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


BLUE APRON: "Lopez" Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned MATTHEW LOPEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. BLUE APRON, INC., A
DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND DOES 1-25, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case
No. 30-2017-00902648-CU-MT-CXC, (Cal. Super., February 9, 2017)
has been removed from the California Superior Court for the County
of Orange to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, according to a case docket dated March 14,
2017. The clerk of court assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-00449 to the
proceeding.

Plaintiff asserts that he and all others similarly situated "have
a dispute" with Defendant "regarding Defendant's billing practices
under California's Automatic Renewal Law, and that the arbitration
clause in Defendant's Terms of Service bars litigation of those
disputes in violation of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act.

BLUE APRON, INC. delivers fresh ingredients and recipes to make
meals for homes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James G. Snell, Esq.
     PERKINS COIE LLP
     3150 Porter Drive
     Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
     Phone: 650.838.4300
     Fax: 650.838.4350
     E-mail: JSnell@perkinscoie.com

        - and -

     Alisha C. Burgin, Esq.
     PERKINS COIE LLP
     1888 Century Park E., Suite 1700
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721
     Phone: 310.788.9900
     Fax: 310.788.3399
     E-mail: ABurgin@perkinscoie.com


BVM BRIDGES: Faces "Whitaker" Suit in Middle District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BVM The Bridges,
LLC. The case is titled as Todd K. Whitaker, on behalf of himself
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
BVM The Bridges, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00731-EAK-
MAP (M.D. Fla., Mar. 29, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Elizabeth A. Kovachevich.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher James Saba, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Telephone: (813) 321 4086
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: csaba@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com


CANADA: Three Homosexuality Suits vs. Military Merged
-----------------------------------------------------
CTV News reports lawyers seeking compensation for people let go
from the Canadian Armed Forces and the civil service for being gay
are merging three class action lawsuits into one, hoping to find
strength in numbers.

Martine Roy is one of three named plaintiffs leading the proposed
lawsuit against the Government of Canada. She's from Montreal, but
another is from Halifax.

"I was told, 'You're being dishonorably discharged,'" says Roy,
"and I said 'Why?' And he said, 'Because you're a homosexual.'"

In total, there are now more than 100 people from across the
country who say they were let go from the Canadian Armed Forces or
the civil service because they are gay.

"The military police actually had a department called the Special
Investigation Unit, whose job was to hunt down, root out,
identify, interrogate and eventually terminate anyone that they
believed to be, anyone who's admitted to be or suspected to be
homosexual," says class action lawyer John McKiggan.

The lawsuit hasn't yet been certified in court, but McKiggan says
he's very confident that will happen.

Homosexuality was decriminalized in Canada in 1969, but McKiggan
says the military only stopped investigating gay people in 1993.
McKiggan says the suit could eventually include thousands of
people. They want an apology, recognition and public education.
"The average Canadian citizen has no idea what gays and lesbians
in service of our country had to put up with," McKiggan says.

They're also asking for compensation, which McKiggan says could
amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. But he says no amount
of money will change this dark chapter in Canadian history.

The Department of National Defence says it is currently working on
a response, but it has not yet been received by CTV News. [GN]


CANADIAN HOCKEY: Class Action Could be Landmine for the Battalion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dawson at Bay Today reports that 'in our last year in
Brampton, the team lost approximately CAD800,000.  Only after our
move to North Bay in 2013, the team began to break even or turn a
nominal profit of less than CAD100,000.'

Scott Abbott says if he is forced to pay Battalion players a
minimum wage, the team would likely have to shut down.

Abbott made the statements in an affidavit sent out by the
Canadian Hockey League in defence of a class action lawsuit where
current and former players claim major junior hockey is a strong
enough industry that they should be able to pay all the players a
minimum wage salary.

"If the Battalion were required to pay its players minimum wage,
the consequences of this additional expense item would likely
result in the team shutting down," stated Abbott in the affidavit,
among many that were made out by OHL teams as part of the CHL
defence.

Abbott claims in the legal document that the franchise never had a
profitable season in any of the 15 years in Brampton.

"We ran a deficit of at least CAD100,000 per year with our losses
often being as high as CAD400,000 per year.  In our last year in
Brampton, the team lost approximately CAD800,000.  Only after our
move to North Bay in 2013, the team began to break even or turn a
nominal profit of less than CAD100,000," stated Abbott in the
affidavit which was submitted in the fall of 2015.

Players currently receive about CAD475 per month from the team for
spending money. However, on top of that the teams cover room and
board for the players, along with medical and dental insurance,
along with hockey equipment that -- depending on the player --
could be close to CAD7,000 for each player.

When they leave the CHL, the league says players are eligible for
university and college scholarships if they don't pursue a long-
term pro hockey career.

It's been estimated that paying players minimum wage would cost
each club about CAD300,000 per year.  The league claims that would
force teams to cut back benefits such as scholarships and might
even drive some teams like the Battalion, into bankruptcy.
"The only way the team could possibly continue to operate would be
for the team to re-allocate funds spent on other benefits
(education package, equipment, social events, training,
facilities) to minimum wage payments," Abbott continued in the
affidavit.

"The players would be receiving minimum wage but they would no
longer benefit from having the best hockey development experience
in the world with top of the line coaching, facilities and
equipment.  Players would potentially lose out on fully paid
education packages. The atmosphere, personality and purpose of the
OHL would be significantly altered after being a staple in the
hockey world for so many decades."

Court proceedings relating to the landmark case have continued in
2017 in both Toronto and in Calgary. [GN]


CELLCEUTIX CORP: Judge Denies Bid for Sanction in "Zagami"
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied defendants' motion for
sanctions in the case styled GARY ZAGAMI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CELLCEUTIX
CORPORATION, LEO EHRLICH, and KRISHNA MENON, Defendants, No. 15
Civ. 7194 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.).

Cellceutix Corporation is a clinical-stage biotechnology company
developing several drugs for approval by the Food and Drug
Administration, including the drugs Kevetrin and Brilacidin.
Defendant Krishna Menon has served as President, Chief Scientific
Officer, Director, and Chairman of the Board of Cellceutix since
2007. Defendant Leo Ehrlich has served as Chief Financial Officer
and Director of Cellceutix since 2007, and as the company's Chief
Executive Officer since 2010.

On August 6, 2015, a short seller of Cellceutix securities using
the pseudonym "Mako Research" posted an article on the website
Seeking Alpha. The author contended that Cellceutix was a sham
company and purported to identify and explain the falsity of
misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in the company's
public statements.

Just over one month after the publication of the Mako Research
Report, on September 11, 2015, the Rosen Law Firm filed a class
action complaint on behalf of Nicole O'Connell against defendants.
The complaint recited violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and
78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5.

The first amended complaint was filed as of right on September 24,
2015. It replaced Nicole O'Connell with plaintiff Gary Zagami. In
all substantive respects, the allegations of securities fraud
remained the same. On October 22, 2015, counsel for Cellceutix
served a fourteen-page letter on the Rosen Law Firm, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, demanding that plaintiff withdraw the first
amended complaint. Counsel began by offering background on both
Cellceutix and Mako Research, noting several sensational reports'
that the latter had submitted to Seeking Alpha in the preceding
two months, each of which recited Mako Research's status as a
short-seller of securities issued by the subject of the report.
Counsel for Cellceutix detailed various reasons why Cellceutix
believed that it was unreasonable for plaintiff to rely on the
Mako Research Report.

Plaintiff did not withdraw his complaint. Instead, plaintiff filed
a second amended complaint on January 11, 2016. The second amended
complaint presented a more nuanced theory of how certain of the
purported misstatements and omissions in Cellceutix's public
statements amounted to securities fraud

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint,
as well as a request for the court to take judicial notice of
certain documents, on February 10, 2016.

The court issued its decision granting defendants' motion on June
8, 2016, and on June 13, 2016, defendants submitted a letter to
the court seeking guidance regarding their contemplated motion for
sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and the court's correlative
obligation to make Rule 11 findings under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Defendants moved pursuant to the
mandatory review provision of the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-
4(c)(1), for a finding that the lawsuit amounted to abusive
litigation, and for the consequent imposition of sanctions
pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Failla held that plaintiff raised several claims with
legitimate, if ultimately unavailing, legal arguments. These
claims are sufficiently meritorious to save the complaint as a
whole from being abusive. Defendants' motion for sanctions is
denied.

A full-text copy of Judge Failla's opinion and order dated
March 29, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/hDGQmJ from
Leagle.com.

Gary Zagami, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C.
Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- Jonathan Stern --
jstern@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
The Rosen Law Firm P.A.

Defendants, represented by Michael J. Sullivan --
msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com -- at Ashcroft Law Firm, LLC


CERNX MN: "Brown" Seeks OT, Reimbursements, Missed Break Premium
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terrance Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CERNX MN, L.L.C. and Amazon.com LLC,
Defendants, Case No. RB17855267 (Cal. Super., April 3, 2017),
seeks unpaid overtime wages, premium pay for missed rest breaks,
statutory penalties and unreimbursed expenses under the California
Labor Code, restitution under the California Business and
Professions Code, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees
and such other relief.

Amazon is an Internet-based retailer who commissioned Cernx to
deliver goods purchased through its website to consumers. Amazon
operates a fulfillment center located at 250 Utah Avenue in South
San Francisco, California where Cernx employed Plaintiff as a
delivery driver. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laura L. Ho, Esq.
      James Kan, Esq.
      GOLDSTELN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
      300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (510) 763-9800
      Fax: (510) 835-1417
      Email: lho@gbdhlegal.com
             jkan@gbdhlegal.com

             - and -

      Julian Hammond, Esq.
      HAMMONDLAW PC
      1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410
      Baltimore, MD 21208
      Tel: (310)601-6766
      Fax: (310)295-2385
      Email: jhammmond@hammondlawpc.com


CREDIT CORP: "Zilbert" Sues Over FDCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------
James Zilbert, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Credit Corp Solutions Inc., and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02617 (C.D.
Cal., April 5, 2017) seeks damages and any other available legal
or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the federal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Defendant was a company engaged, by use of mail, in the business
of collecting a debt from Plaintiff owed to a "Synchrony Bank -
Care Credit" in the amount of $1,180.62. Defendant allegedly
threatened legal action. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


D-ZEE TEXTILES: Senior Care Sues over Unsolicited Fax Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
SENIOR CARE GROUP, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. D-ZEE TEXTILES LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No.
8:17-cv-00761-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla., Mar. 31, 2017), seeks actual
monetary loss from Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited
facsimiles in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991.

According to the complaint, receiving the Defendants' junk faxes
caused Plaintiff and the other recipients to lose paper and toner
consumed in the printing of the Defendants' faxes. Moreover, the
Defendants' faxes used the Plaintiff's and the other class
members' telephone lines and fax machine. The Defendants' faxes
cost the Plaintiff and the other class members time, as the
Plaintiff and the other class members and their employees wasted
their time receiving, reviewing and routing the Defendants'
unauthorized faxes. That time otherwise would have been spent on
the Plaintiff's and the other class members' business activities.
The Defendants' faxes unlawfully interrupted the Plaintiff's and
other class members' privacy interests in being left alone.

D-Zee Textiles manufacture & supplies top quality bed linen, bath
linen, amenities, and janitorial supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


DO & CO CHICAGO: "Woods" Hits Illegally Procured Background Check
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barrie Woods, individually and as a representative of the class,
Plaintiff, v. DO & CO Chicago Catering, Inc. and DO & CO New York
Catering, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2017-CH-04801, (Ill. Cir.,
April 3, 2017), seeks relief, statutory' and punitive damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and all other relief under
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

According to the complaint, Defendants procured consumer reports
on the Plaintiff, then an applicant. Plaintiff completed
Defendants' Background Check Disclosure and Authorization Form and
Applicant Notification of Release of Information form that did not
comply with the requirements of Sec. 1681 of the FCRA. It
allegedly contained a vast amount of extraneous information that
violates the FCRA's stand-alone disclosure requirement. Said
Disclosure Form is confusing and misleading because it identifies
and authorizes three different consumer reporting agencies to run
a background check for employment purposes and contains two
liability waivers that purport to release Defendants, and other
entities from liability and responsibility for collecting the said
information. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq
      Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
      James B. Zouras
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550
      Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
      Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
             aficzko@stephanzouras.com
             jzouras@stcplianzouras.com


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Welfare Fund Sues over Amitriptyline Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC, ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC., PAR
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., QUALITEST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MYLAN INC.,
MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., SANDOZ, INC., AND ACCORD
HEALTHCARE, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02355
(S.D.N.Y., Mar. 31, 2017), seeks damages and injunctive relief to
prevent Defendants from continuing and maintaining the
anticompetitive combination, conspiracy, or agreements.

The case is a civil antitrust action on behalf of proposed classes
of end-payors who indirectly purchased, reimbursed, or otherwise
paid for amitriptyline hydrochloride from June 3,
2014 to the present (Class Period). The case arises out of an
anticompetitive conspiracy among Defendants to raise and fix the
prices of generic amitriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant sold
in tablet form.

Endo International is global specialty pharmaceutical company. It
was created as a result of a management buyout from DuPont Merck
in 1997.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          Elizabeth Metcalf, Esq.
          SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
          1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 201 2845
          E-mail: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com
                  emetcalf@safirsteinmetcalf.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981 4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981 4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Avezbadalov" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC. The case is entitled as Bela Avezbadalov, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01759 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 29, 2017).

Enhanced Recovery provides business process outsourcing services
that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Gadomski Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services LLC. The case is captioned as Kellie Gadomski,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Equifax Information Services LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00670-WBS-DB (E.D. Cal., Mar. 29, 2017). The case
is assigned to Hon. Senior Judge William B. Shubb.[BN]

Equifax Information collects and reports consumer information to
financial institutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400 6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
          E-mail: ml@kazlg.com


ESSENDANT CO: "Sinay" Suit Removed to Cent. Dist. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Patrick Sinay, individually and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
v. Essendant Co., United Stationers Supply Co., and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. BC651043, was removed from the Los
Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on March
24, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02315
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Defendants operate a wholesale distribution company of
workplace essentials, with consolidated net sales of $5.3 billion.
[BN]

Patrick Sinay is a pro se plaintiff.


FOUGERA PHARMA: Teachers' Fund Sues Over Overpriced Fungicide
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., Perrigo
Co. PLC, Perrigo Company, Perrigo New York, Inc., Sandoz, Inc.,
Taro Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Teligent, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-01528, (E.D. Pa., April 5, 2017), seeks to recover
treble damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees
resulting from overcharging of generic econazole nitrate topical
ointment in violation of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act.

Econazole nitrate is a generic anti-fungal used to treat athlete's
foot, jock itch, ringworm and pityriasis.

Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund is a
voluntary employee benefits plan providing health benefits to
eligible participants and beneficiaries, including prescription
drug benefits, to approximately 34,000 participants, and their
spouses and dependents.

Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business in Melville, New York.

Fougera is a specialty dermatology generic pharmaceutical company
that markets and sells generic econazole nitrate throughout the
United States.

Perrigo Company PLC is incorporated under the laws of Ireland with
its principal place of business in Dublin, Ireland. Perrigo's
North American base of operations is located at 515 Eastern
Avenue, Allegan, Michigan 49010, where Perrigo's domestic
subsidiaries are pharmaceuticals manufacturers.

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

Teligent, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business and manufacturing facilities at 105 Lincoln Ave,
Buena, NJ 08310. Teligent sold generic econazole to purchasers in
this District and throughout the United States.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
      EDESON AND ASSOCIATES LLC
      3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
      Newtown, PA 18940
      Tel: (215) 867-2399
      Fax: (267) 685-0676
      Email: mcdelson@edelson-law.com

             - and -

      Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, RC.
      8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
      161 Washington Street
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Tel: (484) 342-0700
      Fax: (484) 580-8747
      Email: scarlato@lawgsp.com


FRESH VIEW: Faces "Sparrow" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fresh View
Solutions. The case is styled as Deshonta Sparrow, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. Fresh View Solutions, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02296
(S.D.N.Y., Mar. 29, 2017).

Fresh View Solutions work with customers to repay their consumer
and commercial debt owned by Fresh View Funding.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq.
          DANIEL COHEN PLLC
          407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11212
          Telephone: (646) 645 8482
          E-mail: dancohenlaw@gmail.com


GAMESTOP CORP: "Brier" Suit Moved to N.D. Cal. Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled George Brier, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
the Plaintiff, v. GameStop Corp., a Delaware Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. CGC-17-557301, was removed on April 3, 2017
from the San Francisco Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (Oakland). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-01856-KAW to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to Hon. Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore.

GameStop Corp., or simply referred to as GameStop, is an American
video game, consumer electronics, and wireless services
retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Shannon B. Nakabayashi, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
          Telephone: (415) 442 1190
          Facsimile: (415) 442 1001
          E-mail: snakabayashi@morganlewis.com


GLOBAL A&T: Marble Ridge Files Lawsuit Over Debt Exchange
---------------------------------------------------------
MARBLE RIDGE CAPITAL LP and KLS DIVERSIFIED ASSET MANAGEMENT LP,
Plaintiffs, - against - GLOBAL A&T ELECTRONICS LTD., GLOBAL
A&T FINCO LTD., UNITED TEST AND ASSEMBLY CENTER LTD., UTAC CAYMAN
LTD., UTAC HONG KONG LIMITED, UTAC (TAIWAN) CORPORATION, UTAC
THAI, LIMITED, UTAC THAI HOLDINGS LIMITED, NEWBRIDGE ASIA GENPAR
IV ADVISORS, INC., TPG ASIA GENPAR V ADVISORS, INC., AFFINITY FUND
III GENERAL PARTNER LIMITED, and COSTA ESMERALDA INVESTMENTS
LIMITED on behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated,
Defendants, Index No. 651724/2017 (N.Y. Sup., County of New York,
March 31, 2017), alleges, on behalf of Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated, that Defendants breached their contract by
entering into an improper Affiliate Transaction in connection with
an exchange of Junior Debt for Additional Senior Secured Notes.
The debt exchange allegedly unlawfully impaired the rights and
priority of the holders of GATE's 10% senior secured notes due
2019 for the benefit of GATE's junior creditors and controlling
shareholders.

Global A&T Electronics Ltd. is a provider of semiconductor
assembly and testing services in mixed signal and logic products,
analog products, and memory products.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Sigmund S. Wissner-Gross, Esq.
     BROWN RUDNICK LLP
     Seven Times Square
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (212) 209-4930


GOLDEN AGE: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres at Penn Record reports that a home health aide has
filed a class action lawsuit against Golden Age Home Care Inc., a
home care provider, citing alleged unpaid wages, violation of
applicable minimum wage law and violation of workers compensation
acts for failing to pay adequate wages.

Modestine Smith Thorpe of Philadelphia filed a complaint on behalf
of all persons similarly situated on March 17 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that her
employer, headquartered in Feasterville, failed to adequately
compensate the plaintiff for her work.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she worked
for more than 40 hours but was not paid any overtime compensation.
The plaintiff holds Golden Age responsible because it allegedly
failed to pay minimum wages to the plaintiff nor did it compensate
her for time or travel costs between work sites.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks back pay damages,
unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid travel time,
interest, liquidated damages, court costs and any further relief
the court grants. She is represented by Shanon J. Carson, Esq. --
scarson@bm.net -- Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. --
sschalman@bm.net -- and Camille Fundora, Esq. -- 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-01187-GEKP [GN]


HONGHUA AMERICA: Faces "Gomez" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR GOMEZ on behalf of himself individually, and ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. HONGHUA AMERICA, LLC, NABORS
CORPORATE SERVICES INC., and NABORS INDUSTRIES INC., Defendants,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00990 (S.D. Tex., March 31, 2017), alleges that
Defendants do not pay their Welders overtime as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act; instead, they pay Welders straight time,
not time and a half for overtime hours worked.

Honghua America LLC manufactures drilling rigs for customers in
the oil and gas industry. Defendants Nabors Industries Inc. and
Nabors Corporate Services Inc. provide drilling services for its
customers throughout the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
     THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
     3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
     Houston, TX 77054
     Phone: (832) 778-8182
     Fax: (832) 778-8353
     E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


J. CREW: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Rubin" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey granted defendant's motion to dismiss the case
captioned FRUMA RUBIN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. J. CREW GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Civ. Action No. 16-2167 (FLW) (D.N.J.).

J Crew Group, Inc., owns and operates the retail website
jcrew.com, which defendant uses to sell clothing directly to
consumers. The website provides a terms and conditions section,
which purportedly governs the use of the site and J. Crew's
services, applications, contents and products.

Plaintiff Fruma Rubin avers that throughout the last six years,
she has purchased products from the website for personal, family
and household purposes.

Plaintiff alleges that the terms and conditions in the website
limits defendant's liabilities and obscures the effects of its
disclaimers on New Jersey consumers. More specifically, plaintiff
alleges that defendant's exculpatory and indemnification clauses
impermissibly attempt to absolve itself of all liability, and
completely remove the duties J Crew owes to its customers.
Plaintiff avers that such clauses violated the New Jersey's Truth
in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, (TCCWNA).

Plaintiff also alleges that defendant wrongfully attempts to
prevent consumers from seeking punitive damage awards for damage
incurred, seeking redress for violations of their internet
commerce rights and pursuing any damages, including treble and
statutory damages, attorney's fees and costs for any illegal
actions engaged in by defendant on its website. By including such
limitations, plaintiff alleges that defendant has violated the
TCCWNA. Finally, Plaintiff accuses Defendant of violating the Act
by such statement: "SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THIS
LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY, SO SOME OF THE ABOVE
LIMITATIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU." Plaintiff asserts that the
illegal placement of such provisions on the website violated two
separate sections of the TCCWNA: N.J.S.A. 56:12-15 and -16, i.e.,
Count I and Count II, respectively.

As to her injury, plaintiff explains that she has sustained a
concrete and particularized injury by defendant's placement of
numerous provisions within its terms and conditions that violated
her rights under New Jersey law. Plaintiff further alleges that
she has suffered harm by defendant's failure to specify whether
all of the terms stated on the website applied or did not apply in
New Jersey.

Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff's complaint based on a lack
of standing, as required by Article III of the Constitution, and
by TCCWNA itself.

Judge Wolfson held that the court is aware that there are numerous
class actions filed in the district based upon similar TCCWNA
violations alleged in the case. While the intent of the New Jersey
legislature in enacting the TCCWNA is to provide additional
protections for consumers in the state from unfair business
practices, the passage of the Act is not intended, however, for
litigation-seeking plaintiffs and/or their counsel to troll the
internet to find potential violations under the TCCWNA without any
underlying harm. In such instances, standing would be lacking.
Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted and plaintiff's complaint
is dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of Judge Wolfson's opinion dated March 29, 2017,
is available at https://goo.gl/5XrnLz from Leagle.com.

FRUMA RUBIN, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Daniel Zemel, Esq.
     ZEMEL LAW LLC
     70 Clinton Ave., Suite 3
     Newark, NJ 07114-2012
     Tel: 973-525-2552

J. CREW GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J.
MICHIE -- chris.michie@clarkmichie.com -- BRUCE W. CLARK --
bruce.clark@clarkmichie.com -- at CLARK MICHIE LLP


JJM BEN FOODS: "Alagheband" Asserts Discrimination, Seeks OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Alagheband, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs, v. JJM Ben Foods,
Inc., Legendary Restaurant Brands, LLC and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG17855173 (Cal. Super, April 3,
2017) seeks penalties, costs of suit incurred herein and
attorneys' fees, compensatory damages, compensation for all hours
worked but not paid, general, punitive and special damages,
restitution of all monies due, injunctive relief, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest and such other and further relief resulting
from wrongful termination in violation of public policy,
discrimination and harassment, emotional distress, breach of
contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and violations of the California Labor Code, California
Workers' Compensation Act and the California Business and
Professions Code.

JJM operates a number of restaurants and hotels including
Bennigan's of Fremont, Bennigan's of Santa Clara, Denny's, and La
Quinta Inns and Suites. Plaintiff began working for Defendants as
a Floor Manager at Bennigan's of Fremont in April 2016, clearing
tables, running food to customers and other restaurant duties.

Alagheband is a 64-year-old male and alleges discrimination in the
workplace because of his age as well as being an Iranian.
Defendants misclassified Plaintiff by refusing to provide the
right to overtime and other employment benefits. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq.
     Tracy T. Scanlan, Esq.
     Frank J. Zeccola, Esq.
     1001 Bayhill Drive, 2nd Floor
     San Bruno, CA 94066
     Tel: (415) 580-2574
     Fax: (415) 735-3454
     Email: silg@ilglegal.com
            tscanlan@ilglegal.com
            fzeccola@ilglegal.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Leslie" Suit in Middle District Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The case is captioned as Barbara Leslie, on behalf of herself and
all similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. JPMorgan
Chase & Co., doing business as: Chase Bank, the Defendant, Case
No. 8:17-cv-00746-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla., Mar. 29, 2017). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell.[BN]

JPMorgan Chase is a leading global financial services firm and one
of the largest banking institutions in the United States, with
operations worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Paolini" Suit Under Securities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
NUNZIATINA PAOLINI, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KANDI TECHNOLOGIES GROUP,
INC., XIAOMING HU, XIAOYING ZHU, CHENG WANG, and BING MEI,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02025 (C.D. Cal., March 14, 2017),
alleges that Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading
statements in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain
areas in the Company's previously issued financial statements for
the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the first three
quarters for the year ended December 31, 2016 required adjustment;
(2) in turn, the Company lacked effective controls over financial
reporting; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

KANDI TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC., through its subsidiaries, designs,
produces, manufactures, and distributes electric vehicles (EVs)
products, EV parts, and offroad vehicles in the People's Republic
of China and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
     L.A., CA 90071
     Tel: (213) 785-2610
     Fax: (213) 226-4684
     E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM: "Sauceda" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE SAUCEDA, for and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM INC., the Defendant, Case No.
153021/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Mar. 31, 2017), seeks to recover wages
and benefits which Plaintiff and members of the putative class
were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive for work
they performed on various public works contracted with such
government entities the Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority and
the Metropolitan Transit Authority, pursuant to New York Labor
Law.

The Defendant Kapsch breached the Public Works Contracts by
willfully failing to pay and ensure payment to Plaintiff and the
other members of the putative class the prevailing rates of wages
and supplemental benefits for all labor performed upon the Public
Works Projects.

Kapsch Trafficcom is an Austria-based company engaged in the
manufacture and supply of electronic toll collection systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
          James Murphy, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street - 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080


KEDREN COMMUNITY: "Robinson" Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeneen Robinson, an individual, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Kedren Community Health Center, Inc. and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC656198 (Cal. Super.,
April 3, 2017), seeks penalties, waiting time penalties, general
and special damages, compensatory damages, restitution of wages
and other monies wrongfully withheld by the Defendants,
declaratory and injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California
Labor Code for failure to pay earned wages upon termination and
the California Unfair Competition Law.

Plaintiff worked for the Company as a Care Manager and Referral
Coordinator from December 2015 until her termination on May 13,
2016. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aanand Ghods-Mehtani, Esq.
      Jana M. Moser, Esq.
      RUSHOVICH MEHTANI LLP
      5900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2600
      Los Angeles, CA 90036-5013
      Telephone: 323-330-0543
      Facsimile: 323-395-5507
      Email: amehtani@rmlawpartners.com
             jmoser@rmlawpartners.com


KKW TRUCKING: Judge Denies Renewed Bid to Dismiss "Demmings" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael H. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon denied defendant's renewed motion to dismiss the case
styled RODERICK DEMMINGS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KKW TRUCKING, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:14-cv-494-SI (D. Or.).

On or around March 8, 2012, Plaintiff Roderick Demmings applied
online with KKW Trucking, Inc. for a position as a truck driver.
KKW's application form did not contain any notice advising
plaintiff that KKW would obtain a consumer report to determine
plaintiff's eligibility for employment, that plaintiff has the
right to obtain a free copy of any consumer report obtained by
KKW, or that plaintiff could dispute information contained in any
consumer report obtained by KKW directly with the credit reporting
agency.  KKW did, however, provide plaintiff with a release form
to obtain his State of Washington driving record, also known as a
motor vehicle report (MVR), which plaintiff signed and returned on
or about March 8, 2012. KKW did not obtain Plaintiff's MVR until
after Plaintiff returned his signed consent form.  The form
identifies Total Information Services, Inc. d/b/a DAC Services as
the entity from which KKW would obtain plaintiff's MVR.  Plaintiff
did not discover that KKW had obtained plaintiff's MVR from a
different, possibly related, company, HireRight, Inc., as part of
the application screening process until on or about March 25,
2014.

In May 2015, plaintiff learned for the first time that KKW had
also obtained a consumer report on plaintiff from A-Check.
Plaintiff further learned that KKW denied plaintiff employment
because of information contained in his A-Check consumer report.
Plaintiff also alleges that KKW generally does not advise
applicants orally, in writing, or by electronic means, of an
applicant's rights under the FCRA, and that KKW does not obtain
the required consent before procuring consumer reports.  Plaintiff
further alleges that KKW generally does not provide either in-
person or remote applicants the required disclosures that an
adverse action was taken, at least in part, because of a consumer
report.

Plaintiff Roderick Demmings a putative class action lawsuit
against KKW and alleges that KKW violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) when KKW procured plaintiff's consumer
information from two consumer reporting agencies without providing
plaintiff proper notice and, for one report, without his consent.
Plaintiff also alleges that KKW ultimately used one of plaintiff's
consumer reports as a basis for taking an adverse employment
action against him, again without providing the statutorily
mandated notifications.

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on June 12, 2015. The
court granted the parties' joint motion to stay the case until the
Supreme Court decided the case of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. After
Spokeo was decided, KKW filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's
first amended complaint, but the court ordered plaintiff to file a
second amended complaint and denied KKW's motion to dismiss
without prejudice and with leave to renew.

Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint. KKW filed a renewed
motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6), arguing that plaintiff fails to allege a concrete or
particularized injury and thus fails to adequately plead Article
III standing. KKW also argues that the factual predicate for
Plaintiff's claims is incorrect.

Judge Simon held that KKW's argument is inappropriate at this
stage of the litigation. In evaluating the sufficiency of a
complaint's factual allegations, the court must accept as true all
well-pleaded material facts alleged in the complaint and construe
them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. KKW's
assertion that the court may look outside the pleadings is correct
only in evaluating jurisdiction, not in evaluating whether the
factual predicate of a complaint is accurate.

Plaintiff alleges that KKW obtained plaintiff's MVR from
HireRight. Plaintiff further alleges that he did not discover such
fact until HireRight produced to plaintiff the report it provided
to KKW. These allegations are sufficient to survive KKW's motion.

Defendant KKW Trucking, Inc.'s renewed motion to dismiss is
denied.

A full-text copy of Judge Simon's opinion and order dated
March 29, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/mivKY6 from
Leagle.com.

Roderick Demmings, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew A. Dooley --
mdooley@omdplaw.com -- at O'Toole McLaughlin Dooley & Pecora Co.

KKW Trucking, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew T. Gust --
Dennis G. Woods -- dwoods@scheerlaw.com -- at Scheer & Zehnder LLP


KROGER CO: "Perez" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sonia Perez, individually, and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. The Kroger Co., an Ohio corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. BC650000, was removed on March 29, 2017, from the Los
Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Western Division - Los
Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02448
to the proceeding.

Kroger is an American retailing company founded by Wafiq Choudhury
in 1883 in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


LG CONTRACTING: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
ISRAEL HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against LG CONTRACTING INC. and MICHAEL
DIFIORE, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01428 (E.D.N.Y., March 14,
2017), alleges that Plaintiffs, and the purported Class Members
regularly worked over 40 hours per workweek, but were not paid
overtime premiums as required by law.  The case was filed under
the wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate a construction and demolition company based in
Stony Brook, New York.  Defendants employed Plaintiff as a
demolition worker.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIPOCINE INC: "Lewis" Securities Suit Transferred to D. Utah
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned DAVID LEWIS, Individually and on Behalf of all
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LIPOCINE INC., MAHESH V.
PATEL, and MORGAN R. BROWN, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-04009,
D.N.J., July 1, 2016) was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey to the United States District Court
for the District of Utah, according to a docket entry dated March
14, 2017.  The case was assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00182-DB under
Judge Dee Benson.

The case alleges that in violation of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's filing of its
New Drug Application (NDA) for lead product candidate, TLANDO(TM)
(LPCN 1021), as an oral testosterone replacement therapy LPCN 1021
to the FDA contained deficiencies; and (2) as a result,
Defendants' statements about Lipocine's business and operations
were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Defendant Lipocine Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company,
which develops pharmaceutical products using its oral drug
delivery technology in the areas of men's and women's health.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
     South Orange, NJ 07079
     Phone: (973) 3131887
     Fax: (973) 8330399
     Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


MAJOR LEAGUE: Soccer Clubs Lose Suit Against Players Union
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Amos L. Mazzant, II, of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the case captioned DALLAS TEXANS SOCCER CLUB,
CROSSFIRE FOUNDATION, INC., SOCKERS FC CHICAGO, LLC, v. MAJOR
LEAGUE SOCCER PLAYERS UNION, CLINT DEMPSEY, DEANDRE YEDLIN,
MICHAEL BRADLEY, Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-00464 (E.D. Tex.).

Plaintiffs Dallas Texans Soccer Club, Crossfire Foundation Inc.,
Sockers FC Chicago, LLC, are three youth soccer clubs located in
the United States. Each youth soccer club is associated with the
United States Soccer Federation, Inc. which is a Federation
Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) national association
member. FIFA national association members must adopt FIFA rules
and regulations, except when compliance with a specific FIFA rule
is illegal under national law.

Defendant Major League Soccer Players Union is the exclusive
collective bargaining representative of all players selected to
play in Major League Soccer, LLC. The Players Union represents
fifty-nine players in Texas, including at least twenty-one players
from the Dallas Texans. The Players Union has two union
representatives continuously present in Texas and sends employees
to meet with players in Texas. The Players Union is an
unincorporated association with offices in Bethesda, Maryland.

Plaintiffs initiated administrative proceedings before the Dispute
Resolution Chamber seeking either training compensation or
solidarity fees in connection with the signing or transfer of
players plaintiffs trained. Specifically, Dallas Texans trained
Clint Dempsey and is seeking a solidarity fee in connection with
Dempsey's transfer to Major League Soccer, LLC from the Football
Association of the United Kingdom. Crossfire trained Deandre
Yedlin and is seeking a solidarity fee in connection with Yedlin's
transfer to the Football Association of the United Kingdom from
Major League Soccer, LLC. Socker FC trained Michael Bradley and is
seeking a solidarity fee in connection with Bradley's transfer to
Major League Soccer, LLC from the Italian Football Federation.
Plaintiff Sockers also trained Eric Pothast and is seeking
training compensation in connection with his signing with
Angelholms FF of the Swedish Football Association.

On May 24, 2016, plaintiffs, the Players Union, the U.S. Soccer
Federation, and professional soccer leagues met in Chicago,
Illinois, to discuss a training compensation and solidarity fee
system for U.S. youth clubs. Plaintiffs allege that during the
meeting, Bob Foose, the Executive Director of the Players Union,
stated that any effort by plaintiffs to enforce training
compensation or solidarity fees would violate federal antitrust
law. Plaintiffs also allege that a representative from Major
League Soccer, LLC alerted U.S. youth club representatives that
the Players Union threatened to file an antitrust lawsuit against
plaintiffs, the U.S. Soccer Federation, and others if the Dispute
Resolution Chamber awarded plaintiffs training compensation or
solidarity contributions.

On July 1, 2016, plaintiffs filed a class action Complaint for
Declaratory Relief against the Players Union, Dempsey, Yedlin,
Bradley, and all those similarly situated. Plaintiffs seek a
declaration that any U.S. youth club's receipt of training
compensation or solidarity fees does not violate antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that the implementation of a
system of training compensation and solidarity fees for player
transactions within the U.S. does not violate antitrust laws.

On November 3, 2016, the Players Union filed a motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction

Judge Mazzant finds that plaintiffs have not established a prima
facie case supporting general jurisdiction over the Players Union.
Although the Players Union meets with players in Texas and
represents fifty-nine players in Texas, the Players Union's
contacts with Texas are viewed in light of its activities
nationwide. The Players Union's offices and employees are not
located in Texas. The Players Union's contacts in Texas thus only
represent a portion of its total activity as an association. These
contacts are not so continuous and systematic as to render the
Players Union essentially at home in Texas.

Judge Mazzant granted defendant's motion to dismiss and
plaintiffs' claims against defendant are dismissed.

A full-text copy of Judge Mazzant's memorandum opinion and order
dated March 29, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/solwIa from
Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by David Bruce Koch -- dkoch@coatsrose.com
-- John Joseph Mongogna -- jjoseph@coatsrose.com -- at Coats/Rose;
Lance D. Reich -- lreich@helsell.com -- at Helsell Fetterman LLP

Major League Soccer Players Union, Defendant, represented by:

     Jonathan D. Newman, Esq.
     Robert D. Kurnick, Esq.
     SHERMAN, DUNN, COHEN, LEIFER & YELIG, PC
     900 Seventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20001
     Tel: 202-785-9300
     Fax: 202-775-1950

          -- and --

     Patrick M. Flynn, Esq.
     PATRICK M. FLYNN, PC
     1225 North Loop W Ste 1000
     Houston, TX 77008-1775
     Tel: 713-861-6163
     Fax: 713-961-5566

Clint Dempsey, DeAndre Yedlin, and Michael Bradley, Defendants,
represented by:

     Jonathan D. Newman, Esq.
     Robert D. Kurnick, Esq.
     SHERMAN, DUNN, COHEN, LEIFER & YELIG, PC
     900 Seventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20001
     Tel: 202-785-9300
     Fax: 202-775-1950


MAJOR LEAGUE: Judge Grants Soccer Players' Bid to Dismiss Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Amos L. Mazzant, II, of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the case styled DALLAS TEXANS SOCCER CLUB,
CROSSFIRE FOUNDATION, INC., SOCKERS FC CHICAGO, LLC v. MAJOR
LEAGUE SOCCER PLAYERS UNION, CLINT DEMPSEY, DEANDRE YEDLIN,
MICHAEL BRADLEY,  Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-00464 (E.D. Tex.)

Plaintiffs Dallas Texans Soccer Club, Crossfire Foundation Inc.,
Sockers FC Chicago, LLC are three youth soccer clubs located in
the United States. Each youth soccer club is associated with the
United States Soccer Federation, Inc. which is a Federation
Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) national association
member. FIFA national association members must adopt FIFA rules
and regulations, except when compliance with a specific FIFA rule
is illegal under national law.

Under FIFA rules, professional soccer clubs must pay youth soccer
clubs that trained players certain fees, called training
compensation and solidarity fees. When a player signs his or her
first contract with a professional soccer club in a different
national association, the professional soccer club must pay the
youth club training compensation. When a player is transferred to
a professional soccer club in a different national association,
the professional soccer club acquiring the player must pay the
youth club a solidarity fee. Disputes over the payment of training
compensation and solidarity fees are adjudicated by FIFA's Dispute
Resolution Chamber in Zurich, Switzerland.

Dallas Texans trained Clint Dempsey and the latter made a transfer
to Major League Soccer, LLC from the Football Association of the
United Kingdom. Crossfire trained Deandre Yedlin and the latter
made a transfer to the Football Association of the United Kingdom
from Major League Soccer, LLC. Socker FC trained Michael Bradley
and the latter made a transfer to Major League Soccer, LLC from
the Italian Football Federation.

Plaintiffs initiated administrative proceedings before the Dispute
Resolution Chamber seeking either training compensation or
solidarity fees in connection with the signing or transfer of
players plaintiffs trained.

On May 24, 2016, plaintiffs, the Players Union, the U.S. Soccer
Federation, and professional soccer leagues met in Chicago,
Illinois, to discuss a training compensation and solidarity fee
system for U.S. youth clubs. Plaintiffs allege that during the
meeting, Bob Foose, the Executive Director of the Players Union,
stated that any effort by plaintiffs to enforce training
compensation or solidarity fees would violate federal antitrust
law. Plaintiffs also allege that a representative from Major
League Soccer, LLC alerted U.S. youth club representatives that
the Players Union threatened to file an antitrust lawsuit against
plaintiffs, the U.S. Soccer Federation, and others if the Dispute
Resolution Chamber awarded plaintiffs training compensation or
solidarity contributions.

On July 1, 2016, plaintiffs filed a class action complaint for
Declaratory Relief against the Players Union, Dempsey, Yedlin,
Bradley, and all those similarly situated. Plaintiffs seek a
declaration that any U.S. youth club's receipt of training
compensation or solidarity fees does not violate antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that the implementation of a
system of training compensation and solidarity fees for player
transactions within the U.S. does not violate antitrust laws.

On November 3, 2016, the defendant players filed a motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant players argue
that the court lacks specific jurisdiction over them because the
basis for plaintiffs' declaratory judgment action are alleged
statements made by the Players Union's Executive Director, Bob
Foose, and a representative of Major League Soccer, LLC. Defendant
players argue that the statements cannot be attributed to them
because they did not give the Players Union authority to act on
their behalf and the Players Union representative did not hold
himself out as the player defendants' agent.

Judge Mazzant held that the court does not need to determine
whether an agency relationship existed between the player
defendants and the Players Union. Even if the Players Union threat
of litigation could be attributed to the defendant players, the
threat of litigation does not establish specific jurisdiction over
the defendant in a declaratory judgment action. Judge Mazzant
granted the defendant players' motion to dismiss and plaintiffs'
claims against defendant players are dismissed.

A full-text copy of Judge Mazzant's memorandum opinion and order
dated March 29, 2017, is available https://goo.gl/NfBYVT from
Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by David Bruce Koch -- dkoch@coatsrose.com
-- John Joseph Mongogna -- jjoseph@coatsrose.com -- at Coats/Rose;
Lance D. Reich -- lreich@helsell.com -- at Helsell Fetterman LLP

Major League Soccer Players Union, Defendant, represented by:

     Jonathan D. Newman, Esq.
     Robert D. Kurnick, Esq.
     Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Leifer & Yelig, PC
     900 Seventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20001
     Tel: 202-785-9300
     Fax: 202-775-1950

     -- and --

     Patrick M. Flynn, Esq.
     Patrick M. Flynn, PC
     1225 North Loop W Ste 1000
     Houston, TX 77008-1775
     Tel: 713-861-6163
     Fax: 713-961-5566

Clint Dempsey, DeAndre Yedlin, and Michael Bradley, Defendants,
represented by:

     Jonathan D. Newman, Esq.
     Robert D. Kurnick, Esq.
     Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Leifer & Yelig, PC
     900 Seventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20001
     Tel: 202-785-9300
     Fax: 202-775-1950


MLS PLAYERS: Court Nixes Class Action Over Transfer Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Goal reports a that U.S. District Court in Texas has dismissed a
class-action lawsuit filed by a trio of youth clubs against the
MLS Players Union and U.S. national team stars Michael Bradley,
DeAndre Yedlin and Clint Dempsey.

The court, representing the Sherman Division of the Eastern
District of Texas, ruled on March 29 that the suit lacked personal
jurisdiction over the Players Union and specific jurisdiction over
the trio of players, according to ESPNFC.

Crossfire Premier in Washington state, Chicago-based club Sockers
FC and the Dallas Texans filed the suit in July in hope of
overturning precedent that has denied youth clubs in the U.S. from
receiving payment as part of a player's transfer fee -- a practice
sanctioned by FIFA.

U.S. Soccer has avoided the payments by citing the 1998 antitrust
case of Fraser v. MLS, but Yedlin's transfer from the Seattle
Sounders to Tottenham in 2014 reignited the debate.

In a July statement, the three clubs clarified that Bradley,
Yedlin and Dempsey were included in the suit "solely for a legal
reason to maintain the Complaint" and that the teams had "no
desire to, in essence, sue their own kids."

The MLS Players Union released a statement on March 30 in which
executive director Bob Foose said the organization was "very
satisfied" with the decision.

"We have said consistently that training compensation and
solidarity payments are bad for players, and would treat players
differently than employees in any other industry, including
sports," Foose said. "For example, it's absurd to think that a
business school could demand a fee from a company that hired one
of its students. Yet, that's the kind of payments the youth clubs
seek.

"No player should have the market for his services adversely
affected by these payments. This is not to say that players and
the Players Union don't believe in and support youth development.
We do, but it should not be funded through a tax on randomly
selected professional players' contracts."

ESPNFC reports the clubs have now taken their case to FIFA's
Dispute Resolution Chamber. [GN]


MONSANTO COMPANY: "Rawa" Sues Over Herbicide False Label
--------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Rawa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-01252 (E.D. Mo., April 5, 2017) seeks damages, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Monsanto is the manufacturer of Roundup Weed & Grass Killer
Concentrate Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super Concentrate
and Roundup Concentrate Plus. These are intended to be diluted
with water prior to use. The 36.8 oz. size Roundup Concentrate
Plus advertises that it makes 10 gallons of Roundup, while the 64
oz. size makes 21 gallons. Plaintiff claims that it only makes
half the number of gallons when diluted to the strength required
for the uses advertised on the label. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas A. Canova, Esq.
      Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
      Hillcrest Professional Building
      3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Phone: (619) 692-3840
      Fax: (619) 362-9555
      Email: tom@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
             jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

             - and -

      Sidney W. Jackson, III, Esq.
      JACKSON & FOSTER, LC
      75 St. Michael Street
      Mobile, AL 36602
      Phone: (251) 433-6699
      Fax: (251) 433-6127
      Email: sid@jacksonfosterlaw.com

             - and -

      Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC
      2726 S. Brentwood Blvd.
      St. Louis, MO 63144
      Phone: (314) 645-4100
      Fax: (314) 736-6216
      Email: kevin@dolleylaw.com


NBTY INC: Suit Says Biotin Product Has No Health Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado at Legal Newsline reports a consumer has filed a
class action lawsuit against NBTY Inc. and Nature's Bounty Inc.,
alleging the defendants' vitamin product falsely claims it
supports skin and hair health.

Rosa Alvarez filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on March 22, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the defendants. She alleges that
they made false representations to the public regarding their
health products.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she
suffered damages from being misled into purchasing biotin
supplements. The plaintiff holds NBTY Inc., and Nature's Bounty
Inc. responsible because the defendants allegedly made false
claims regarding the health benefits of their biotin products. The
complaint says the mega dose of biotin contained in their product
does not provide any benefit.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks restitution and
disgorgement and injunctive relief. She also wants the defendant
ordered to engage in a corrective advertising and seeks all legal
fees and any other relief the court deems just. She is represented
by Patricia Syverson, Esq. -- psyverson@bffb.com -- and Manfred P.
Muecke, Esq. -- mmuecke@bffb.com -- of Bonnett, Fairbourn,
Friedman & Balint P.C. in San Diego.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Case
number 3:17-cv-00567-BAS-BGS [GN]


NEA DELIVERY LLC: "Thomas" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NEA Delivery, LLC d/b/a First
Delivery Service, Avitus, Inc. d/b/a Avitus Group and Does 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. HG17855208, (Cal. Super., April 3,
2017), seeks state-mandated minimum wages for all hours worked,
including, but not limited to, time spent working on the clock but
deducted through both manual adjustments and automated timekeeping
parameters, uncompensated time for which Plaintiff was clocked in,
required overtime and/or double time compensation for violation of
the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders

Defendants allegedly also failed to provide Plaintiff with duty-
free meal periods of at least thirty minutes and/or failed to
properly compensate Plaintiff for such malfeasance in providing
proper meal periods. Defendants also failed to issue accurate
itemized wage statements and all wages due upon termination of
their employment in violation of the Business and Professions
Code.

Defendants operate a logistics company where Thomas worked as a
delivery driver. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW YORK: Court Orders Permanent Injunction in Medicaid Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph F. Bianco of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment in the case captioned NEIL FISHMAN, BY HIS LEGAL
GUARDIAN, SELMA FISHMAN, AND SURUJ SIRIKESHUN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD F.
DAINES, M.D., AS COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, AND JOHN PAOLUCCI, AS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF THE OFFICE OF
TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE OF THE NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY ASSISTANCE, Defendants, No. 09-cv-5248 (JFB)
(ARL) (E.D.N.Y.).

Neil Fishman, through his legal guardian Selma Fishman, and Suruj
Sirikeshun brought a class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections
1983 and 1396a(a)(3) against the Commissioner of the New York
State Department of Health and the Commissioner of the Office of
Temporary and Disability Assistance of the New York State
Department of Family Assistance.

The case involves the procedures by which defendants determine
that a Medicaid appeal is abandoned. After defendants conclude
that a claimant is no longer entitled to Medicaid benefits, they
inform the claimant by letter and advise him that he may request a
fair hearing.  If the request is timely made, the claimant may
continue to receive aid-continuing Medicaid coverage pending the
outcome of the hearing, and defendants send two additional
letters, first, an acknowledgement that a fair hearing has been
requested and second, a notice that the fair hearing has been
scheduled, which includes instructions for requesting
adjournments.

Plaintiffs contend that many class members lost aid continuing
coverage, at least temporarily, because they did not realize that
they missed their fair hearing. The default notice requested by
plaintiffs, and temporarily put in place by the court when it
granted the preliminary injunction, would inquire as to whether
the defaulting Medicaid appellant wanted his or her hearing
rescheduled and would give the appellant at least ten (10) days to
respond to the notice before dismissal of the administrative
appeal.

By memorandum and order dated September 16, 2014, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction requiring
defendants to mail a default notice to members of the plaintiff
class before their Medicaid appeals are deemed abandoned because
they missed a scheduled hearing. The court found that plaintiffs
failed to make a clear showing that they were likely to succeed on
the merits of their due process or statutory claims.

Plaintiffs appealed the decision, and by summary order dated
October 15, 2015, the Second Circuit reversed the court's denial
of the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further
proceedings. The court subsequently granted plaintiffs' motion for
a preliminary injunction by memorandum and order dated March 4,
2016, as amended on March 10, 2016.

Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, seeking to make the
preliminary injunction permanent. Defendants oppose the motion on
the sole ground that plaintiffs lack standing to bring the action.

Judge Bianco finds the defendants' position to be without merit,
grants plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment in its
entirety, and orders that defendants are permanently enjoined from
dismissing administrative appeals of defaulting Medicaid
appellants who are not given at least ten (10) days to respond to
a written notice from defendants inquiring as to whether they
would like their hearings rescheduled.

A copy of Judge Bianco's memorandum and opinion dated March 29,
2017, is available at https://goo.gl/ZWIaq2 from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Peter Vollmer, Esq.
     VOLLMER & TANCK
     Jericho Atrium, 500 N Broadway # 123
     Jericho, NY 11753
     Tel: 516-870-0335

Richard F. Daines, M.D. and John Paolucci Defendants, represented
by Susan M. Connolly -- Kimberly Ann Kinirons -- Patricia M.
Hingerton -- at New York State Attorney General's Office


NIKE RETAIL: "Hamid" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Omran Hamid, an individual, on
behalf himself and all others similarly situated employees, the
Plaintiff, v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., an Oregon Corporation;
Rianna Marie Lopez, an individual; and Does 1 to 200, inclusive,
Case No. 30-02017-00904483-CU, was removed on Apr. 3, 2017 from
the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa
Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-00599 to
the proceeding.

Nike Retail Services Inc. distributes athletic products. The
company is based in Beaverton, Oregon. Nike Retail Services Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of Nike Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NORWIN TECH: "Ringler" Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursements
---------------------------------------------------------
William Ringler, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. Norwin Technologies, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-00423, (W.D. Pa., April 5, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation owed, liquidated damages, billed, unpaid and
unreimbursed expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest as well as
the litigation costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred and
such further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law.

Norwin Technologies provides IT consulting and other services
throughout the United States. Defendant maintains its headquarters
at 300 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923.

Defendant hired Plaintiff for the position of Senior Network
Security Consultant/Senior Network Engineer Architect in late
March 2016, and Plaintiff held that position until his employment
with Defendant ended in July 2016. Plaintiff was hired at $95 per
hour on a W2 Contractor basis, with all payments subject to
withholdings applicable to wages. Ringler traveled extensively to
clients' business premises to perform his duties and work from his
home as well. He alleges that all his time logs (submitted
electronically) were shaved off to ensure that his time was well
within 40 hours per week, thus no overtime pay. He also claims
that he was not reimbursed for his travel expenses. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
     First & Market Building, Suite 650
     100 First Avenue
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Tel: (412) 227-0763
     Fax: (412) 774-1994
     Email: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com

            - and -

     John R. Linkosky, Esq.
     JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOCIATES
     715 Washington Avenue
     Carnegie, PA 15106
     Tel: (412) 278-1280
     Fax: (412) 278-1282
     Email: linklaw@comcast.net


ONAGOFLY: Faces Class Action Over Low Quality Drone
---------------------------------------------------
Crowdfund Insider reports that ONAGOFly, a top-twenty Indiegogo
crowdfunding campaign and the 2nd most funded drone project ever
on the platform, has been hit with a class action lawsuit filed in
United States District Court in California on March 27, 2017. The
lawsuit was filed by Allan Black, Christopher Jones, Roger Watts,
and Robert Matos Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others
impacted by the rewards-crowdfunded project.

ONAGOFly raised over USD3.5 million in 2016 supported by more than
17,000 backers on Indiegogo. As with many rewards based or presale
projects, the creators struggled to deliver on commitments to
backers. ONAGOFly was described as a  "Smart Nano Drone" and a
"Palm-Sized Drone With GPS Auto-Follow and High Res Video Camera
to Take Better Photos." While some backers received the drones
many complained that ONAGOFly failed to live up to its promises.

The defendants listed in the case include: Shenzen Sunshine
Technology Development, LTD, Acumen Robot Intelligence, Inc., Sam
Tsu, D/B/A ONAGOFLY, and DOES 1-100.  The plaintiffs called the
ONAGOFly creator's acts, "fraudulent, deceptive and illegal."
The court filing itemized the alleged shortcomins of the
crowdfunded drone, including:

The Onagofly drone contains a 15 Megapixel Sony camera. Instead,
the camera in the drone is of a significantly lower resolution
than promised.

The Onagofly drone has a 800 mAh or even a 1000 mAh battery. It
does not. The battery is less powerful than promised and will not
hold a sufficient charge.

The Onagofly drone does not have or maintain the stability or
control in the air which is promised, and the propellers are
ofpoor quality and break easily.

The GPS applications touted in Onagofly's marketing materials do
not work; the drone fails to orient itself or follow the user as
promised.

Crowdfund Insider wrote about the project last August as
complaints arose regarding the product. One jilted backer even
created a website dedicated to the project called OnagoLIES that
documented the rise and fall of ONAGOFly.

This is an interesting lawsuit to watch as there have been many
crowdfunded projects that have failed to deliver or simply shipped
a product that was utter crap. Failed campaigns have undermined
the entire rewards based crowdfunding industry as burned backers
have started to avoid supporting projects. Many backers have
learned it is better to wait for a product to show up on Amazon
instead of taking the risk of losing their money.

Launching a class action lawsuit is no small undertaking. One
would expect the plaintiffs to believe they have a decent chance
of receiving financial compensation for the ONAGOFly drone
project. [GN]


OTTAWA: Faces Suit Over LGBTQ Purge
-----------------------------------
CTV Montreal reports that some military and public services
employees have teamed up against the federal government to file a
class action lawsuit against Ottawa for what's known as the 'LGBTQ
purge.'

Ottawa once had a policy in place 'not to keep or to allow gays in
the military or public service.'

Martine Roy was one of the people affected, and is a plaintiff in
the lawsuit.

"Once and for all let's fix this story -- not all different places
and all different people, but for everybody that is public
function, that is army, that is from '69, '72, '88, let's fix it.
They changed the law in '92, but they never admitted what they did
or apologized. Then they can talk about redress and fix it," she
said.

This new lawsuit brings together three separate suits. [GN]


PATELCO CREDIT: Faces "Gadomski" Suit Under Credit Reporting Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KELLIE GADOMSKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. PATELCO CREDIT UNION, Defendant,
(E.D. Cal., March 29, 2017), alleges that PCU has adopted a
systematic pattern and practice of failing and refusing to update
credit information with regard to debts discharged in bankruptcy
because it sells those debts and profits by the sale.

The case alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and California
Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

Defendant is a debt collector regularly engaged in the business of
collecting consumer debts from consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     Gouya Ranekouhi, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Tel: (800) 400-6808
     Fax: (800) 520-5523

        - and -

     Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
     HYDE & SWIGART
     2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: (619) 233-7770
     Fax: (619) 297-1022
     E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
             naomi@westcoastlitigation.com

        - and -

     Clark Ovruchesky, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF CLARK OVRUCHESKY
     750 B. Street, Suite 3300
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 356-8960
     Fax: (619) 330-7610
     E-mail: co@colawcalifornia.com


PHB INC: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
FREEMAN HARRIS, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly
Situated Persons, Plaintiff, V. PHB, INC. and E-TRANSPORT GROUP,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01007 (S.D. Tex., March 31,
2017), alleges that Defendants are liable to Plaintiff under the
Fair Labor Standards Act for all unpaid wages and overtime
compensation as well as for liquidated damages, attorney's fees,
out of pocket expenses and costs.

PHB, Inc. manufactures and supplies zinc and aluminum die
castings, machining products, plastic and rubber moldings, tools
and dies, injection molding, and product assemblies.  Freeman
Harris was interviewed and was hired by Defendant E-Transportation
in March of 2016, and worked for Defendants until February of 2017
as a general laborer and yard driver, spotter and hostler.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
     THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
     2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
     Houston, TX 77018
     Phone: 713-868-3388
     Fax: 713-683-9940
     E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

        - and -

     Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
     THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
     2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
     Houston, TX 77018
     Phone: 713-868-3388
     Fax: 713-683-9940
     E-mail: vijay@buenkerlaw.com


PLAINS ALL: Texas Judge Tosses Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the case captioned IN RE PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE,
L.P. SECURITIES LITIGATION, No. H:15-02404 (S.D. Tex.).

The plaintiffs alleged that Plains All American Pipeline, LP
falsely claimed to have a comprehensive, effective environmental
and regulatory compliance program to prevent oil spills and, if
they occurred, quickly remediate the effects. Instead, the
plaintiffs allege, the touted compliance program was close to
nonexistent, and Plains repeatedly violated regulatory mandates.
Plains allegedly deceived the public about its compliance program
with falsehoods that inflated the price of the company's
securities. The lack of an effective compliance program was
dramatically exposed when a Plains pipeline in Santa Barbara
County, California, burst and thousands of barrels of oil spilled.
Plains securities lost significant value in the aftermath.

Lead plaintiff IAM National Pension Fund is a defined benefit
pension plan for members of the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers. IAM bought Plains and Plains
Holdings securities on the open market during the relevant class
periods.  Plaintiff City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement
System is a defined benefit governmental retirement system for
police and firefighters in Warren, Michigan. It purchased 4.7%
Plains notes in the April 2014 offering. Plaintiff Ming Liu is an
individual who purchased Plains Holdings Class A shares in the
IPO. Plaintiff Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund is a
defined benefit government retirement system for police and
firefighters in Jacksonville, Florida. It purchased Plains
Holdings Class A shares in the IPO and the Secondary Offering.
Plaintiff Detroit Police and Fire Retirement System is a defined
benefit governmental retirement system for police and firefighters
in Detroit, Michigan. It purchased Plains Holdings Class A shares
in the Secondary Offering and Plains common units in the Plains
Offering.

The plaintiffs assert claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 against Plains, Plains Holdings, and the
Officer Defendants, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against
Holdings LLC, Plains Holdings, and the officer defendants, Section
11 of the Securities Act against all defendants, Section 12(a)(2)
of the Securities Act against the Underwriter Defendants and
Section 15 of the Securities Act against Holdings LLC, Plains
Holdings, the officer defendants, and the director defendants.

For the Exchange Act claims under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 and
Section 20(a), the plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting
of those purchasing Plains common units between February 27, 2013
and August 5, 2015, and those purchasing Plains Holding Class A
shares between October 16, 2013 and August 5, 2015. For the
Securities Act claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15, the
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of those purchasing
securities pursuant and traceable to these offerings.

Plains All American Pipeline, LP (Plains), is a publicly traded
Delaware master limited partnership that owns and operates oil and
gas pipelines throughout the United States. A general partner,
Plains All American GP LLC (GP LLC), manages Plains and employs
Plains's officers, directors, managers, and US-based employees. GP
LLC, in turn, is wholly controlled by Plains GP Holdings, LP
(Plains Holdings), a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership.
Plains Holdings is, in turn, managed by PAA GP Holdings LLC
(Holdings LLC), which owns the general partner interest in Plains
Holdings and directs that entity's activities. Plains itself
wholly owns PAA Finance Corp., a Delaware corporation formed in
2001 to co-issue Plains's debt securities.

Greg L. Armstrong is the CEO and Chairman of the Board of GP LLC,
Plains's general partner, Holdings LLC, and PAA Finance.
Armstrong signed all of the securities offering and many of the
SEC filings alleged to contain false and misleading statements and
allegedly made false or misleading statements at investor
meetings. Chris Herbold is the Vice President  --  Accounting and
Chief Accounting Officer of GP LLC, PAA Finance, and Holdings LLC.
He signed the registration statements for some of the securities
offerings, as well as the SEC filings that contained allegedly
misleading statements. Richard McGee is the Executive Vice-
President, General Counsel, and Secretary of GP LLC and Holdings
LLC.  He signed the SEC filings that allegedly contained false and
misleading statements. Harry Pefanis is President and Chief
Operating Officer of GP LLC and Holdings LLC, and President of PAA
finance. Pefanis signed the registration statement for some of the
securities offerings and other SEC filings that contained
allegedly false or misleading statements.  Al Swanson is the
Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of GP LLC,
PAA Finance, and Holdings LLC. Swanson signed the allegedly
misleading registration statements and SEC filings.

In addition to these Officer defendants, the plaintiffs sued
various director defendants. Victor Burk, Everardo Goyanes, Gary
Petersen, John Raymond, Bobby Shackouls, Robert Sinnott, Vicky
Sutil, Taft Symonds, and Christopher Temple were all allegedly
directors of various Plains entities for at least some of the
relevant period. All allegedly signed securities-offering
materials containing untrue or misleading statements. In addition
to the Plains defendants, the plaintiffs sued various underwriter
defendants. They are all financial institutions alleged to have
participated in at least one Plains securities offering in which
the relevant registration statement or other offering materials
contained false or misleading statements. Different underwriter
defendants allegedly participated in each of the securities
offerings at issue.

Chief District Judge Rosenthal held that none of the statements in
Plains's SEC filings are actionably misleading. Because the
plaintiffs' Securities Act allegations sound in fraud and are
subject to the same particularized pleading requirement as the
Exchange Act allegations, the analysis and result are the same.
The court need not sift through the plaintiffs' allegations to try
to find actionable lesser included strict liability and negligence
allegations. Because none of the statements on which the
plaintiffs base their Securities Act claims are actionably false
or misleading, the claims are dismissed, without prejudice and
with leave to amend. The plaintiffs must file their amended
complaint by May 15, 2017.

A full-text copy of Judge Rosenthal's memorandum and opinion dated
March 29, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/v0uJyk from
Leagle.com.

City of Birmingham Firemen's and Policemen's Supplemental Pension
System, Plaintiff, represented by Roger Farrell Claxton --
roger@claxtonlaw.com -- at Law Firm of Roger F. Claxton
Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit,
Plaintiff, represented by Gerald H. Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com --
Jake Nachmani -- jake.nachmani@blbglaw.com -- Jeremy P. Robinson -
- jeremy@blbglaw.com -- at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP; Thomas Robert Ajamie -- tajamie@ajamie.com -- at Ajamie LLP;
Luke O. Brooks -- LukeB@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd
LLP

IAM National Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M.
Edison -- andrew.edison@emhllp.com -- at Edison, McDowell &
Hetherington, LLP; Angel P. Lau -- alau@rgrdlaw.com -- Luke O.
Brooks -- LukeB@rgrdlaw.com -- Ashley M. Price --
aprice@rgrdlaw.com -- Danielle S. Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com --
Darryl J. Alvarado -- dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Geller
Rudman Dowd LLP

Ming Liu and City of Warren Police & Fire Retirement System,
Plaintiffs, represented by Luke O. Brooks -- LukeB@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP

U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc., USCA Securities LLC, Stifel
Nicolaus & Company Inc, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc, Tudor,
Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc., Simmons & Company
International, SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., Stephens Inc.,
SG Americas Securities LLC, Scotia Capital (USA) Inc., Robert W.
Baird & Co. Inc., Regions Securities LLC, Raymond James &
Associates, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Oppenheimer & Co.
Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co., PNC Capital Markets LLC, Morgan Stanley
& Co. LLC, Mizuho Securities USA Inc., BB&T Securities, LLC,
Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA), Inc., Ladenburg Thalmann & Co.
Inc., ING Financial Markets LLC, Fifth Third Securities, Inc., DNB
Markets, Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., CIBC World Markets
Corp., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., BMO Capital Markets Corp.,
and BBVA Securities Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy N. LeRoy
-- tleroy@sidley.com -- Robin Wechkin -- rwechkin@sidley.com -- at
Sidley Austin LLP

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., Gregory L. Armstrong, Al
Swanson, and Chris Herbold, Defendants, represented by Craig Eric
Zieminski -- czieminski@velaw.com -- Jeffrey S. Johnston --
jjohnston@velaw.com -- Michael C. Holmes -- mholmes@velaw.com --
at Vinson Elkins LLP

John T. Raymond, Bobby S. Shackouls, Robert V. Sinnott, Vicky
Sutil, Taft Symonds, Christopher M. Temple, Victor Burk, Everardo
Goyanes, Gary L. Petersen, Harry N. Pefanis, and Plains GP
Holdings L.P., Consol Defendants, represented by Craig Eric
Zieminski -- czieminski@velaw.com -- Jeffrey S. Johnston --
jjohnston@velaw.com -- Michael C. Holmes -- mholmes@velaw.com --
at Vinson Elkins LLP

UBS Securities LLC, Wells Fargo Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Citigroup Global Markets
Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co., and
Barclays Capital Inc., Consol Defendants, represented by Tracy N.
LeRoy -- tleroy@sidley.com -- Robin Wechkin -- rwechkin@sidley.com
-- Mark K. Glasser -- Matthew J. Dolan -- mdolan@sidley.com --
Norman J. Blears -- nblears@sidley.com -- at Sidley Austin LLP
Inter-Marketing Group USA, Inc., Movant, represented by William B.
Federman -- wbf@fedemanlaw.com -- at Federman Sherwood

The Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System, Movant,
represented by Carl E. Singley -- csingley@tlgattorneys.com -- Joe
H. Tucker -- jtucker@tlgattorneys.com -- at Tucker Law Group;
Christine Donato Saler -- CDS@chimicles.com -- Kimberly M.
Donaldson Smith -- KimDonaldsonSmith@chimicles.com -- Nicholas E.
Chimicles -- Nick@chimicles.com -- at Chimicles & Tikellis LLP;
Roger B. Greenberg -- roger@smglawgroup.com -- Thane Tyler
Sponsel, III -- sponsel@smglawgroup.com -- at Sponsel Miller
Greenberg PLLC

Houston Municipal Employees Pension System, Movant, represented by
Thomas E. Bilek -- at The Bilek Law Firm LLP; Jeffrey Haber --
Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. -- Seidman@bernlieb.com -- Stanley D.
Bernstein -- Bernstein@bernlieb.com -- at Bernstein Liebhard LLP

Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund, Movant, represented by
Gerald H. Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- Jake Nachmani --
jake.nachmani@blbglaw.com -- Jeremy P. Robinson --
jeremy@blbglaw.com -- at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP; Thomas Robert Ajamie -- tajamie@ajamie.com -- at Ajamie LLP;
Luke O. Brooks -- LukeB@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd
LLP

Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island, and Employees'
Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East
Baton Rouge, Movant, represented by Gerald H. Silk --
jerry@blbglaw.com -- at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP;
Thomas Robert Ajamie -- tajamie@ajamie.com -- at Ajamie LLP

Alfred H. Davis, Movant, represented by Thomas E. Bilek -- at The
Bilek Law Firm LLP


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Inflated Vocations Revenue, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edmund Tadros at Financial Review reports PricewaterhouseCoopers
has been accused of helping to design an accounting policy
that inflated the revenue figures of education provider Vocation
and masked the loss of government funding in the lead-up to its
collapse.

The class action suit alleges PwC and partner Steven Bourke, and
Vocation, developed a new accounting policy that allowed Vocation
to increase its 2014 financial year revenue by nearly AUD15.9
million and its profit by AUD7.6 million.

A statement of claim against PwC alleges prior to signing off on
the annual report, PwC and Mr Bourke knew the Victorian government
had suspended funding pending investigation into Vocation's
teaching entities for potential breaches of funding agreements.

It is also alleged PwC and Mr Bourke knew the government had
withheld AUD14.4 million of funding from Vocation and Vocation had
also agreed to repay the government AUD4 million, but did not
disclose these facts when preparing Vocation's financial reports
to the ASX.

PwC said in a statement: "We will be vigorously defending the
allegations. We are unable to comment further on this matter as it
is before the court."

According to statement of claim, Vocation and its auditor PwC
developed a new revenue recognition policy in August 2014 where up
to 75 per cent of course fees would be recognised as revenue even
before students completed a unit of study.
Under the old revenue recognition policy, students had to complete
a unit and the company had to issue an invoice before the course
fee could be recognised as revenue.

It is also alleged under PwC's new policy, government funding
would be accounted as revenue when Vocation estimated it was in a
position to issue a claim for payment.

Under the old policy, Vocation had to make sure five criteria have
been met before it could recognise government funding as revenue,
which included making sure the student participated in the course
and getting notification by the educational authorities about the
claims.

The class action lawyers claim PwC failed to disclose the change
in accounting policy even though there were material differences
between the old and new policies. This meant PwC failed to present
a "true and fair view" of Vocation's financial position in the
2014 financial year, it is alleged.

'Failed to use necessary skill'

According to the court documents, a "reasonably competent auditor
in PwC's position" would have had "material concerns" the AUD14.4
million from the government funding would not be forthcoming once
it had agreed to repay the government AUD4 million.

It also says PwC should have disclosed the suspension of the
government funding in preparation of the financial result.

The class action lawyers argue PwC "failed to use the necessary
skill and expertise to an appropriate professional standard and/or
exercised reasonable skill and care in undertaking the audit of
the financial report ... and in giving its audit opinion as to
that financial report."

The big four accounting and advisory firm is the latest party to
be dragged into a shareholder class action brought by Maurice
Blackburn and Slater & Gordon.

In October 2014, Vocation shocked the market by announcing it lost
almost AUD20 million in government funding, triggering a nearly 60
per cent share price drop and wiping out AUD350 million from its
market cap. Vocation collapsed in November 2015, leaving more than
10,000 students in limbo.

In 2012, PwC was a defendant in a class action by shareholders
over the nearly failed property group Centro.

The case was settled for AUD200 million, the largest settlement in
Australia's history, with AUD133 million paid by Centro-related
companies and AUD67 million paid by Centro's long-time auditor
PwC.

PwC auditor Stephen Cougle had to accept an ASIC suspension for
nearly three years. [GN]


PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: "Archavage" Remanded to Pa. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania granted plaintiff's motion to
remand the case STEVEN ARCHAVAGE, on his own behalf and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PROFESSIONAL
ACCOUNT SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00319
(M.D. Pa.).

Steven Archavage alleged that on various occasions in 2012, he
received medical treatment at the Wilkes-Barre General Hospital
for which the hospital sought payment. Most of the medical bills
were processed and paid by applicable insurance and when some of
the bills went unpaid, the hospital sent the unpaid bills to
Professional Account Services, Inc. (PAS) for collection.
Archavage alleges that PAS conducted its collection activity under
the guise of being the original creditor, wrongfully cloaking
itself with the identity of the creditor and referring to itself
as the original creditor. PAS is a debt collector in the business
of collecting debts.

On January 25, 2016, Steven Archavage initiated a civil action on
his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated in
the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County. Archavage named PAS
as the defendant. In his complaint, Archavage asserted several
Pennsylvania claims for unfair and deceptive debt collection
activities on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated under the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, 73 P.S.
Section 2270.1 et seq., common law fraud, the Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. Section 201-3, the
Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa. Cons.
Stat. Ann. Section 5703 and for unjust enrichment.

Archavage explicitly states that the total amount in controversy
for Archavage and those similarly situated is $5,000,000 or less.
Furthermore, Archavage asserts that the members of the class in
Pennsylvania and as described in paragraph 8 of the complaint are
less than or equal to 100 in number. On February 22, 2016, PAS
filed a notice of removal to the present court alleging subject
matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2) diversity
of citizenship and amount in controversy greater than $5,000,000
and 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 federal question.

Archavage filed a motion to remand the case to the Court of Common
Pleas of Luzerne County.

Judge Saporito held that the complaint does not make any claims
under federal law. The complaint does not request that the state
court rule upon the FDCPA or any other federal law. The case does
not present a situation where a substantial, disputed question of
federal law is a necessary element of the plaintiff's well-pleaded
state claims. Judge Saporito finds that PAS has not demonstrated
that the court would have had original jurisdiction on the basis
of federal question under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. The case is
remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County.

A full-text copy of Judge Saporito's memorandum dated March 29,
2017, is available at https://goo.gl/jGFYIZ from Leagle.com.

Steven Archavage, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Joseph P. Comerota, Esq.
     COMEROTA LAW, P.C.
     7 S Main St #221
     Wikes-Barre, PA 18701
     Tel: 570-408-9880

Professional Account Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christian W. Francis -- cwfrancis@burnswhite.com -- Stuart T.
O'Neal, III -- soneal@burnswhite.com -- at Burns White, LLC


PROGRESSIVE CORP: MSP Recovery Sues over Medicare Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, a Delaware entity; MSP RECOVERY, LLC, a
Florida entity; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida entity, the
Plaintiffs, v. THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION d/b/a PROGRESSIVE GROUP
OF INSURANCE COMPANIES AND PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
an Ohio Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00686-JG
(N.D. Ohio., Mar. 31, 2017), seeks reimbursement for medical
expenses paid for by the Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members
that should have been paid, in the first instance, by Defendant
under the Medicare Act.

The Defendant allegedly failed to fulfill its statutorily-mandated
duty under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Medicare
Act to reimburse Medicare Advantage Organizations ("MAOs") for
medical treatments or expenses paid by Plaintiffs and the putative
Class Members ("Class Members") on behalf of Defendant's insureds.
The Plaintiffs assert the rights of MAOs via assignment of all
rights, title, and interest allowing them to bring these claims.

Progressive Corporation provides car insurance in the United
States. The company also insures motorcycles, boats, RVs and
commercial vehicles, and provides home insurance through select
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tracy L. Turner, Esq.
          Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
          Courtney L. Stidham, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          5093 Heath Gate Drive
          New Albany, OH 43054
          Telephone: (614) 657 3454
          E-mail: tturner@pbclawfirm.com
                  ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com
                  cstidham@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Baum, Esq.
          R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
          Pedram Esfandiary, Esq.
          BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207 3233
          Facsimile: (310) 820 7444
          E-mail: mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com
                  rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
                  pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com


PROGRESSIVE FINANCIAL: Faces "Huntley" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive
Financial Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Gary G. Huntley
and Nicole Charleston, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Progressive Financial
Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01887 (E.D.N.Y.,
Apr. 3, 2017).

Progressive Financial is a national collection agency with offices
in Arizona and Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


PROPULSION CONTROLS: "Ramirez" Suit Moved to San Diego Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Israel Ramirez, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to
the California Private Attorneys General Act, the Plaintiff, v.
Propulsion Controls Engineerings, a California corporation, and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-02017-
00001738-CU-OE-CTL, was removed on March 29, 2017 from Superior
Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00634-CAB-BLM to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Cathy Ann
Bencivengo.

Propulsion Controls is a full service electro-mechanical repair
and diesel repair contractor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          James Mink, Esq.
          SEDGWICK LLP
          333 Bush Street, 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 627 1453
          E-mail: james.mink@sedgwicklaw.com


RADIO RENTALS: Thorn Group Confirms Suit Over Lending Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
News.com.au reports that Thorn Group says a AUD50 million class
action involving past lending practices of its subsidiary Radio
Rentals could drag on for years.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers announced the action against Radio
Rentals on March 29 on behalf of customer and lead plaintiff Casey
Simpson.

The legal firm alleges that the home appliance rental company's
"Rent, Try, AUD1 Buy" contracts are misleading and deceptive as
customers do not get to buy rented goods for AUD1 at the end of
their contract periods.

Thorn Group confirmed it had been served with a statement of claim
but warned the case could drag on.

"Thorn Australia Pty Limited will defend the claim in the ordinary
course of the class action process," the company said in a
statement to the ASX.

"It is anticipated that the process could take a significant
length of time (perhaps years) to run its course."
The Radio Rentals website tells potential customers that at the
end of a 24, 36 or 48 month rental plan for an appliance or piece
of furniture: "you can make it yours for just AUD1".

However, Maurice Blackburn principal Ben Slade said the contract
fine print states that the impetus is on customers to negotiate to
buy rented appliances or furniture for a price agreed by Radio
Rentals.

If customers fail to secure a purchase, their contracts
automatically roll over into another 24, 36 or 48 month term.
Additionally, Radio Rentals' website states that goods available
to buy under those contracts "are similar to (the) rented good in
age, dimension and features".

At 1214 AEDT on March 30, Thorn shares were down 3 cents, or 2.27
per cent, at AUD1.29. [GN]


READY PAC PRODUCE: "Torres" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Torres and Joel Rodriquez, behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ready Pac Produce, Inc., Ready
Pac Foods, Inc., Defendants, Case BC656221 (Cal. Super., April 3,
2017) seeks unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees
and costs under the California Labor Code, California Business and
Professions Code and applicable Wage Orders issued by the
California Industrial Welfare Commission.

The complaint says Defendants failed to provide adequate rest
periods, unpaid vested vacation wages, failed to properly
calculate overtime wages vis-a-vis accurate and complete wage
statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay former employees all earned and
unpaid wages, applicable civil penalties, injunctive relief and
other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
interest pursuant to the California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. [BN]

Ready Pac Foods, Inc. employed Plaintiffs in their Los Angeles
County and Irwindale locations.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph Lavi, Esq., Esq.
     Joshua M. Webster, Esq.
     LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
     8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Telephone: (310) 432-0000
     Facsimile: (310) 432-0001


RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Faces "Menza" Suit in D.N.J.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RECEIVABLES
MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, LLC. The case is styled as MICHELE MENZA, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, LLC, doing business
as BERKS CREDIT PARTNERS, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02235-ES-JAD (D.N.J., Apr. 3, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Esther Salas.

Receivables Management provides financial and accounts receivables
management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RED PARROT: Senior Care Sues Over Unsolicited Advertisements
------------------------------------------------------------
SENIOR CARE GROUP, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. RED PARROT DISTRIBUTION, INC., a
Florida corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No.
8:17-cv-00760-JDW-TGW (M.D. Fla., Mar. 31, 2017), seeks injunctive
relief enjoining Defendants, their employees, agents,
representatives, contractors, affiliates, and all persons and
entities acting in concert with them, from sending unsolicited
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005
(JFPA).

The Defendants have sent facsimile transmissions of unsolicited
advertisements to Plaintiff and the Class in violation of the
JFPA, including, but not limited to, the facsimile transmission of
an unsolicited advertisement on or about February 23, 2017 ("the
Fax"). The Fax describes the commercial availability or quality of
Defendants' products, goods and services.

Red Parrot is a privately owned Pharmaceutical and Medical supply
wholesaler located in Florida and serving Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Faces "Jairam" Lawsuit Over Convenience Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANITA JAIRAM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS BUREAU, INC.,
d/b/a AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, Defendant, Case No.
0:17-cv-60634-BB (S.D. Fla., April 2, 2017), alleges that
Defendant unlawfully charged Floridians a Convenience Fee for
credit card payments made using the Online Payment Portal in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Founded in 1977, RMCB is a recovery agency for Consumer
collections.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
     110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954-907-1136
     Fax: 855-529-9540
     E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com

        - and -

     Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
     THOMAS-JOHN LAW, P.A.
     110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954-543-1325
     Fax: 954-507-9975
     E-mail: tpatti@thomasjohnlaw.com


REVLON CONSUMER: NY Court Grants Prelim OK of Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joanna Seybert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, adopts Judge Tomlinson's amended report and
recommendation in its entirety in the case styled ANNE ELKIND and
SHARON ROSEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS CORPORATION,
Defendant, No. 14-CV-2484 (JS) (AKT) (E.D.N.Y.).

On April 17, 2014, plaintiffs Anne Elkind and Sharon Rosen
commenced a putative class action on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated against defendant Revlon Consumer
Products Corporation, asserting claims with respect to defendant's
sale of cosmetics under the brand name Revlon Age Defying with DNA
Advantage.  On May 14, 2015, the court granted in part and denied
in part defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended Complaint.

On June 30, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion seeking
preliminary approval of their class action settlement. The parties
request that the court certify the proposed class for settlement
purposes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)
and/or (b)(3), grant preliminary approval of their proposed
settlement, and direct notice to be sent to the class.

On July 6, 2016, the court referred the parties' motion to Judge
Tomlinson for a report and recommendation and on February 17,
2017, Judge Tomlinson issued her R&R. On March 2, 2017, the
parties requested clarification as to the class definition set
forth in the R&R and, alternatively, objected to the R&R. The
parties noted that the class definition set forth in the R&R did
not include purchasers of the Revlon Age Defying with DNA Powder
and requested that Judge Tomlinson amend the class definition to
include purchasers of the powder.

Judge Tomlinson issued an order addressing the parties' letter
indicating that purchasers of the powder were excluded from the
class definition based on the District Court's prior dismissal of
plaintiffs' claims relating to the labeling and marketing of the
powder. However, Judge Tomlinson stated that the court was
inclined to amend the R&R with respect to the issue to the extent
the parties submitted a communication signed by counsel indicating
that defendant intended to include purchasers of the powder in the
settlement. On March 7, 2017, the parties submitted a joint letter
signed by counsel confirming that they intended to include the
purchasers of the Powder in their settlement. On March 9, 2017,
Judge Tomlinson issued her Amended R&R recommending that the
parties' motion for preliminary approval of their settlement be
granted. Judge Tomlinson recommended that the following class be
certified pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)
and (b)(3):

     "Elkind, Rosen and all other Persons in the United States
who, during the Class Period (the time period beginning on April
25, 2011 and ending on the date a motion for preliminary approval
of the Settlement Agreement is filed in the Action) purchased one
or more of Revlon's Age Defying with DNA Advantage Cream Makeup,
Concealer, and Powder, in any package, size, or iteration, for
personal, family or household use, and not for resale.
Specifically excluded from the class, however, are any Person(s)
who timely opts-out of the class."

Judge Tomlinson determined that the parties must establish the
reasonableness of the settlement agreement's enhancement award for
class representatives at the fairness hearing. Judge Tomlinson
also recommended that the issue of attorneys' fees be addressed in
a separate motion. Finally, Judge Tomlinson recommended that the
court appoint the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron and the Law
Office of Jack Fitzgerald as class counsel, and determined that
the parties' proposed notice plan satisfied Rule 23(c)(2)(A) and
(B).

Upon careful review and consideration, Judge Seybert finds Judge
Tomlinson's amended report and recommendation to be comprehensive,
well-reasoned, and free of clear error, and the same is adopted in
its entirety and granted the parties' joint motion for preliminary
approval of their class action settlement agreement to the extent
that the certified class encompasses the class definition set
forth in the Amended R&R.

A full-text copy of Judge Seybert's memorandum and order dated
March 29, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/xOw29v from
Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by John Joseph Fitzgerald, IV --
jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- tom@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- Trevor
Flynn -- trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- at The Law Office of Jack
Fitzgerald, PC; Ronald A. Marron -- ron@consumersadvocates.com --
Alexis M. Wood -- Kas L. Gallucci -- kas@consumersadvocates.com --
William Richards -- bill@consumersadvocates.com -- at Law Offices
of Ronald A. Marron

Revlon Consumer Products Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Patricia Glaser -- pglaser@glaserweil.com -- Sean Riley --
sriley@glaserweil.com -- Rory S. Miller -- rmiller@glaserweil.com
-- at Glasesr Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLP; Jill Caroline
Barnhart -- Nelson A. Boxer -- nboxer@pkbllp.com -- at Petrillo
Klein & Boxer LLP


RUBY TUESDAY: Settles Sharholders' Suit for $5-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson at Law360 reports that restaurant chain Ruby Tuesday
Inc. agreed on March 29 in Tennessee federal court to pay USD5
million to settle a securities class action accusing the company
and some of its executives of making false and misleading
statements about its financial performance and new brand concept.

The restaurant company, along with former Ruby Tuesday CEO James
J. Buettgen, Chief Financial Officer Michael O. Moore and Chief
Operations Officer Kimberly S. Grant, signed off on the settlement
with no admission of wrongdoing, violation of law or liability,
according to the settlement agreement filed in court.

"Defendants vigorously deny any wrongdoing and liability and
maintain that their conduct at all times was legal and proper,"
the stipulation of settlement said.

The settlement principal amount of USD5 million is paid as
consideration for full and complete settlement of all claims, the
stipulation said.

Ruby Tuesday was hit with the proposed shareholder class action in
May 2014 by investor Dennis Krystek. The shareholders alleged that
the company and the officers misled the investing public about the
restaurant chain's financial performance, including the purported
success of its new Lime Fresh Mexican Grill brand concept. The
suit said materially misleading statements artificially inflated
Ruby Tuesday's stock price before it plummeted in the second half
of 2013.

The complaint alleged two counts of violations of the Exchange Act
under a "fraud on the market" theory, in which the defendants
allegedly engaged in a scheme to deceive the market as well as a
course of conduct that artificially inflated the price of Ruby
Tuesday common stock. The defendants committed fraud and deceit on
investors during the class period, the complaint said.

Under a prior CEO, Ruby Tuesday underwent changes to its brand,
menu and pricing to appeal to higher-end customers and also began
investing in new concepts such as the Lime Fresh brand, which Ruby
Tuesday acquired in April 2012 for USD24 million in cash,
according to the suit.

But after Buettgen took over, he began reversing course by
offering more affordable menu options and closing most of the new
concept restaurants, including some of the Lime Fresh restaurants,
according to the suit. Buettgen resigned from his post in
September.

The company under Buettgen's leadership made several positive
statements about the performance of its new menu options and the
remaining Lime Fresh brand restaurants, leading the company's
stock price to reach a high of USD9.88 per share in July 2013, the
suit alleged.

However, Krystek said the positive statements were false and
misleading because the officers ignored facts available to them
and that the changes to the menu were actually hurting sales as
"check price was declining without contemporaneous increases in
traffic," the suit said.

Krystek also said the officers knew the company had seen a
"dramatic decline in sales" at its Lime Fresh restaurants and that
the carrying value of Lime Fresh assets "were materially impaired
and should have been written down."

The company contended in a motion to dismiss that it made no
effort to conceal its poor performance, including the performance
of its Lime Fresh Mexican Grill restaurants. Not only did it avoid
making optimistic statements about the brand, according to the
motion, but it also warned investors of risks associated with the
brand and said it had "much work ahead" in bringing it up to
expectations.

Under the terms of the stipulation of settlement, lead counsel for
the investors may now submit an application for an award of
attorneys' fees, payment of expenses in connection with
prosecuting the litigation and any interest on attorneys' fees and
expenses, the Tennessee federal court said. In addition, lead
plaintiff Krystek may seek payment from the settlement fund.

A representative of Ruby Tuesday did not immediately respond to a
request for comment on March 30.

Legal counsel for the company, Buettgen and the investors did not
respond to requests for comment.

The company and Buettgen are represented by Stuart J. Baskin,
Daniel H.R. Laguardia and Brian Polovoy of Shearman & Sterling and
Britt K. Latham and Joseph B. Crace Jr. of Bass Berry & Sims PLC.

Krystek is represented by Mary K. Blasy, Laurie L. Largent,
Danielle S. Myers, Ivy T. Ngo, Samuel H. Rudman, Ashley M. Price,
Christopher M. Wood  and Darren J. Robbins of Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jerry E. Martin, George E. Barrett, Timothy L.
Miles and Scott P. Tift of Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison LLC
and Michael I. Fistel Jr. and Frank J. Johnson of Johnson & Weaver
LLP

The case is Dennis Krystek v. Ruby Tuesday Inc. et al, case number
3:14-cv-01119, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee, Nashville Division.[GN]


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Allegedly Spies on Consumer, Class Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado at Legal Newsline reports that a consumer has filed
a class action lawsuit against Samsung Electronics America Inc.
and other parties, alleging that Samsung's high-tech televisions
contain hidden devices that record consumers' private
communications.

Joshua Siegel filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on March 10, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey against the defendants, including Samsung
Electronics Co. Ltd., alleging that they routinely record private
conversation of consumers through devices inside their smart TVs.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he suffered
damages from having his privacy invaded due to the hidden
recording devices. The plaintiff holds Samsung responsible because
the defendants allegedly transmit the private conversations of
their consumers to third parties.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks permanent
injunction and to enjoin the defendant. He also wants disgorgement
of profits, restitution, actual damages, punitive damages, all
legal fees, interest and any other relief the court deems just. He
is represented by Michael Berman of Berman Class Law in Long
Beach, N.Y. [GN]


SHIPLEY DO-NUT FLOUR: "Sanchez" Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Esmeralda Sanchez, Juan Sanchez, Martha Garcia and Elizabeth
Peralta, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, v. Shipley Do-Nut Flour & Supply Co., Inc., Shipley
Holding Company and Lawrence W. Shipley, III, Defendants, Case No.
4:17-cv-01048 (S.D. Tex., April 5, 2017), seeks damages in the
amount of unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, court costs, reasonable attorneys'
fees and all other relief as allowed by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Shipley's business involves mixing and preparing products such as
yeast mix, fillings and other food goods to be delivered to retail
stores and franchises across Texas and other states within the
United States. Juan Sanchez was a warehouse employee assigned to
Shipley's 5200 North Main Street warehouse in Houston.

Esmeralda Sanchez was employed in a secretarial/clerical capacity.
Garcia and Peralta were cleaning/housekeeping employees, cleaning
the office including the personal residences of family members,
company-owned houses located adjacent to the warehouse and the
corporate office. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matias J. Adrogue, Esq.
      Leila M. El-Hakam, Esq.
      MATIAS J. ADROGUE - PROFESSIONAL LLC
      1629 West Alabama St.
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 425-7270
      Fax: (713) 425-7271
      Email: service@mjalawyer.com


SHO-ME POWER: 8th Cir. Partly Affirms Ruling Landowners' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed
in part, reversed in part, vacated in part the judgment of the
district court, and remanded the appealed case titled Chase
Barfield, Plaintiff, Michael D. Biffle; Gina Biffle; Dwight K.
Robertson, Plaintiffs-Appellees, J. Carol Hutchens; Rowena
Hutchens, Plaintiffs, v. Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative; Sho-Me
Technologies, LLC, Defendants-Appellants, KAMO Electric
Cooperative, Inc.; K-PowerNet, LLC, Defendants. National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association; Associated Electric Cooperative;
Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives Amici on Behalf of
Appellants, No. 15-2964 (8th Cir.).

Sho-Me Power Cooperative is a rural electric cooperative (REC)
governed by Missouri's Rural Electric Cooperative Law, Chapter 394
RSMo. Before 1992, Sho-Me got easements across thousands of
parcels in southern Missouri. The easements' language varies, but
they all grant Sho-Me the right to construct and operate an
electric transmission line. Some grant the right to construct
appurtenances or do things necessary and useful to the enjoyment
of the easement.

In 1997, it decided to install fiber-optic cables alongside its
electrical lines. Sho-Me used the cables for internal
communications. Sho-Me assigned the cables' excess capacity to a
separate company, Sho-Me Technologies, LLC (Tech), to operate a
public-serving commercial telecommunications business. Tech
currently provides broadband services to individuals and
businesses across southern Missouri.

In 2010 and then in 2011, Michael and Gina Biffle, Dwight
Robertson, and Chase Barfield -- owners of land subject to Sho-Me
easements filed putative class actions against Sho-Me and Tech.
They alleged Tech's use of the fiber-optic cable for public-
serving telecommunications purposes was not authorized by the
easements, making Sho-Me and Tech liable for trespass and unjust
enrichment.

The district court certified a class of landowners, granted the
landowners summary judgment on liability, and held a jury trial on
damages. The district court instructed the jury to award the
landowners the fair market rental value of Sho-Me and Tech's use
of the fiber-optic cable on the landowner's land "for commercial-
telecommunications purposes. The jury awarded the landowners over
$79 million. Sho-Me and Tech appeal the liability determinations,
damages instructions, evidentiary rulings, and class
certification.

The court affirms the summary judgment on trespass liability and
the class certification, reverses the summary judgment on unjust-
enrichment liability, vacates the damages award, and remanded the
case for further proceedings.

In reversing the summary judgment on unjust-enrichment liability,
the Eighth Circuit used the case of Sterbenz v. Kansas City Power
& Light Co., 333 S.W.3d 1, 7-10 (Mo. App. 2010).  The case
summarizes the limited remedies available against entities such as
Sho-me and Tech.  It says when an entity otherwise entitled to
exercise the power of eminent domain ignores that power and
trespasses upon private land, the landowner has an election of
remedies. The landowner may proceed by way of injunction to
restrain the installation; or he may sue in ejectment; or he may
avail himself of section 523.090; or he may maintain a common law
action for damages.

The landowners say that Sterbenz's silence on unjust enrichment is
not a rejection. But Sterbenz is not just silent, the Eighth
Circuit held.  It says landowners have an election of remedies and
lists four remedies. It makes little sense to say a plaintiff has
an election of four remedies if the plaintiff can elect a fifth.
The landowners do not identify any Missouri cases recognizing
unjust enrichment as a remedy for unauthorized land use.

A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's opinion dated March 29,
2017, is available at https://goo.gl/AByidY from Leagle.com.

W. Stanley Walch -- swalch@thompsoncoburn.com -- David Lynn
Coffman -- dcoffman@thompsoncoburn.com -- Robert J. Wagner --
rwagner@thompsoncoburn.com -- Christopher Martin Hohn --
chohn@thompsoncoburn.com -- Stephen A. D'Aunoy --
sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Mark A. Mattingly --
mmattingly@thompsoncoburn.com -- at Thompson Coburn LLP; Dana
Lynette Kollar -- dkollar@LawOfficeMo.com -- Terry M. Evans --
tevans@LawOfficeMo.com -- at Andereck Evans Widger Lewis & Figg
LLC, for Defendant-Appellant

John Edmund Price -- jprice@fulcherlaw.com -- at Fulcher Hagler
LLP; Jessica Healy; Tyrus H. Thompson; Richard Theodore Ashe --
rashe@cecb.com -- Christiaan D. Horton -- chorton@cecb.com -- at
Carnahan Evans Cantwell & Brown, P.C., for Amicus on Behalf of
Appellant(s)

Ronald J. Waicukauski -- rwaicukauski@price-law.com -- Brad A.
Catlin -- bcatlin@price-law.com -- at Price Waicukauski Joven &
Catlin, LLC; Fred O'Neill; Heidi Doerhoff Vollet --
hvollet@cvdl.net -- at Cook Vetter Deorhoff & Landwehr, P.C.;
Cecilia Fex -- Kathleen Clubb Kauffman -- at Ackerson Kauffman
Fex, PC, for Plaintiff-Appellee

The United States Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit panel consists
of Circuit Judges Duane Benton, James B. Loken and Raymond W.
Gruender.


SILVER BAY: Merger Deal Inadequate, "Scarantino" Says
-----------------------------------------------------
Louis Scarantino, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp.,
Irvin R. Kessler, Thomas W. Brock, Tanuja M. Dehne, Stephen G.
Kasnet, Thomas E. Siering, Daryl J. Carter, W. Reid Sanders, Mark
Weld, Silver Bay Management LLC, Silver Bay Operating Partnership
L.P., Tricon Capital Group Inc., TAH Acquisition Holdings LLC, and
TAH Acquisition LP, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-01066 (D. Minn.,
April 5, 2017) seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin
Defendants from proceeding with, consummating or closing the
merger of Silver Bay with Tricon Capital Group.  The suit further
seeks rescissory damages in case the merger pushes through, costs
of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities and Exchange Act.

Silver Bay focuses on the acquisition, renovation, leasing, and
management of single-family properties for rental income and long-
term capital appreciation. It generates virtually all of its
revenue by leasing its portfolio of single-family properties. On
February 27, 2017, it was announced that Silver Bay Realty Trust
Corp. will be acquired by Tricon Capital Group Inc. and its
affiliates for $21.50 per share in cash. Plaintiff, a Silver Bay
shareholder, claims that said amount is inadequate considering
Silver Bay's undisclosed financial projections for fiscal years
2017 through 2019. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

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

            - and -

      Adam Altman, Esq.
      Douglas B. Altman, Esq.
      ALTMAN & IZEK
      901 North Third Street, Suite 140
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 335-3700
      E-mail: adam@altmanizek.com


SMITH FOOD: Faces "Doak" Suit in Northern District of Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smith Food Group.
The case is entitled as Kimberly Doak, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Smith Food Group,
Inc., doing business as Buffalo's Cafe, the Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-00043-TCB (N.D. Ga., Mar. 29, 2017). The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.

The Company offers frozen meat, poultry, seafood and further
processed products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC - ATL
          191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4200
          P.O. Box 57007
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (407) 420 1414
          E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


STARBOARD GROUP: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against STARBOARD GROUP OF
BUCKS COUNTY, INC. The case is styled as JESSICA SLIVAK,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiff, v. STARBOARD GROUP OF BUCKS COUNTY, INC., doing
business as WENDY'S OLD FASHIONED HAMBURGERS, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-01399-RK (E.D. Pa., Mar. 29, 2017). The case is
assigned to Hon. Robert F. Kelly.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364 5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364 5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


SUNIVA INC: Faces "Lam" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
BILL LAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. SUNIVA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01168-TWT
(N.D. Ga., March 31, 2017), is a civil action for collection of
alleged unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

Suniva Inc. designs and manufactures monocrystalline photovoltaic
solar cells and modules for residential, commercial, government,
and micro-utility applications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew Lampros, Esq.
     HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
     1230 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 950
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Phone: (404) 876-8100
     Fax: (404) 876-3477
     Email: alampros@hallandlampros.com

        - and -

     Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
     LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
     132 Nassau Street, Suite1100
     New York, NY 10038
     Phone: (212) 581-5005
     Fax: (212) 581-2122

        - and -

     Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
     M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
     THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
     210 S. Washington Ave.
     Mobile, AL 36602
     Phone: (251) 433-8100


TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Faces "Poudy" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ganel Poudy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Texas Roadhouse of Fort Myers, FL, LLC, a
Foreign Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00148-UA-
CM (M.D. Fla., March 14, 2017), was brought on behalf of "server"
employees who did not earn minimum wages for each hour worked
and/or performed work off the clock in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Texas Roadhouse of Fort Myers, FL, LLC serves hand-cut steaks,
fall off the bone ribs, fresh baked rolls and ice cold beer.
Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non-exempt "prep cook."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bill B. Berke, Esq.
     BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A.
     4423 Del Prado Boulevard S.
     Cape Coral, FL 33904
     Phone: 239 549 6689


TOWER PALLET: "Jones" Suit Alleges FLSA, Wisc. Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TOWER PALLET COMPANY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-468 (E.D. Wis., March 31, 2017), alleges that
Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived
current and former non-exempt Manufacturing employees, including
Plaintiff, of wages earned for all compensable work time,
including overtime pay for each hour worked over 40 hours in a
workweek.  The case alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

Defendant, Tower Pallet Company, Inc. is a De Pere, Wisconsin
corporation that manufactures, delivers, and repairs pallets
through the Midwest region of the United States.  Plaintiff worked
as a manufacturing employee at Defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James A. Walcheske, Esq.
     Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
     Jesse R. Dill, Esq.
     WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
     15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
     Brookfield, WI 53005
     Phone: (262) 780-1953
     Fax: (262) 565-6469
     E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
             sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
             jdill@walcheskeluzi.com


VALEANT PHARMA: Ackman's Suit May Cost Pershing Investors $75MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antoine Gara at Forbes reports that, "I win, tails you lose... and
then you lose some more." That seems to be the story surrounding
Bill Ackman's disastrous near USD4 billion loss in Valeant
Pharmaceuticals.

Ackman's pharmaceutical foray is mostly over after his hedge fund
Pershing Square dumped all of its Valeant shares in mid-March at
USD11 apiece, or an over 90% loss, cementing one of Wall Street's
biggest-ever investment debacles. But a document released evening
indicates investors in Ackman's funds stand to lose even more.

Valeant may cost Pershing Square investors at least another USD75
million, the hedge fund has estimated, due to an ongoing class
action lawsuit in a California court accusing Ackman of insider
trading when making a USD3 billion investment in botox-maker
Allergan in 2014. In that investment, Ackman bought Allergan
shares in concert with a plan with Valeant CEO Michael Pearson to
press a merger of the two companies.

Although Allergan was sold to a 'white knight' drugmaker called
Actavis in the fall of 2014 for USD66 billion in cash and stock,
it netted Pershing Square a USD2.6 billion profit and propelled
the fund to a 37% net gain. Ackman personally made USD1.1 billion,
Forbes calculated at the time, mostly from Allergan-fueled
performance fees.

As this windfall was being booked, Allergan investors led by the
State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio and the Iowa Public
Employees Retirement System sued Ackman, accusing the hedge fund
billionaire of insider trading. Those investors, who sold their
Allergan shares in the months leading up to the unsolicited
Ackman/Valeant takeover offer in April 2014, said they'd been
harmed because Ackman was in possession of material nonpublic
information surrounding the bid when building his position.
Pershing Square contests these allegations.

In early 2015, after the Actavis/Allergan merger closed, Ackman
bet the house on Valeant Pharmaceuticals and his M&A buddy
Pearson, who'd just joined the three comma club himself.
Ultimately, Valeant proved to be a house of cards, fueled by
obscene drug price increases, highly leveraged acquisitions, and
shoddy accounting. The company's collapse has led to accusations
of fraud and criminal investigations surrounding a specialty
pharmacy channel. A year ago, Forbes Magazine published an
investigation into Valeant, attributing the company's heady rise
and dramatic fall to its ultra-aggressive compensation plan.
Though the ugly history of Valeant is mostly written for Ackman,
the class action insider trading case rages on in California
courts.

In February, Ackman struck a deal with Valeant where the drugmaker
would cover 60% of any costs from the class action suit, with
Pershing Square covering the rest. Efforts to dismiss the case
have so far failed. If a settlement or judicial claim emerges,
Ackman's loss-share with Valeant stipulates that he will forfeit
his right to sue Valeant for Pershing Square's staggering loss. As
of now, Pershing Square believes it may be on the hook for USD75
million, split between USD29 million at it publicly traded
investment vehicle Pershing Square Holdings, and the remainder
from its private funds.

Ackman, though he booked immense performance fees from Allergan's
takeover, will not pay the prospective liability on his own.

Instead, fund investors will share the potential liability on a
pro rata basis. Of course, Ackman and his partners are the biggest
investors in Pershing Square's various funds, so they stand to be
hit alongside LPs.

Nevertheless, even after billions of dollars in Valeant losses and
hundreds of millions of dollars in Allergan-fueled performance
fees paid to Ackman & Co., Pershing Square LPs and shareholders
may still be reaching into their pockets. Pershing Square declined
to comment. Valeant warns investors of its various prospective
legal costs but has yet to set aside a reserve, filings show.

About Valeant, Ackman said on March 28: "My approach to mistakes
is that I personally assume 100% of the responsibility on behalf
of the firm while sharing the credit for our successes. While I
and the rest of the Pershing Square team have suffered significant
losses from this failed investment as we are collectively the
largest investors in the funds, it is much more painful to lose
our shareholders' money, and for this I deeply and profoundly
apologize."

The Pershing Square document -- its annual report -- also reveals
other nuggets from the inner workings of one of the biggest hedge
funds in the world.

Despite a 13.5% net loss in 2016, which followed a 20.5% net loss
a year prior, Pershing Square and Ackman are finding life in hedge
fund land to be quite lucrative. Pershing Square's 18 partners and
top investment staff, led by Ackman, received USD101 million in
management-fee-related pay in 2016, despite losing billions. A
year earlier, as bonus checks were cut for the fund's strong 2014,
these partners made over USD500 million.

Pershing Square's USD75 million insider trading liability and the
fund's steady hum of management fees appear to be another prime
example of how hedge funds accrue most of the benefits from their
risky investments, not limited partners. The New York Times's
James Stewart recently calculated Pershing Square Holdings
insiders like Ackman have accrued 72% of the funds gains since it
was created in 2012.

Institutional investors are presently demanding cuts to hedge fund
fees, and firms are shutting their doors at a record pace.
Pershing Square recently changed its fee structure to lower fees
for mediocre performance but take a greater cut of gains exceeding
16.5%. The hedge fund also has a high water mark, meaning Ackman &
Co. won't receive performance fees until Pershing Square recovers
its pre-Valeant collapse highs. The high watermark for Pershing
Square Holdings is USD26.37, over 40% above its current net asset
value.

Bill Ackman was also among the biggest hedge fund losers on Forbes
2016 billionaires list, shedding USD600 million in his net worth
in 2016 and falling off the Forbes 400 list of the richest people
in the United States. In recent yeas, as the wealth of
quantitative hedge fund managers has risen, stock pickers like
Ackman and macro-oriented investors have seen their wealth drop
alongside stagnating performance and dwindling assets. [GN]


VALLEY NATIONAL: Faces "Gaston" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valley National
Bancorp. The case is captioned as Maritza Gaston, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Valley National Bancorp and Valley National Bank, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01886 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 3, 2017).

Valley National Bancorp is a regional bank holding company
headquartered in Wayne, New Jersey with over $19 billion in
assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


VISA INT'L: Nuts for Candy Files Anti-trust Case
------------------------------------------------
Nuts for Candy, a Sole Proprietorship, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VISA International
Service Association, VISA, Inc., VISA U.S.A., Inc., and Does 1-50,
Defendants, Case No. 17-CIV-01432, (Cal. Super., April 5, 2017),
is a civil antitrust action challenging illegal, horizontal
agreements entered into by Visa and its member banks restraining
trade in the general-purpose credit card services market under
California's Antitrust Law. The lawsuit seeks as an action for
unfair and unlawful business practices under California's Unfair
Competition Law.

Visa, along with their issuing and acquiring banks have allegedly
connived to fix, set and enforce interchange fees associated with
general and premium credit cards paid by retail merchants such as
Plaintiff to Defendants and to their member banks, to eliminate
merchants' ability to negotiate lower interchange fees through a
set of restraints incorporated in Visa association rules and to
unlawfully tie together credit card products and separate network
services.

Nuts for Candy is a family-owned shop with collectible stuffed
animals and over 400 different candies from all around the world,
with its principal place of business at 1241 Broadway Avenue,
Burlingame, California 94010. It accepts Visa payment cards as
payment for goods, along with cards issued by MasterCard. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
      Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
      Nancy L. Fineman, Esq.
      Camilo Artiga-Purcell, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Tel: (650) 697-6000
      Fax: (650) 697-0577
      Email: mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
             jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
             nfineman@cpmlegal.com
             cartigapurcell@cpmlegal.com


WELLS FARGO: "Barbose" Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Drea Barbose and Joshua Moreno, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 170400287, (Pa. Comm. Pleas, April 3, 2017),
seeks unpaid wages including overtime wages, prejudgment interest,
litigation costs, expenses and attorney's fees and such other and
further relief under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant is in the business of providing retail and commercial
banking and financial services to customers in the U.S. Plaintiffs
were assigned as Payroll Sales Representatives at Wells Fargo
Branches at Philadelphia County. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
     Peter Winebrake, Esq.
     R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
     Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
     WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
     715 Twining Road, Suite 211
     Dresher, PA 19025
     Tel: (215) 884-2491

            - and -

     Peter Rukin, Esq.
     Rebecca Stephens, Esq.
     RUKIN HYLAND LLP
     100 Pine Street, Suite 2150
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415) 421-1800


WELLS FARGO: Gadomski Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reports
---------------------------------------------------------
KELLIE GADOMSKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00691-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal., Mar. 31,
2017), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently or intentionally
systematically reporting negative and inaccurate information on
consumers' credit reports, failing to properly investigate
disputes concerning the inaccurate data WFBNA is reporting in
consumers' credit files, and failing to correct such, which WFBNA
knew or should have known was erroneous and which caused Plaintiff
and the Class damages.

Wells Fargo is a provider of banking, mortgage, investing, credit
card, insurance, and consumer and commercial financial
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Clark Ovruchesky, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CLARK OVRUCHESKY
          750 B. Street, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 356 8960
          Facsimile: (619) 330 7610
          E-mail: co@colawcalifornia.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & 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


WESTERN UNION: "Herman" Securities Suit Transferred to D. Col.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned MARTIN HERMAN, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE WESTERN UNION
COMPANY, HIKMET ERSEK, SCOTT T. SCHEIRMAN, and RAJESH K. AGRAWAL,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00650-CBM-AJW (originally C.D. Cal.,
January 26, 2017) has been removed from the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado, according to a docket entry dated
March 31, 2017.  The clerk of court assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-
00809 to the proceeding under Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix.

The case alleges that Defendants issued misleading financial
statements in violation of the U.S. Securities Act.  Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Western Union's fraud prevention efforts did
not comply with applicable laws; (2) Western Union willfully
failed to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program; (3)
Western Union aided and abetted wire fraud; (4) for at least five
years, Western Union knew of agents structuring transactions
designed to avoid the reporting requirements of the Bank Secrecy
Act; (5) Western Union was not compliant with its regulatory
responsibilities; (6) between 2004 and 2012, Western Union
violated U.S. laws--the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-fraud statutes--
by processing hundreds of thousands of transactions for Western
Union agents and others involved in an international consumer
fraud scheme; (7) Western Union knew of but failed to take
corrective action against Western Union agents involved in or
facilitating fraud-related transactions; (8) between January 1,
2004 and August 29, 2015, Western Union received at least 550,928
complaints about fraud-induced money transfers, totaling at least
$632,721,044; and (9) as a result, Defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Defendant Western Union provides money movement and payment
services worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Tel: (213) 785-2610
     Fax: (213) 226-4684
     E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Ahold Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against West-Ward
Pharmaceuticals, Corp. The case is titled as Ahold U.S.A. Inc., On
behalf of itself and On behalf of all others similarly situated;
Mark Adorney On behalf of himself and On behalf of all others
similarly situated; Meijer, Inc. On behalf of itself and On behalf
of all others similarly situated; Meijer Distribution, Inc., On
behalf of itself and On behalf of all others similarly situated;
Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, On behalf of itself
and On behalf of all others similarly situated; NECA-IBEW Welfare
Trust Fund, On behalf of itself and On behalf of all others
similarly situated; Rochester Drug Co-Operative, On behalf of
itself and On behalf of all others similarly situated; Teamsters
Union 25 Health Services & Insurance Plan, On behalf of itself and
On behalf of all others similarly situated; United Food and
Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits
Fund, On behalf of itself and On behalf of all others similarly
situated; Value Drug Co., On behalf of itself and On behalf of all
others similarly situated; Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, On
behalf of itself and On behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Movants, v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals, Corp. f/k/a Roxane
Laboratories, Inc., the Respondent, Case No. 1:17-mc-00099-P1
(S.D.N.Y., Mar. 29, 2017).

West-Ward Pharmaceutical develops, manufactures, and distributes
generic pharmaceuticals.[BN]

Ahold et al. are represented by:

          Miles Greaves, Esq.
          TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU
          80 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 931 0704
          Facsimile: (212) 931 0703
          E-mail: mgreaves@tcllaw.com


WISE FOODS: Faces "Alce" Suit in Southern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wise Foods, Inc. The
case is titled as SAMELINE ALCE and DESIRE NUGENT, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Wise
Foods, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02402 (S.D.N.Y., Apr.
3, 2017).

Wise Foods is a company based in Berwick, Pennsylvania, that makes
snacks and sells them through retail food outlets in 15 eastern
seaboard states, as well as Vermont, Ohio, West Virginia,
Kentucky, Tennessee, and Washington, D.C.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: "Parshall" Suit Alleges Securities Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ZELTIQ AESTHETICS, INC., MARK J. FOLEY. D.
KEITH GROSSMAN. DAVID J. ENDICOTT. MARY M. FISHER. KEVIN C.
O'BOYLE. ANDREW N. SCHIFF, ALLERGAN PLC, ALLERGAN HOLDCO US, INC.,
and BLIZZARD MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00270-
UNA (D. Del., March 14, 2017), alleges that Defendants issued a
Proxy Statement regarding the acquisition of ZELTIQ by Allergan
plc and its affiliates that omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy
Statement false and misleading, in violation of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act.

Allegedly, says the complaint, the Proxy Statement omits material
information regarding potential conflicts of interest of the
Company's officers and directors; the Solicitation Statement omits
material information regarding potential conflicts of interest of
the Company's financial advisor, Guggenheim Securities, LLC; and
the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the
Company's financial projections.

ZELTIQ AESTHETICS, INC. is a medical technology company focused on
developing and commercializing products utilizing its proprietary
controlled-cooling technology platform.

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
     Tel: (302) 295-5310
     Fax: (302) 654-7530
     E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
     E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
     E-mail: gms@rl-legal.com


* Fairness in Suit Litigation Act of 2017 Faces Uncertain Future
----------------------------------------------------------------
John F. O'Brien III, Esq., at McGuireWoods LLP, at Lexology
reports on March 9, 2017, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation
Act of 2017 passed the House, 220-201, split almost entirely along
party lines. No Democrats voted for the bill and only 14
Republicans voted against it. The proposal faces a number of
obstacles, but if it passes, it will be the most sweeping revision
of federal class action law to date.

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.),
who introduced the bill, was a principal author of the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005. On March 13, 2017, the bill was
received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

The legislation is intended to "assure fair and prompt recoveries
for class members and multidistrict litigation plaintiffs with
legitimate claims" and to "diminish abuses in class action and
mass tort litigation that are undermining the integrity of the
U.S. legal system." To accomplish these goals, the bill proposes
several substantive changes to class action procedures in federal
court:

Class Injury -- Under this legislation, a court could not certify
a class unless the party seeking class certification
"affirmatively demonstrates that each proposed class member
suffered the same type and scope of injury as the named class
representative." The bill also requires that any order certifying
a class include a determination, based on a "rigorous analysis of
the evidence."

Conflicts -- The bill requires disclosure of any relationship
between class counsel and class representatives. It also requires
the proposed class complaint to describe "the circumstances under
which each class representative or named plaintiff agreed to be
included in the complaint." Federal courts would be prohibited
from "granting certification of any class action in which any
proposed class representative or named plaintiff is a relative or
employee of class counsel." These provisions target the trend of
"repeat offenders" filing multiple class action complaints against
multiple defendants using the same counsel.

Administrative Feasibility -- The bill requires the class to be
defined with reference to objective criteria. The party seeking
class status "must affirmatively demonstrate that there is a
reliable and administratively feasible mechanism" for determining
whether individuals are within the class definition. This is in
direct response to recent circuit court decisions that rejected
the "ascertainability" requirement recognized by the Third Circuit
in Carrera v. Bayer, 727 F. 3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013).

Funding Disclosures -- Class counsel would have to disclose any
person or entity "who has a contingent right to receive
compensation from any settlement, judgment, or other relief
obtained in the action."

Attorney's Fee Awards -- The bill delays payment of class
counsel's fees until after the distribution of monetary recovery
to the class. Second, instead of tying attorney's fee awards to
the total amount of the class settlement fund, attorney's fee
awards would be limited to "a reasonable percentage" of the
payments actually distributed and received by class members.
Third, the bill ties the calculation of fees in injunctive classes
to the value of the injunctive relief. Finally, class counsel in
any settlement providing monetary benefits would have to submit an
accounting to the director of the Federal Judicial Center and the
director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts
before recovering any fees. Ostensibly, this provision is designed
to make it more difficult for class counsel to recover fee awards,
which presumably would discourage them from filing class actions
in the first place.

Case Management -- The bill 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.

Appeals -- The bill mandates that an appellate court must consider
an appeal from an order granting or denying class-action
certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Currently, appellate review is discretionary.
The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 faces a long
road to becoming law, however. In 2015, Chairman Goodlatte
proposed a much less cumbersome bill that failed to pass the
Republican Senate after making it out of the House.

What's more, the bill has been opposed by numerous civil rights
organizations, nearly every major consumer advocate group, the
Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure of the Judicial
Conference of the United States, the American Bar Association, and
numerous academics. Indeed, PredictGov currently gives the bill a
21 percent chance of enactment. President Trump, who has been the
subject of several class actions, hasn't addressed the bill. But
given his promise not to side with lobbyists, a veto from him
could appeal to his base.

Still, it's nearly impossible to predict how votes like this will
go. And the climate seems ripe for legislative reform of class
action litigation procedures, as the most recent round of
reforms -- the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 -- became law the
last time Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress with a
sitting Republican president. [GN]


* Retirement System Drops Law Firm After Tiny Payouts in Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Leighton at The Salem News reports that the Essex Regional
Retirement System has ended its relationship with a law firm whose
class-action lawsuits resulted in minuscule payouts for the local
organization.

The system's board of directors voted to terminate its agreement
with Labaton Sucharow after receiving just USD624 in January as
its share of a nearly USD2 billion class-action settlement.

"It didn't seem like a worthwhile thing to pursue so we decided to
call it quits with them," Essex Regional Board Chairman Joseph
Maney said.

Essex Regional, which manages USD370 million in pension money for
5,500 public employees and retirees on the North Shore, took part
in three class-action suits at the urging of Labaton Sucharow, a
New York-based law firm that specializes in securities fraud
litigation.

But the organization was awarded only USD255 in one lawsuit and
USD624 in another, while a third suit was dismissed. In the
meantime, the lawyers who brought the cases earned millions of
dollars in fees.

Essex Regional did not have to pay any of those fees, but it did
end up spending about USD10,000 on staff time and documents in the
latest case. The case involved alleged fraud by large banks that
could have affected USD13.8 million that Essex Regional invested
in complex financial instruments known as credit default swaps.
Most of Essex Regional's assets are now invested in the state
pension fund, so the organization no longer needs the services of
a law firm that specializes in security fraud, Maney said.

The board also voted to approve a new five-year contract for
Executive Director Charles Kostro. Maney said Kostro was willing
to accept an annual salary increase of 1.5 percent, which Maney
said is on the "low side."

Kostro will be paid USD145,725 starting in January 2018, rising to
USD154,750 in the final year of the contract in 2022. The contract
must be reviewed by lawyers and approved by the board again before
it becomes official.

Kostro was hired in 2011 after the former executive director was
fired over lavish expense accounts and other financial problems.
"We're very happy with him," Maney said. "We like the way he
operates." [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  * * *