CAR_Public/170426.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Wednesday, April 26, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 83



                            Headlines

A&M ROSENTHAL: "Garay" Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages
AABACO SMALL BUSINESS: "Meyer" Sues Over Breach of Contract
ALLIED INTERSTATE: "Munz" Sues Over Annoying Collections Calls
ALTISOURCE ASSET: Denver Employee to File Amended Complaint
ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Dismiss "Martin" Suit Denied

AMERICAN FAMILY: Agents are Employees, Jury Says
AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: "Baldwin" Seeks Class Action Certification
AMERICAN ROAD: Faces "Frazee" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
AMERICAN SENIOR: "Navarro" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Reached in Class Suit

AMYRIS INC: Rosen Files Securities Class Action
ANZ SECURITIES: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in CalPERS Suit
ARC OF FAYETTE: "Lynn" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
AS AMERICA: "Papp" Sues Over Defective Toilet Flush Valves
ASTORIA FINANCIAL: "Minzer" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal

AUSTRALIA: 40 Manus Island Detainees to Testify in Trial
AUTO CLUB: Court Affirms Ruling Narrowing Claims in "Rothstein"
AVID TECHNOLOGY: Georges Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Defending 3 Class Suits in California
BANK OF AMERICA: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Jackson" Suit

BAYER HEALTHCARE: Wins Class Action Over Digestive Supplements
BED BATH: "Blair" Class Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
BLUE BUFFALO: Appeal on Class Suit Settlement Still Pending
BLUE BUFFALO: Still Faces Class Suit in Ontario
BOSE CORP: Faces Class Action Over U.S. Wiretap Act Violation

BULEE CAFE: "Morales" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
CALIFORNIA: Upton Urges Court to Reject Judge Walsh R&R
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Gordon Seeks Certification of TCPA Class Action
CARRABBA'S ITALIAN: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
CERTEGY CHECK: Alexander Moves to Certify 2 Classes, 2 Subclasses

CHARIOTS OF HIRE: Certification of Class Sought in "Phipps" Suit
CHOCK DEE CORP: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
CMC DRYWALL: "Maradiaga" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages
COMCAST CORP: Judge Says Class Action Unlikely to Net Big Payout
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Defending Suit over FairPoint Merger

CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Bakov Seeks Certification of TCPA Class Suit
CRUMP LIFE: Dolemba's Bid to Certify Denied But May Be Renewed
CVS HEALTH: Corcoran's Bid to Certify Denied; Conference on May 1
DEALDASH INC: Sells Phony Name-Brand Products, Pstikyan Suit Says
DELAWARE: 3rd Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Inmates' Suit

DRIVE SAFE: "Payton" Sues Over Illegal Text Blast Ads
DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Suit Stresses Importance of Sweepstakes Atty
E TRANSPORT CARRIERS: "Reynolds" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
ECLINICALWORKS LLC: Licari Family Seeks Certification of Class
EPATIENTS.COM INC: "Gress" Suit Voluntarily Tossed w/o Prejudice

FAT DADDY: Judge Certifies Unpaid Overtime Class Action Suit
FIELD ASSET: Bid to Decertify Class in "Bowerman" Suit Tossed
FIRST TENNESSEE: Judge OKs $16.8-Mil. Class Settlement
FITBIT INC: July 10 Trial in Sleep Tracking Suit
FITBIT INC: Class Suit Over Heart Rate Devices Still Pending

FITBIT INC: IPO Securities Litigation Pending
FITBIT INC: 2 Class Suits Consolidated in San Francisco Court
FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Hill" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
FORTRESS INVESTMENT: Court Bars Mother from Filing FDCPA Suit
FOX LAKE, IL: Faces Class Suit over Cop's Staged Suicide

FRONTIER SERVICES: "Moctezuma" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
GERBER PRODUCTS: 9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Baby Food Suit
GLOBAL CREDIT: Certification of "Halberstam" as Class Suit Sought
GOLDMAN SACHS: NY Judge Revives "Chen-Oster" Gender Bias Suit
GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Class Action Settlement Awaits Final Approval

GULFSTREAM PARK: "Gonzalez" Files Lawsuit Over 'Tip-Credit'
GURSTEL CHARGO: Wins Summary Judgment in Debt-Collection Suit
HIGHER ONE: Faces Class Action Over Fees on Student Debit Cards
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES: Gorbatchev Sues Over Nexus 6P Bootloop
HUNGARY: Star Seeks Certification of Holocaust Victims Class

HUNTINGTON, IN: Hale Moves to Certify Indigent Prisoners Class
ILG INC: Suit over Fractional Offering Plan Pending
INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Court Dismisses Stockholder Class Action
INTELEOS INC: Faces Suit over Sonography Exam Scores
INTREXON CORPORATION: Wins Dismissal of Shareholder Suit

IXIA: Court Approves Settlement Fund Distribution
JS SEPTIC SERVICES: "Ruiz" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway
KEENWAWA INC: American Council of the Blind Asserts ADA Breach
KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: 4 Class Suits Pending

LA QUINTA: Bid to Dismiss Amended "Beisel" Complaint Challenged
LINCOLN DELI: "Reyes" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
LOUISIANA, USA: Wheat Moves to Certify Two Classes of Arrestees
LUMENIS INC: Gillespie, et al. Sue Under FLSA, State Labor Laws
M&C GLOBAL: Faces "Gomes" Suit in Tex. Alleging FLSA Violation

MDL 2420: Class Certification Bid Denied
METLIFE INC: Westland Police Class Suit Underway
METLIFE INC: Settlement of Birmingham Suit Awaits Final Approval
METLIFE INC: "Owens" Class Suit Underway
METLIFE INC: Dismissal of "Robainas" Suit Affirmed

METLIFE INC: Dismissal of "Intoccia" Suit Affirmed
METLIFE INC: MLIC Paid Settlement Funds in "Fauley" Suit
METLIFE INC: "Voshall" Class Suit Remains Pending in California
METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Martin" Suit Underway
METLIFE INC: "Lau" Class Action Remains Pending in New York

METLIFE INC: "Newman" Class Suit Underway in Illinois
MOVAGE INC: "Williams" Seeks Pay for OT, Unaccounted Travel Time
NASDAQ INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Rabin" Suit Underway
NASDAQ INC: Appeal in Providence Suit Underway
NASDAQ INC: "Lanier" Plaintiff Did Not File SC Petition

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Settlement Could be New Model for Handling Claims
NEUSTAR INC: "Parshall" Suit Pending in Delaware
NIAGRA BOTTLING: "Manu" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
NIBCO INC: Cole Moves for Class Cert.; Hearing Set for June 19
ONTARIO: Koskie Minsky Commences Solitary Confinement Class Suit

OREGON: Disability Rights Group Sue over In-Home Services Cuts
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: "Douvris" Class Suit Pending
PARAMOUNT GOLD: Former Stockholders' Litigation Dismissed
PATTERN ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff Dismisses Class Suit
PRA GROUP: TCPA Case Settlement Subject to Final Approval

PREMIUM PACKING: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in "Diaz" Suit
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: November 2018 Trial in "Hsu" Action
R1 RCM: Settlement Reached in "Anger" Class Action
REALTY CONSULTING: "Williams" Hits Illegal Provision in Lease
REALPAGE INC: "Stokes" Class Suit Remains Pending

REALPAGE INC: "Jenkins" Class Suit Remains Pending
REHABCARE GROUP: Settlement in TCPA Suit Has Prelim. Approval
RENEWABLE ENERGY: "Stacy" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
REPUBLIC SCHOOLS: Tenn. Court Certifies Class in "Skeete" Suit
RESOLUTE FOREST: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending

ROCK FISH: Faces Proposed Wage-and-Overtime Class Action
SEARS HOME: Wins Bid to Strike Class Claims in "Coleman" Suit
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Securities Action Pending in California
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in "Hall" Class Action Pending
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Discovery Conference Held in "Anderson"

SOCIETE DE TRANSPORT: RAPLIQ Asks Court to Launch Class Action
SOLARCITY CORP: Class Certification Motion Underway in "Morris"
SOLARCITY CORP: Files Answer to "Gibbs" Suit
SUNDANCE INC: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Flanagan" Suit
TESLA INC: Faces Suit Over Software Updates on Cars' Autopilots

TESLA INC: Dismissal of Securities Action Affirmed
TESLA INC: Appeal in SolarCity Stockholder Suit Pending
TESLA INC: Stockholder Suit Pending in California
TESLA INC: Plaintiffs to File Amended Complaint in Delaware
TEXAS FARMERS: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Pro Se Suit

TOYS 'R' US-DELAWARE: Salvan Seeks to Certify 2 Employee Classes
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Strike Class Claims in TCPA Suit
TRUECAR INC: "Rose" Class Suit Underway
UNITED AIRLINES: Court Dismisses California Class Action
UNITED COLLECTION: Directed to Produce Class Data

UNITED CONSUMER: Calif. Court Denies Dismissal of "DeClue"
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Hill's De Novo Subclass Certified
USF REDDAWAY: Motion to Certify in "Moss" Suit Under Submission
VALERO MKTG: Water Contamination Suit Remanded to State Court
VECTRUS INC: Intends to File Supreme Court Petition

WALT DISNEY PARKS: Perrero Moves to Certify Discrimination Class
WATTS REGULATOR: Settlement in "Klug" Granted Final Approval
WATTS REGULATOR: Settlement in "Sharp" Granted Final Approval
WDE GROUP: "Smith" Action Claims Overtime Pay
WELLS FARGO: Court OKs $1.4MM Fees to Class Counsel

WESTERN RANGE: Nevada Court Dismisses Peruvian Workers' Suit
WESTERN REFINING: NTI Merger Litigation in Early Stages
WESTERN REFINING: Seeks Dismissal of Tesoro Merger Litigation
WILLIS TOWERS: Still Awaits Court Decision on Settlement
WILLIS TOWERS: Court to Consider Motions to Decertify Class

WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Class Certification Motion Underway
XENCOR INC: Settlement in "DePinto" Suit Has Final OK
YELP INC: 9th Circuit Appeal Remains Pending
YELP INC: $550,000 Settlement Amount Has Been Paid
YELP INC: $0.2 Million Settlement Has Final Approval

YZ COMMERCE: "Sloatman" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
ZIMMER BIOMET: Glancy Prongay Appointed as Lead Counsel

* Breaching Glass Ceiling Through Individual & Class Action Cases


                            *********


A&M ROSENTHAL: "Garay" Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages
--------------------------------------------------
Edward Garay, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated, Plaintiff, v. A&M Rosenthal Enterprises, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 153436/2017 (N.Y. Sup., April 12, 2017) seeks
maximum liquidated damages and interest for unpaid overtime wages,
costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New York Labor Law; an
injunction prohibiting Defendant from continuing to violate the
weekly payment requirement for manual workers; maximum
compensation for not receiving notices and statements; maximum
liquidated damages; and interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to
the New York Labor Law.

Defendant was engaged in the business of manufacturing fabric
where Garay was employed from 1996 to March 20, 2017. Plaintiff
was employed as a manual worker, performing a variety of functions
such as lifting, rolling, spreading and handling fabric throughout
his workday.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Tel: (718) 740-1000
      Fax: (718) 740-2000
      Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


AABACO SMALL BUSINESS: "Meyer" Sues Over Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Meyer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AABACO Small Business, LLC; and Yahoo!
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-02102, (N.D. Cal., April 14,
2017), seeks damages resulting from unlawful, deceptive, unfair
and fraudulent business and trade practices; restitution or other
equitable relief, including disgorgement of all profits and unjust
enrichment; reasonable attorneys' fees; and pre and post-judgment
interest; and such other and further relief for violations of the
Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code,
the California False Advertising Law, and for breach of contract,
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and
unjust enrichment.
Defendants offer Web Hosting for a monthly or annual fee,
targeting small business owners. Specifically, through this
service, Defendants provide website building tools and storage
space, business emails attached to the website, and the ability to
market or advertise through the website.

Plaintiff availed of Defendants' Web Hosting for his photography
related website. Defendants allegedly cut off the web hosting
benefits to their paying customers and did not honor the
cancellation rights included in the Terms of Service. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
      Quentin A. Roberts, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 291-2420
      Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
      Email: rrivas@zlk.com
             qroberts@zlk.com


ALLIED INTERSTATE: "Munz" Sues Over Annoying Collections Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Munz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Allied Interstate LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:17-at-00309, (E.D. Cal., April 13, 2017), seeks actual and
statutory damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees and such
other and further relief for negligent violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Allied Interstate is debt collection company tasked to collect a
debt from the Plaintiff by use of the mails and telephone.
Defendant repeatedly called Plaintiff using an automatic telephone
dialing system despite Plaintiff's express revocation of consent
to be called. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALTISOURCE ASSET: Denver Employee to File Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Harvey Bartle III, sitting by designation, granted on
April 6, 2017, the motion of defendants Altisource Asset
Management Corporation, William C. Erbey, Kenneth D. Najour,
Ashish Pandey, and Robin N. Lowe to dismiss the consolidated
complaint in the case captioned, City of Cambridge Retirement
System v. Altisource Asset Management Corp., et al., CIVIL ACTION
NO. 15-04 (D.V.I.), for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4, et seq.

A copy of the Court's order is available at https://is.gd/3ZBmfG

On April 20, the Denver Employee Retirement Plan filed a Notice of
Intention to Move for Leave to Amend the Complaint.

Altisource Asset Management Corporation said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that on
January 16, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin
Islands by a purported shareholder of AAMC under the caption City
of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management
Corp., et al., 15-cv-00004. The action names as defendants AAMC,
Mr. Erbey and certain officers of AAMC and alleges that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose
material information to AAMC shareholders concerning alleged
conflicts of interest held by Mr. Erbey with respect to AAMC's
relationship and transactions with RESI, ASPS, Home Loan Servicing
Solutions, Ltd., Southwest Business Corporation, NewSource
Reinsurance Company and Ocwen Financial Corporation, including
allegations that the defendants failed to disclose (i) the nature
of relationships between Mr. Erbey, AAMC and those entities; and
(ii) that the transactions were the result of an allegedly unfair
process from which Mr. Erbey failed to recuse himself. The action
seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to the
putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney's
and other fees and expenses. AAMC and Mr. Erbey are the only
defendants who have been served with the complaint.

On May 12, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of
Denver Employees Retirement Plan to be lead plaintiff. On May 15,
2015, the court entered a scheduling order requiring plaintiff to
file an amended complaint on or before June 19, 2015, and setting
a briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on June 19, 2015. On July 20, 2015, AAMC and Mr.
Erbey filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing on
the motion to dismiss was completed on September 3, 2015.

On December 16, 2016, the case was reassigned to a new Judge, U.S.
District Court Judge Harvey Bartle, III, in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

"We believe the amended complaint is without merit. At this time,
we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter,
nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if any," the
Company said.

Altisource Asset Management Corporation was incorporated in the
United States Virgin Islands on March 15, 2012, and it commenced
operations in December 2012.  Its primary business is to provide
asset management and certain corporate governance services to
institutional investors. In October 2013, it applied for and were
granted registration by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "SEC") as a registered investment adviser under section
203(c) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.


ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Dismiss "Martin" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Anne E. Thompson, United States District Judge for
the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, on March 16,
2017, denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the
case captioned, Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00024 (D. V.I.).

Defendants Altisource Residential, William C. Erbey, Robin N Lowe,
Kenneth D. Najour, Ashish Pandey, Rachel M. Ridley on April 21
filed their answer the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.

According to Judge Thompson, Plaintiff has pleaded sufficiently to
survive the motion to dismiss that his loss was caused by reliance
on Defendants' intentional, material misrepresentations.
Additionally, Residential paid Altisource Asset Management
Corporation six times the amount paid by similarly situated
companies for external management services.  Thus, Plaintiff has
alleged sufficiently that RESI's shareholders suffered damages as
a result of Defendants' behavior.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://is.gd/EXErDb

Altisource Residential Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that on March
27, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands by a
purported shareholder of the Company under the caption Martin v.
Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15-cv-00024. The
action names as defendants the Company, Mr. Erbey and certain
officers and a former officer of the Company and alleges that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by, among other
things, making materially false statements and/or failing to
disclose material information to the Company's shareholders
regarding the Company's relationship and transactions with AAMC,
Ocwen and Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. These alleged
misstatements and omissions include allegations that the
defendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's reliance on
Ocwen and the risks relating to its relationship with Ocwen,
including that Ocwen was not properly servicing and selling loans,
that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators for violating
state and federal laws regarding servicing of loans and Ocwen's
lack of proper internal controls. The complaint also contains
allegations that certain of the Company's disclosure documents
were false and misleading because they failed to disclose fully
the entire details of a certain asset management agreement between
the Company and AAMC that allegedly benefited AAMC to the
detriment of the Company's shareholders. The action seeks, among
other things, an award of monetary damages to the putative class
in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney's and other fees
and expenses.

In May 2015, two of our purported shareholders filed competing
motions with the court to be appointed lead plaintiff and for
selection of lead counsel in the action. Subsequently, opposition
and reply briefs were filed by the purported shareholders with
respect to these motions. On October 7, 2015, the court entered an
order granting the motion of Lei Shi to be lead plaintiff and
denying the other motion to be lead plaintiff.

On January 23, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.

On March 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims
in the action. The plaintiffs filed opposition papers on May 20,
2016, and the defendants filed a reply brief in support of the
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 11, 2016.

On November 14, 2016, the Martin case was reassigned to Judge Anne
E. Thompson of the United States District Court of New Jersey. In
a hearing on December 19, 2016, the parties made oral arguments on
the motion to dismiss, and the court has not yet ruled on the
motion to dismiss.

Altisource Residential Corporation is a Maryland real estate
investment trust ("REIT") focused on acquiring and managing
quality, affordable single-family rental ("SFR") properties for
working class families throughout the United States.  It commenced
operations in December 2012.  It conducts substantially all of its
activities through its wholly owned subsidiary, Altisource
Residential, L.P., and its subsidiaries.  It operates in a single
segment focused on the acquisition and ownership of residential
rental properties.


AMERICAN FAMILY: Agents are Employees, Jury Says
------------------------------------------------
Eric Heisig at Cleveland.com reports a jury in Cleveland decided
that thousands of American Family Insurance agents across the
country should be classified as employees, not independent
contractors.

The decision, issued on April 18, gives a class of current and
former agents of American Family Insurance the next step they need
as they seek to obtain as they seek federally-protected retirement
benefits from the insurance giant.

The company could be required to pay for more than USD1 billion in
retirement benefits if the judge rules in favor of the agents, an
attorney representing the class said.

The jury issued its decision against the Madison, Wisconsin-based
insurance company following a two-week trial. It comes after more
than four years of litigation and a ruling from U.S. District
Judge Donald Nugent that certified the case as a class-action
lawsuit. The case was filed in Cleveland because two of the
plaintiffs who brought the original lawsuit are based in Ohio.
"The jury apparently agreed that AmFam cannot have it both ways,"
Erin Dickinson, a Milwaukee-area attorney who worked on the case,
said in the news release. "A company cannot just call its agents
'independent contractors' to avoid following the federal law
protecting retirement benefits and then insist on controlling how
those agents do their work."

Nugent will next decide whether he agrees with the jury's decision
and issue a ruling. If he does, the case will proceed to another
phase where the judge will decide the best course to remedy any
potential wrongdoing American Family Insurance might have
committed.

A news release says the case could affect 6,978 current and former
agents nationwide.

American Family Insurance spokesman Ken Muth said in an emailed
statement on April 20 that "we value our agents and the important
roles they play in the lives of our customers and success of our
company.

"We strongly disagree with the advisory verdict and believe it is
contrary to the facts that American Family treats our agents as
the independent contractors that they are," Muth's statement says.
"The classification of insurance agents as independent contractors
is common in our industry and has been affirmed by the courts in
the past. Not only does our agents' independent-contractor
designation comply with the law, it benefits our agents by
providing them great independence to make their businesses
successful."

The jury's decision in this case mirrors litigation underway
across the country that seeks benefits and payment standards for
people who work at companies that classify workers as independent
contractors.

Dickinson said agents are required to bear overhead costs for
selling insurance in a certain area, such as renting a storefront.
At the end of the day, the agents have no independent ownership in
the business, Dickinson said. She said the company did offer
retirement benefits, but they were not covered by federal law.


AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: "Baldwin" Seeks Class Action Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Caleb Baldwin moves the Court for an order certifying the case
styled CALEB BALDWIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA, INC., a Missouri
corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00848 (N.D. Ill.), as a class action
pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Plaintiff brings the class action
on behalf of a class defined as:

     All individuals in the United States to whose wireless
     telephones Defendant sent a non-emergency, text message
     through the use of an automatic dialing system, at any time
     within the four years prior to the filing of this action
     (the "Class").

     Excluded from the Class are Defendant and its subsidiaries
     and affiliates; all persons who make a timely election to be
     excluded from the Class; governmental entities; and the
     judge to whom this case is assigned and any immediate family
     members thereof.

The Plaintiff also moves for an order reserving ruling on the
Motion, and allowing for and scheduling discovery to take place on
class-wide issues.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ssVDB0Mq

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
                  kshamberg@litedepalma.com
                  isalam@litedepalma.com


AMERICAN ROAD: Faces "Frazee" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Frazee, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. American Road Management, Inc., a Florida for
Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00671-JA-TBS (M.D.
Fla., April 13, 2017), alleges that Defendant failed to comply
with the Fair Labor Standards Act because Plaintiff, and those
similarly situated, performed services for Defendant for which no
provisions were made by Defendant to properly pay Plaintiff and
those similarly situated, for all overtime hours worked.

American Road Management Inc. provides Harley-Davidson motorcycle
sales, rentals, service/parts, and Harley-Davidson apparel.

Plaintiff was responsible for making motorcycle sales at the
Defendant's dealership.[BN]

     Matthew R. Gunter, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
     P.O. Box 4979
     Orlando, FL 32802 4979
     Phone: 407 420 1414
     Fax: 407 867 0946
     E-mail: mgunter@forthepeople.com


AMERICAN SENIOR: "Navarro" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Navarro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Senior Funding
Corporation and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02828 (C.D. Cal., April 13, 2017),
seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call
provisions as well as invasion of privacy.

American Senior Funding is a reverse mortgage provider and
contacted Plaintiff on her cellular telephone in an attempt to
promote its services. Defendant used an automatic telephone
dialing system for such. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Reached in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Lead plaintiff and
defendants have reached an agreement in principal to fully and
finally settle all claims asserted in the Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint.

Since October 1, 2015, three purported securities class action
lawsuits have been commenced in the United States District Court
for New Jersey, naming as defendants the Company, its Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, and in one of the actions, its Chief
Medical Officer. The lawsuits allege violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the Company related to the
regulatory approval path for migalastat. The plaintiffs seek,
among other things, damages for purchasers of the Company's Common
Stock during different periods, all of which fall between March
19, 2015 and October 1, 2015.

It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations
received from stockholders, with respect to similar matters and
also naming the Company and/or its officers and directors as
defendants.

On May 26, 2016, the Court consolidated these lawsuits into a
single action and appointed a lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff
filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on July 11,
2016.

On August 25, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss in
response to the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. This
motion to dismiss was fully briefed on October 28, 2016.

Lead plaintiff and defendants have reached an agreement in
principal to fully and finally settle all claims asserted in the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The settlement is
immaterial to the Company's consolidated financial statements and
is subject to, among other things, documentation and court
approval. The settlement amount is expected to be fully covered
under insurance.

Amicus is a global patient-focused biotechnology company engaged
in the discovery, development and commercialization of a diverse
set of novel treatments for patients living with devastating rare
and orphan diseases.  Its lead product, migalastat HCl is a small
molecule that can be used as a monotherapy and in combination with
enzyme replacement therapy ("ERT") for Fabry disease.


AMYRIS INC: Rosen Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Amyris, Inc. securities
(AMRS) from March 2, 2017 through April 17, 2017, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Amyris investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Amyris class action, go
to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1104.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- for
information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) in the first quarter of 2017, Amyris made a decision to
take an equity stake in one of Blue California's affiliates that
focused on the sweetener market in lieu of cash payment under the
license agreement; (2) consequently, due to Amyris' decision,
Amyris would be unable to recognize USD10 million in fourth
quarter and fiscal year 2016 revenue from the license agreement
with Blue California; and (3) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
June 19, 2017. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1104.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


ANZ SECURITIES: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in CalPERS Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Britain Eakin, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the Supreme Court dove into a technical case on April 17, to
examine what should determine how long investors that opt out of
securities class actions can file separate lawsuits.

It was the third case newly confirmed Associate Justice Neil
Gorsuch heard. Along with his conservative colleagues on the
bench, he appeared to oppose extending the tolling precedent
afforded to class actions for this type of case.

At issue is Section 13 of the Securities Act of 1933, which
contains a special limitations provision that bars investors from
litigating securities disputes separately from a class action over
the same issue after three years.

Lower courts have held that the three-year time limit is absolute,
but the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS)
argued on April 17, afternoon that the three-year period is
subject to equitable tolling.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Section 13 is a
statute of repose, which means the three-year limitation is a
strict deadline. A statute that is subject to equitable tolling,
however, allows for an extension of time if the injured party did
not learn about the injury until after the statute of limitations
had already passed.

Typically in class actions, the class complaint counts as an
individual claim for the purposes of calculating the statute of
limitations.

Known as "American Pipe tolling," the Supreme Court ruled in 1974
in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah that a class complaint
"tolled," or paused, the statute of limitations, which enables
later spin-off claims to be considered timely.

CalPERS, the nation's largest pension fund at $316 billion, argued
that rule should also apply to their investor fraud case against
ANZ Securities Inc., an underwriter for Lehman Brothers that went
bankrupt in 2008 in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis.

Investors filed a class action that year, alleging that Lehman
Brothers and ANZ had made false statements and omitted important
information about some of Lehman's security debt offerings. But
the lawsuit went dormant until 2011, prompting CalPERS to file its
own class action.

The issue with securities class actions that CalPERS ran up
against, however, stems from a two-tiered system that governs time
limitations on securities cases, which attorneys for CalPERS
claimed during oral arguments are vague.

Section 13 of the Securities Act requires aggrieved investors to
bring a claim within one year of discovering omissions or untrue
statements by offerors, which was intended to protect investors.
But it also bars actions more than three years after securities
are offered to the public, which protects offerors from never-
ending litigation.

According to securities litigator Mark Foster -- mfoster@mofo.com
-- with Morrison and Foerster, financial institutions that
underwrite securities offerings rely on that certainty.

"Knowing when the time has run on potential claims allows them to
more accurately estimate their risk exposure and any potential
contingent liabilities," he said in an email.

Thomas Goldstein -- tgoldstein@goldsteinrussell.com -- with
Goldstein & Russell argued on behalf of CalPERS that the strict
deadline for filing securities actions separate from the class
only serves to add additional litigation on the front end for
district courts to deal with.  He also suggested that the issue
turns on whether the new action constitutes "a separate and
distinct action within the meaning of Section 13."

"This is not a new action in any sense of the word," Goldstein
said. All CalPERS did was opt out of the first class action; it
did not bring any new allegations, he added.

Gorsuch prodded Goldstein about the plain language of Section 13,
which says that "in no event shall any action be brought to
enforce a liability" more than three years after securities are
offered to the public.

"Why shouldn't we follow the plain language and the traditional
understanding of the term 'action'?" he said.

If Congress had meant claims, as Goldstein had suggested, why did
they did they not use that term? Gorsuch pressed.

Goldstein suggested that the justices view this not within Section
13 alone, but through a prism of all securities-related
legislation as a whole.

"What I'm saying is you have to interpret this word 'action' in
the context of all of the law," he said.

The liberal-leaning side of the bench remained relatively quiet
while Goldstein presented his arguments. But they jumped in when
Paul Clement, who argued on behalf of ANZ, presented his client's
case.

Clement faced a barrage of questions from the female justices in
particular, who seemed sympathetic to CalPERS.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pressed Clement about his certainty
that Section 13 constitutes a statute of repose.

"When one uses the language 'forever barred,' and the other uses
'in no event,' how do we know whether it's a statute of repose?"
she asked, referencing the stricter language -- "forever barred"
-- attached to statutes of repose.

Clement pointed to the high court's ruling in Lampf, Pleva,
Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. John Gilberston et al., which found
that the two-tiered structure of Section 13 could only be
explained if the second three-year tier was a statute of repose.

Speaking of Goldstein, Clement said, "He is seeking to recover
millions of dollars from my client, based on an action that they
filed in the Northern District of California in 2011, more than
three years after these securities were issued to the public."

According to Clement, that is the action the court must apply the
text of Section 13 to.

"And, I'm sorry, 2011 is too late under the plain terms of the
statute, and it is a statute of repose," he said. "And the case
really is that simple."

According to Foster, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to
expand securities law beyond court precedent and Congress's
previous definitions.

"The legislative history shows that Congress intended the passage
of three years to serve as an absolute bar to claims brought under
Section 11 of the Securities Act," he said in a statement.

Section 11 outlines potential liabilities, while Section 13
governs when and how those claims can be addressed.

"No court-made tolling rule should extend that," Foster added.

The high court will issue a ruling in the cases before the current
session ends in June.


ARC OF FAYETTE: "Lynn" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Jesse Lynn and Belinda Darnell, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. Arc of Fayette
County, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00474, (W.D. Pa., April 13,
2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation owed,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest as well as the
litigation costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred and such
further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.

ARC of Fayette County provides services to disabled and elderly
persons in Fayette County Pennsylvania. Defendant maintains its
headquarters at 80 Old New Salem Road, Uniontown, Fayette County,
Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs worked as Family Support Persons in its
Home Supports Program.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      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

             - and -

      Joseph E. Fieschko, Jr., Esq.
      JOSEPH E. FIESCHKO, JR. & ASSOC.
      2230 Koppers Building
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Tel: (412) 281-2204
      Fax: (412) 338-9169


AS AMERICA: "Papp" Sues Over Defective Toilet Flush Valves
----------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Papp, Candu Properties LLC and Reginald B. Friesen, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AS America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00800
(N.D. Ohio, April 13, 2017), seeks to recover damages, restitution
in tort and contract and/or disgorgement of profits unlawfully
gained, interest, costs of suit, including reasonable attorney's
fees and such other and further relief resulting from breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
breach of contract, unjust enrichment and for violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Act and of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.

Defendant manufactures, markets and sells the Champion 4 brand
Toilet. It allegedly has a defect in the seal or washer that sits
on the flush valve mechanism. The purpose of the Flush Valve Seal
is to prevent water in the holding tank from draining until the
user flushes the toilet. In a relatively short period of time, the
flush valve seal develops a blister on its surface that creates a
leak path, allowing water to leak down the flush valve mechanism,
says the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Coyne, Esq.
      Brendon P. Friesen, Esq.
      Emily S. O'Connor, Esq.
      MANSOUR GAVIN LPA
      1001 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 1400
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Tel: (216) 523-1500
      Fax: (216) 523-1705
      Email: acoyne@mggmlpa.com
             bfriesen@mggmlpa.com
             eoconnor@mggmlpa.com

             - and -

      Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
      Dennis R. Lansdowne, Esq.
      SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
      1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Tel: (216) 696-3232
      Fax: (216) 696-3924
      Email: dlansdowne@spanglaw.com
             sscott@spanglaw.com


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: "Minzer" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Shoshana Minzer, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Astoria Financial Corporation, Monte N.
Redman, Ralph F. Palleschi, John R. Chrin, John J. Corrado, Robert
Giambrone, Gerard C. Keegan, Brian M. Leeney, Patricia M.
Nazemetz, and Sterling Bancorp, Defendants, Case No. 2017-0284,
(Del. Ch., April 12, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently
enjoin Defendants and all those acting in concert with them from
consummating the merger of Astoria Financial Corporation and
Sterling Bancorp; removal of any deal protection devices that are
precluding any interested bidders from making a topping bid;
rescinding it or awarding damages to Plaintiff in the event that
the merger is consummated; fees and expenses in connection with
this litigation, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees
and expenses; and such other and further relief for breach of
Defendants' fiduciary duties.

On March 6, 2017, the Astoria Board announced that the company
will merge with and into Sterling with the latter as the surviving
corporation in the Merger where each share of common stock of the
company will be automatically converted into the right to receive
0.875 shares of Sterling common stock. The proposed transaction is
valued at approximately $2.2 billion. [BN]

Astoria Bank provides residential mortgage loans funded primarily
by retail deposits of the customers of the bank.

Sterling is a bank and financial holding company with corporate
headquarters located at 400 Rella Boulevard, Montebello, New York
10901.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025

             - and -

      Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
      Daniel P. Murray, Esq.
      901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 778-4000
      Email: rernst@oelegal.com
             dmurray@oelegal.com


AUSTRALIA: 40 Manus Island Detainees to Testify in Trial
--------------------------------------------------------
The Weekend Australian reports forty Manus Island detainees may be
brought to Australia to testify in a class action trial.

The Victorian Supreme Court may otherwise consider sitting on the
Papua New Guinea island to hear from those witnesses during the
six-month trial that begins next month and will be live streamed.
Eight people now held in detention centres in Melbourne, Sydney,
Brisbane and Western Australia will testify in person in
Melbourne.

The class action led by Iranian-born Majid Karami Kamasaee has
1905 group members, which the plaintiff's lawyers Slater and
Gordon says covers the majority of people detained on Manus Island
since 2012.

Detainees' barrister David Curtain QC on April 21 said the
detainees who remain on Manus Island should be brought to
Melbourne.

Mr. Curtain said the fallback position was that the court will be
asked to travel to Manus.

"We are keen that if the Commonwealth can arrange for detainees in
Australia to be brought to the court, we believe they can arrange
for detainees on Manus Island to also be brought to the court,"
Mr. Curtain said.

The court heard arrangements for the 41 witnesses held on Manus
Island to give evidence could be complicated by Australia's
resettlement deal with the US. Justice Michael McDonald questioned
how many of the detainees had been interviewed by representatives
of Homeland Security, given media reports that those matters were
in train.

"Presumably a proportion at least of those 41 will be interviewed
by representatives of the United States government with a view to
possible relocation to the United States," he said.

He said it was a matter for the plaintiff to make an application
that the court convene in Papua New Guinea, although a number of
factors needed to be considered including facilities, the costs
involved and accommodating a large cohort of people.
The class action alleges the detainees suffered serious physical
and psychological injuries as a result of the conditions in which
they were held on Manus Island.

A claim for false imprisonment was added to the action last year,
following a PNG Supreme Court ruling that the detention of asylum
seekers on Manus Island was unlawful and in breach of PNG's
constitution.


AUTO CLUB: Court Affirms Ruling Narrowing Claims in "Rothstein"
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York overruled defendants'
objections to the Report and Recommendation in the case captioned,
IRIS ROTHSTEIN, et ano., Plaintiffs, v. AUTO CLUB SOUTH, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-9391 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Auto Club
South, American Automobile Association (AAA) and Priceline.com
claiming that plaintiffs booked three hotel reservations through
AAA.com, which promoted its reservation service as having "member
rates with exclusive AAA member savings," that the website
represented that no fees would be charged with respect to such
bookings, and that plaintiffs later discovered that they had not
received "exclusive member savings" on their rooms and had been
charged fees with respect to the bookings.

The amended complaint seeks damages for alleged breach of
contract, violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. Section 349 (GBL 349),
and unjust enrichment. The amended complaint grounds the breach of
contract claim in the assertions that (1) plaintiffs entered into
membership contracts with AAA that gave them access to the AAA.com
website and incorporated the AAA Member Benefits Handbook, which
promised "exclusive AAA member savings," (2) that the AAA.com
website explicitly stated that fees would not be charged with
respect to hotel bookings made over the site, and (3) that AAA
breached its contract by failing to live up to those promises.

Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
the amended complaint.  In a report and recommendation dated March
16, 2017, Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis recommended that the
motion be granted to the extent of dismissing the GBL 349 claim
but denied in all other respects.

Defendants object to the recommendation to the extent it
recommends denial of the motion with respect to the breach of
contract and unjust enrichment claims.

In the Memorandum Opinion dated April 13, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/SJ5atg from Leagle.com, Judge Kaplan held that
Defendants' arguments are unpersuasive because the amended
complaint alleges precisely what defendants' claim was omitted.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint is granted
to the extent that Count III is dismissed. It is denied in all
other respects.

"The Court well understands the eagerness of defendants on the
receiving end of putative class actions to file dispositive
motions at the earliest possible moment. The lack of merit of this
one, however, should have been readily apparent from the outset
although the Court does not encourage still further litigation
with respect to sanctions," the opinion stated.

Stanley Rothstein and Iris Rothstein are represented by:

      Noah I. Axler, Esq.
      DONOVAN AXLER, LLC
      15 St. Asaphs Road
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004

            -- and --

      Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq.
      Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      875 Third Avenue, Suite 800
      New York City, NY 10022
      Tel: (212)419-0156

Auto Club South is represented by George Calvin Hayes, Esq. --
calvin.hayes@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY -- Harvey W.
Gurland, Jr., Esq. -- HWGurland@duanemorris.com -- Paul Evans
Chronis, Esq. -- PEChronis@duanemorris.com -- and -- Elinor Hart
Murarova, Esq. -- EHMurarova@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS, LLP

Priceline.com is represented by Paul Evans Chronis, Esq. --
PEChronis@duanemorris.com -- and -- Elinor Hart Murarova, Esq. --
EHMurarova@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS, LLP


AVID TECHNOLOGY: Georges Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case captioned Danae Georges, Plaintiff, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Louis
Hernandez, Jr., Paula E. Boggs, Robert M. Bakish, Dr. Elizabeth M.
Daley, Nancy Hawthorne, Dr. Youngme E. Moon, John H. Park, Peter
M. Westley and Avid Technology, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2017-
0198 (Del. Ch., March 15, 2017), brings this action on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated public stockholders of Avid
Technology, Inc. against the Company and current members of the
Company's board of directors -- specifically, Louis Hernandez,
Jr., Paula E. Boggs, Robert M. Bakish, Dr. Elizabeth M. Daley,
Nancy Hawthorne, Dr. Youngme E. Moon, John H. Park, and Peter M.
Westley -- for breaching their fiduciary duties and violating
Section 141(k) of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL).

This action arises from the Board's amendments to the Company's
Bylaws (the Bylaws) and Certificate of Incorporation (the Charter)
on October 19, 2011. As a consequence of these amendments, the
Bylaws now contain Article III, Section 6 ("Section 6" or the
"Super-Majority Provision"), permitting the removal of a director
from office, only for cause, by the vote of at least sixty-six and
two-thirds percent 66 2/3% of the voting power of the issued and
outstanding capital stock entitled to vote in the election of
directors.

Section 6 of the Bylaws directly contradicts the plain language of
Section 141(k) of the DGCL, which states that directors of a
Delaware corporation may be removed by a vote of a "majority" of
shares eligible to vote, says the complaint. This provision is
thus, clearly invalid and unenforceable, it adds.

Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of all similarly situated public
stockholders of Avid, declaratory relief finding that Article III,
Section 6 of the Company's Bylaws violates Section 141(k) of the
DGCL, and the entry of an order invalidating the Super-Majority
Provision.

Avid provides digital media recording and editing software for use
by music and film studios, post-production facilities, radio,
broadcasters and TV stations as well as independent professionals
and amateurs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

   Donald J. Enright, Esq.
   Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
   1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
   Washington, DC 20007
   Tel: (202) 524-4290


BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Defending 3 Class Suits in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Banc of California, Inc. is defending three putative class action
lawsuits, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On January 23, 2017, the first of three putative class action
lawsuits, Garcia v. Banc of California, et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-
00118, was filed against Banc of California, James J. McKinney,
Ronald J. Nicolas, Jr., and Steven A. Sugarman in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
Thereafter, two related putative class action lawsuits were filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California: (1) Malak v. Banc of California, et al., Case No.
8:17-cv-00138 (January 26, 2017), asserting claims against Banc of
California, James J. McKinney, and Steven A. Sugarman, and (2)
Cardona v. Banc of California, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00621
(January 26, 2017), asserting claims against Banc of California,
James J. McKinney, Ronald J. Nicolas, Jr., and Steven A. Sugarman.
The lawsuits allege that the defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In general, they assert that the purported concealment of the
defendants' alleged relationship with Jason Galanis caused various
statements made by the defendants to be allegedly false and
misleading. The lawsuits purport to be brought on behalf of
stockholders who purchased stock in the Company between varying
dates, inclusive of August 7, 2015 through January 23, 2017.

The lawsuits seek class certification, an award of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, an award of reasonable costs
and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief
as the Court may deem just and proper. The lawsuits are at a very
early stage. Based on a review of the allegations, we believe that
they are without merit and intend to vigorously contest them.

Banc of California, Inc., a financial holding company regulated by
the Federal Reserve Board, is focused on empowering California's
diverse private businesses, entrepreneurs and communities. It is
the parent company of Banc of California, National Association, a
California based bank that is regulated by the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (the Bank). The Bank has one primary
wholly owned subsidiary, CS Financial, Inc. (CS Financial), a
mortgage banking firm. The Bank is in process of ceasing the
operations of CS Financial.


BANK OF AMERICA: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Jackson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, granted in part
Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6)in the case captioned, DELORES JACKSON, ET AL.,
Respondents, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellant, Case No. 2014-
07092, 2015-02594, Index No. 15145/11 (N.Y. App. Div.).

The putative class action was commenced by the plaintiffs seeking,
inter alia, injunctive relief and money damages against their
bank, the defendant, Bank of America, N.A., based on allegations
that accounts they held at New York City BOA branches were
restrained in violation of the Exempt Income Protection Act of
2008 (L 2008, ch 575) (EIPA). The plaintiffs are judgment debtors
whose bank accounts were restrained by judgment creditors in
anticipation of enforcement of money judgments pursuant to CPLR
article 52.

As redress for these alleged wrongs, the plaintiffs seek monetary
damages, including reimbursement of funds restrained and disbursed
in error as well as any consequential damages caused by the lack
of access to funds, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. The
plaintiffs allege that BOA employed a general practice of
noncompliance with the EIPA, and seek class action certification
on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated account
holders.

BOA moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the
complaint, contending that it complied with the EIPA and, in any
event, the EIPA does not create a private right of action
permitting an account holder to bring a plenary action against a
depository bank seeking injunctive relief or money damages arising
from a violation of the EIPA. The Supreme Court denied the motion
in an order dated May 21, 2013.

In the Decision dated April 12, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/cFVqTa from Leagle.com, the Appellate Division
concluded that the branch of BOA's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)
was properly denied because it failed to establish its entitlement
to dismissal of the cause of action alleging violations of the
EIPA.

Bank of America is represented by --  Benjamin H. Green, Esq. --
bgreen@zeklaw.com -- and -- David S.S. Hamilton, Esq. --
dhamilton@zeklaw.com -- ZEICHNERELLMAN& KRAUSE LLP

Delores Jackson, et al. are represented by:

      G. Oliver Koppell, Esq.
      Daniel F. Schreck, Esq.
      CHARLES JUNTIKKA& ASSOCIATES, LLP
      90 Park Avenue Suite 1100
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (800) 544-0484


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Wins Class Action Over Digestive Supplements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Trader at Law360 reports Bayer HealthCare LLC has landed a
quick judgment win in the proposed class action alleging it lied
about the health benefits of its digestive supplements, after a
New Jersey federal judge concluded that the consumers had failed
to present competent evidence supporting their claims.

U.S. District Judge John Michael Vazquez on April 17 granted
Bayer's request for summary judgment in a dispute alleging it
violated California and Illinois consumer protection laws by
wrongly promoting the "overall digestive health" benefits of
Phillips' Colon Health probiotics when it knew those statements
were actually false.

One of the biggest problems with the consumers' argument was that
their experts appeared to have confused the burden of proof
required to substantiate a dietary supplement versus a drug, the
judge pointed out. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration
guidelines, a drug's effect must be supported by randomized,
placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials, whereas dietary
supplement effects can be substantiated by "competent and reliable
scientific evidence."

Even though Phillips' Colon Health is considered a dietary
supplement, experts for the consumers argued that Bayer's
statements were untrue because they were not supported by "well-
conducted clinical trials," but that is an argument for lack of
substantiation, not one proving actual falsity, Judge Vasquez
said.

"Not only does this testimony misstate the correct legal
requirements for dietary supplements, it also confuses the burden
of proof," the judge wrote. "Plaintiffs must prove that
defendant's claims concerning PCH are false and misleading.
Significantly, plaintiffs did not conduct their own double-blind,
placebo controlled [randomly controlled trial] to support their
position. In addition ... it does not appear that plaintiffs'
expert was aware of the different legal standards that govern
dietary supplements as opposed to drugs."

The consumers' expert, Dr. Stefano Guandalini, had also put
forward an argument that the studies conducted on Bayer's product
proved that its claims of defending against "occasional
constipation, diarrhea, gas and bloating" were false. However, the
expert failed to account for the fact that those studies dealt
with people suffering from particular issues, such as irritable
bowel syndrome, and therefore don't prove actual falsity, Judge
Vasquez noted.

Again, while the doctor said that he saw "no evidence to support"
Bayer's statements, he forgets that the question is not whether
there is sufficient evidence to support Phillips' Colon Health's
claims, but rather whether the consumers have presented proof that
Phillips' Colon Health's claims are in fact false or misleading,
the judge said.

Dr. Guandalini later modified his opinion by stating that he
"would be surprised" if Phillips' Colon Health promoted overall
digestive health, but "even Dr. Guandalini's modified opinion is
nothing more than a theory of lack of substantiation," Judge
Vasquez wrote. "At worse, it is pure speculation in light of the
fact that he never clinically tested his views, and, at best, it
is an educated guess. However, either is insufficient to carry
plaintiffs' burden of showing that the PCH's statements are
actually false or misleading."

A representative for Bayer told Law360 via email on April 20 the
company was pleased with the ruling.

"The benefits of Phillips' Colon Health have been fully
substantiated as demonstrated by numerous clinical, animal and
genetic studies," Bayer said. "This is the third time that a
federal court has found that plaintiffs have failed to prove the
falsity of Bayer's claims about the benefits of Phillips' Colon
Health probiotics."

Counsel for the consumers April 20 did not immediately return a
request for comment.

The case has been ongoing since 2011, and in November 2014, U.S.
District Judge Jose L. Linares threw out the customers' New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act claim, saying that the plaintiffs had no direct
involvement with Bayer in New Jersey, where the company is based.
However, he refused to scrap their consumer fraud claims under
California and Illinois law, where they bought Phillips' Colon
Health, finding that there were enough facts to infer that Bayer
had made false or misleading statements.

Bayer had requested summary judgment last May, arguing that the
consumers had not shown that the company's statements were
actually false and that the product didn't work for anyone, as was
required.

Bayer is represented by Lorna A. Dotro -- ldotro@coughlinduffy.com
-- of Coughlin Duffy LLP and by Eugene A. Schoon --
eschoon@sidley.com -- and Kara L. McCall -- kcall@sidley.com -- of
Sidley Austin LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented by James E. Cecchi --
jcecchi@carellbyrne.com -- and Lindsey H. Taylor --
ltaylor@carellbyrne.com -- of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody &
Agnello, Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- and Thomas J.
O'Reardon II --  toreardon@bholaw.com -- of Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon LLP and Adam J. Levitt and John E. Tangren of Grant &
Eisenhofer PA.

The case is In re: Bayer Phillips Colon Health Probiotic Sales
Practices Litigation, case number 2:11-cv-03017, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.


BED BATH: "Blair" Class Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
Donald Blair and Debbie Holland, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-60178, originally filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
January 24, 2017, was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on April 3, 2017, and assigned
Case No. 1:17-cv-02370-UA.

The suit asserts contract product liability.

Defendant, Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. is a national chain of domestic
merchandise retail stores.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Leonard W. Aragon, Esq.
   Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
   11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
   Phoenix, AZ 85003
   Tel: (602) 840-5900
   Email: leonard@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

   Robert Bruce Carey, Esq.
   Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro,LLP
   11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000
   Phoenix, AZ 85003
   Tel: (602) 840-5900
   Fax: (602) 840-3012
   Email: rob@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

   Stuart Mckinley Paynter, Esq.
   The Paynter Law Firm PLLC
   1200 G Street N.W., Suite 800
   Washington, DC 20005
   Tel: (202) 626-4486
   Fax: (866) 734-0622
   Email: stuart@paynterlawfirm.com

        - and -

   Todd S. Payne, Esq.
   Zebersky& Payne, LLP
   110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2150
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 989-6333
   Fax: (954) 989-7781
   Email: tpayne@zpllp.com

        - and -

   Edward Herbert Zebersky, Esq.
   Zebersky& Payne, LLP
   110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 989-6333
   Fax: (954) 989-7781
   Email: ezebersky@zpllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

   Peter W. Homer, Esq.
   Homer Bonner Jacobs, P.A.
   1441 Brickell Avenue
   Four Seasons Tower Suite 1200
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 350-5100
   Fax: (305) 372-2738
   Email: phomer@homerbonner.com

        - and -

   Yaniv Adar, Esq.
   Homer Bonner Jacobs, P.A.
   1200 Four Seasons Tower
   1441 Brickell Avenue
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (305) 350-5136
   Fax: (305) 982-0070
   Email: yadar@homerbonner.com


BLUE BUFFALO: Appeal on Class Suit Settlement Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that an appeal related to
the approval of a class action settlement remains pending in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The Company said, "On May 6, 2014, Nestle Purina Petcare Company
("Nestle Purina") filed a lawsuit against us in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which alleged
that we had engaged in false advertising, commercial
disparagement, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment (the
"Nestle Purina litigation"). Nestle Purina asserted, among other
things, that, contrary to our advertising and labeling claims,
certain BLUE products contained chicken or poultry by-product
meals, artificial preservatives and/or corn and that certain
products in the BLUE grain-free lines contained grains. Nestle
Purina sought an injunction prohibiting us from making these
alleged false and misleading statements, as well as treble
damages, restitution and disgorgement of our profits, among other
things. In addition, Nestle Purina issued press releases and made
other public announcements, including advertising and promotional
communications through emails and internet and social media
websites that made claims similar to those contained in their
lawsuit. Nestle Purina sought a declaratory judgment that these
statements were true and did not constitute defamation.

"On May 14, 2014, we filed a lawsuit against Nestle Purina in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
which alleged that Nestle Purina has engaged in false advertising,
unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and defamation. We alleged,
among other things, that the statements made by Nestle Purina
advertising the allegations of their lawsuit were false and
misleading, and we denied that our product formulas contain
chicken or poultry by-product meals, artificial preservatives or
corn and we denied that any of our grain-free products contain
grains. Our complaint in this lawsuit sought, among other things,
a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Nestle Purina
from disseminating such false information, as well as damages
(including punitive damages), restitution and disgorgement of all
profits attributable to their false and deceptive advertising.

"On June 4, 2014, this lawsuit was consolidated with the Nestle
Purina lawsuit. We later amended our pleading to name as
additional defendants the two advertising and public relations
agencies that assisted Nestle Purina with its advertising
campaign.

"In the course of pretrial discovery in the consolidated Nestle
Purina lawsuit, beginning in September 2014 documents and
information were revealed that indicate that a facility owned by a
major supplier of ingredients to the pet food industry, including
Blue Buffalo, for a period of time, had mislabeled as "chicken
meal" or "turkey meal" ingredients that contained other poultry-
based ingredients that were inappropriate for inclusion in
"chicken meal" or "turkey meal" under industry standards, and it
appeared that this mislabeling was deliberate. This conduct was
undertaken by the supplier without our knowledge, and we have
since ceased purchasing ingredients from this facility. This
supplier was one of our primary sources of chicken meal and turkey
meal. As a result of the supplier's conduct, our advertising
claims of "no chicken or poultry by-product meals" were inaccurate
as to products containing the mislabeled ingredients. Therefore,
we were exposed to false advertising liability to Nestle Purina
and are similarly exposed to such liability to others to the
extent a claimant can prove they were injured by our actions. Such
liability may be material.

"We brought third-party indemnity and damages claims, with respect
to the Nestle Purina lawsuit, against the supplier that mislabeled
the ingredients, as well as a broker involved in those
transactions for such mislabeled ingredients. The trial court
narrowed certain of our third party claims in response to motions
to dismiss filed by the third parties but allowed numerous claims
to proceed. In addition, we maintain insurance coverage for some
of the Nestle Purina claims.

"On October 15, 2014, we initiated a separate false advertising
lawsuit against Nestle Purina in state court in Connecticut.
Nestle Purina subsequently removed the case to the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut, and the
Connecticut District Court then granted Nestle Purina's motion to
transfer this matter to the same court where Nestle Purina's
lawsuit against us was pending. Our complaint sought an injunction
prohibiting Nestle Purina from continuing these false and
misleading advertisements, as well as damages and disgorgement of
profits, among other things. On July 31, 2015, Nestle Purina filed
an amended answer in this case that also asserted counterclaims
against us.

"On November 2, 2016, we entered into a settlement agreement with
Nestle Purina pursuant to which we paid Nestle Purina $32.0
million, each party dismissed all of its claims and counterclaims
against the other with prejudice, and we dismissed, with
prejudice, our claims against Nestle Purina's advertising and
public relations agencies (the "Nestle Purina Settlement"). We
plan to continue to pursue our claims against the third party
ingredient supplier and broker that sold us mislabeled
ingredients, as well as against our insurance providers as further
described below. However, we may not be able to fully recover from
such supplier or broker, or from our insurance providers, the full
amount paid in the Nestle Purina Settlement or other damages
incurred in connection with our litigation with Nestle Purina.

"In addition, a number of related putative consumer class action
lawsuits were filed in various states in the U.S. making
allegations similar to Nestle Purina's and seeking monetary
damages and injunctive relief. We also brought damages and
indemnity claims against our former ingredient supplier and broker
with respect to these U.S. class action lawsuits.

"In December 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs to resolve all of the U.S. class action lawsuits (the
"Class Action Settlement"). Under the terms of the Class Action
Settlement, we agreed to pay $32.0 million into a settlement fund,
and on January 8, 2016, we paid this $32.0 million into an escrow
account pending final court approval. Attorneys' fees awarded by
the court and all costs of notice and claims administration will
be paid from the settlement fund.

"The Class Action Settlement received final court approval on May
19, 2016, and has since been appealed to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The amount that each class
member who submits a claim for reimbursement will receive will
depend on the total amount of Blue Buffalo products purchased by
the claimant during the class period and certain other conditions
including whether the claimant has a proof of purchase.

"The Class Action Settlement value does not take into account any
potential recovery from insurance or from our former ingredient
supplier or broker, against whom we will continue to pursue our
claims for indemnity and other damages. However, we may not be
able to fully recover from such supplier or broker, or from our
insurance providers the full amount of paid in the Class Action
Settlement or other damages incurred in connection with the U.S.
class action lawsuits."


BLUE BUFFALO: Still Faces Class Suit in Ontario
-----------------------------------------------
Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in February 2016, a
putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice in Ottawa, Ontario, seeking damages and injunctive relief
based on allegations similar to those made in the U.S. class
actions.

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


BOSE CORP: Faces Class Action Over U.S. Wiretap Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Miami reports a class-action lawsuit has alleged that Bose is
in violation of the U.S. Wiretap Act.

A claim has been made in the case of Zak v. Bose Corp that the
company is using its products and companion Bose Connect app to
secretly collect, transmit and disclose customers' private music
and audio selections to third parties, including a data mining
company.

While on the surface sharing your listening habits may appear to
be harmless, Kyle Zak, who proposed the lawsuit, says that our
musical preferences actually reveal a lot more information then we
realize, for example, political leanings, sexual orientation and
personalities, in general.

"Indeed, one's personal audio selections -- including music, radio
broadcast, Podcast, and lecture choices -- provide an incredible
amount of insight into his or her personality, behavior, political
views, and personal identity," the lawsuit said. "In fact,
numerous scientific studies show that musical preferences reflect
explicit characteristics such as age, personality, and values, and
can likely even be used to identify people with autism spectrum
conditions. And that's just a small sampling of what can be
learned from one's music preferences."

Zak said he discovered that Bose sent "all available media
information" from his phone to third-party companies like
Segment.io, whose website aims to "Collect all of your customer
data and send it anywhere."

Filed on April 18, the lawsuit seeks monetary damages for buyers
of Bose's QuietComfort 35, QuietControl 30, SoundLink Around-Ear
Wireless Headphones II, SoundLink Color II, SoundSport Wireless
and SoundSport Pulse Wireless


BULEE CAFE: "Morales" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Morales, Eduardo Aragon, Alex Santiago, Jorge Alvarez
Vilchis and Fidel Cantu Ortega, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bulee Cafe, Ltd., Yong
Won Bu and John Doe Lee, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02688
(S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2017) seeks minimum wage and overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New
York Labor Law.

Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a cafeteria/deli located
at 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 under the name
Sarah's Artisanal Kitchen where Plaintiffs were employed as cooks,
salad preparers, griller, and expediter of catering orders and
delivery workers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


CALIFORNIA: Upton Urges Court to Reject Judge Walsh R&R
-------------------------------------------------------
David Upton objects to the Report and Recommendation dated March
17, 2017, by U.S. Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh, arguing that
Judge Walsh erred in recommending that the Court deny Mr. Upton's
Supplemental Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and grant
defendant C. Roberts' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned, DAVID UPTON, Plaintiff, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et
al., Case No. 5: 10-cv-00631 AB (PJW)(C.D. Cal.).

According to Mr. Upton, Judge Walsh erred by:

     -- disregarding the Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (2014)
        axiom that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment,
        "the evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and
        all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor
        (R&R at 4-12);"

     -- disregarding Plaintiff's evidence disputing that he was
        on "parole" in any constitutionally recognized sense
        after the March 5, 2008 "expiration" of the four-year
        determinate term of imprisonment imposed by the trial
        court in San Bernardino County Superior Court Case Number
        FWV035165 because the facts of this Case distinguish it
        from Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972);

     -- determining that there is no merit to Plaintiff's claim
        that "punishment" through the July 30, 2008 California
        Penal Code Sec. 3056 "no bail" parole hold and August 11,
        2008 nine-month ineligible for credit parole revocation
        hearing decision was "executed" without a judicial
        determination of probable cause and jury determination of
        guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, without any analysis of,
        or distinguishing between the California Constitution,
        Art. 3, Sec. 3 "executive" authority of the California
        government's lawful jurisdiction to "execute"
        determinate, as opposed to in-determinate prison
        sentences (R&R at 4-7);

     -- crediting Defendant Roberts' collateral estoppel briefing
        position on the premise that Plaintiff "already
        challenged the constitutionality of California's parole
        statutes in a 2011 state habeas corpus petition,"
        contrary to the fact that the issues presented in this
        case are distinguished from those presented in the habeas
        petition, and the habeas Court's judgment on Plaintiff's
        2011 habeas petition did not establish law of the case
        and falls within the "failure to comply with the minimum
        standards of due process" exception to the issue
        preclusion rule (R&R at 5-6);

     -- crediting Defendant Roberts' malicious prosecution and
        conspiracy claim briefing positions, instead of
        Plaintiff's Declaration and Deposition to the contrary,
        with respect to the Court's clear misapprehension of
        summary judgment standards in light of controlling
        precedents (R&R at 7-10); and,

     -- crediting Defendant Roberts' qualified immunity briefing
        position notwithstanding the sentence "reductions"
        bestowed by California Penal Code Sec. 2933 and the
        March 5, 2008 "expiration" of the four-year determinate
        term of imprisonment imposed by the trial court in San
        Bernardino County Superior Court Case Number FWV035165
        within the meaning of the principles of law articulated
        in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556-557 (1974)(due
        process clause protected liberty interests in sentence
        reductions created by state law) and McNeil v. Director,
        Patuxent Institution, 407 U.S. 245 (1972) (holding "that
        continued incarceration after the lawful basis for
        custody expires violates due process under the Fourteenth
        Amendment") (R&R at 10-12).

Mr. Upton asserts that the Court should decline to adopt the R&R.
Instead, it should sustain his objections, and grant his motion
for partial summary judgment to streamline his case for trial.

Mr. Upton also claims the Court inaccurately construes his Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment as a request for "a declaration from
the Court that California's parole system is unconstitutional."
Mr. Upton contends that his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
seeks "summary judgment" on his claim that "punishment" through
the July 30, 2008 California Penal Code Sec. 3056 "no bail" parole
hold "executed" post "expiration" of the four-year determinate
term of imprisonment imposed by the trial court in San Bernardino
County Superior Court Case Number FWV035165 under color of
California Penal Code Sections 3000, 3044, 3056, 3057, and 3060,
violated his rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th and 14th
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution within the meaning of Sec.
1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code as a matter of clearly
established federal law.

                            Background

Mr. Upton is a pro se plaintiff in two federal lawsuits that are
pending in the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, California.
The lawsuits allege criminal activity by agents of the California
government, including the fraud of a Deputy Warden of a California
Prison and the implication of other federal crimes by former
California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Mr. Upton filed Case No. 10-cv-00631 on June 10, 2010.  The case,
he says, arises from Defendant(s) July 30, 2008 "execution" of a
California Penal Code Sec. 3056 "no bail" parole hold against Mr.
Upton while acting in their official capacity as agents of the
"executive" authority of the California government within the
meaning of California Constitution, Art. 3, Sec. 3 where none of
the four-year determinate term of imprisonment imposed by the
trial court in San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No.
FWV035165 existed to be "executed" post March 5, 2008 "expiration"
in the context of the "executive" authority of the California
government's lawful jurisdiction to "execute" a prison sentence
within the meaning of the 3 branch legal theories of both the
Federal and California constitutions as discussed in Plaintiff's
Supplemental Motion for Partial Summary Judgement (Rec., Doc. No.
187) and related pleadings (Rec., Doc. Nos. 199, 200, 201, and
202), notwithstanding California's Penal Code Sec. 3000
constitutionally unrecognized mandatory "parole term."

Following a jury trial in San Bernardino County Superior Court
Case Number FWV035165, Mr. Upton was found guilty of willfully
fleeing or evading a pursuing police officer, a violation of
California Vehicle Code Sec. 2800.1(a)(count 1); carrying a loaded
firearm with a prior felony conviction, a violation of California
Penal Code Sec. 12031(a)(1),(2)(A)(count 2); and possession of a
firearm with a prior felony conviction, a violation of California
Penal Code Sec. 12021(a)(1)(count 3).

On March 20, 2006, Plaintiff was sentenced to a total of four-
years in state prison: the upper term of 3 years on count 2, plus
an additional year for the prior prison term enhancement; the
sentence on count 3 was stayed pursuant to California Penal Code
Sec. 654.  The four-year determinate term of imprisonment was
"reduced" pursuant to California Penal Code Sec. 2933, and ended,
on March 5, 2008, at which time Plaintiff was released from the
custody of the state prison to a constitutionally unrecognized
California Penal Code Sec. 3000 mandatory "parole term" after
serving the statutory maximum sentence allowed for a criminal
conviction for a violation of California Penal Code Sec.
2031(a)(1), (2)(A)(count 2).

The California Penal Code Sec. 3056 "no bail" parole hold was
"executed" against Mr. Upton on August 19, 2011, and as a result
of which he was incarcerated at the San Bernardino County Jail
until he was transferred to California Institution for Men-Chino
State Prison on August 31 pending parole revocation proceedings.
On September 15, he attended a parole revocation hearing during
which California Board of Parole Hearings Deputy Commissioner,
Steven D. Hernandez, executed the stayed sentence on Count 3 of
San Bernardino County Superior Court Case Number FWV035165 in
violation of California Penal Code Par. 654 to deny Plaintiff's
eligibility for good time credits when he "executed" a nine-month
ineligible for credit parole revocation hearing decision against
Mr. Upton.

According to Mr. Upton, the lawsuits also involve very important
questions of federal constitutional law and the jurisdiction of
the executive authority of the California government.  He alleges
that the Obama administration appointee District Court Judge Andre
Birotte, Jr. and Chief Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh, to date,
have aimed to keep the matters submerged and out of the view of
public scrutiny.  The judges have also sought to excuse the
fraudulent activity of a Chino State Prison Deputy Warden within
the meaning of section 3 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

In a Feb. 28 e-mail to the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Upton said,
"I am formally requesting the ACLU or one of their associates to
request leave of court to file an Amicus Curiae brief (in support
or in opposition), and I am requesting the news media to
investigate the public interests involved in these lawsuits for
the general information of the public."


              Upton Seeks to Certify Defendant Class

On Dec. 8, 2016, Mr. Upton filed a motion, asking the District
Court to certify his lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Rule
23(a)(1) and (2), and (b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  He proposed a defendant class and subclass, and to
appoint the United States Attorney General's office to represent
the certified defendant subclass pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The proposed defendant class is defined as all individuals who
have, or will in the future:

     (1) "executed" a California Penal Code Sec. 3056 "no bail"
         parole hold not involving the "execution" of a
         determinate term of imprisonment imposed pursuant to the
         judgment of a California court while acting in their
         official capacity as agents of the "executive" authority
         of the California government within the meaning of Art.
         3, Sec. 3 of the California Constitution, including all
         state, county, and city law enforcement officers.

The proposed defendant subclass is defined as all individuals who
have, or will in the future:

     (2) "executed" a California Penal Code Sec. 3056 "no bail"
         parole hold not involving the "execution" of a
         determinate term of imprisonment imposed pursuant to the
         judgment of a California court while acting in their
         official capacity as an agent of the "executive"
         authority of any state, federal, or international law
         enforcement agency whether within the jurisdiction of
         the United States, or otherwise.

Mr. Upton argued that certification of the proposed class and
subclass is indispensable to enjoin the "executive" authority
agent class and subclass from exceeding the outer limits of their
power in the context of the separation-of-powers doctrine, in the
future.  He also asked the Court, upon class certification, to
order a bifurcation of trials on the liability and damages issues
within the meaning of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule
42(b).

               Bid to Appoint DOJ as Amicus Curiae

Mr. Upton has also asked the District Court to appoint the United
States Department of Justice and the United States Attorney for
the Central District of California as Amicus Curiae and/or
otherwise within the meaning of Rule 24(b)(2)(A) and (B) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Mr. Upton says the Department
of Justice and the United States Attorney for the Central District
of California are responsible for the administration and
enforcement of Sections 241, 242, 1001, 1581(a), 1589(a)(3) and
(4), and 1962(c) and (d) of Title 18 of the United States Code.

                      Suit v. Fakhoury et al.

The second lawsuit is captioned, David Upton, Plaintiff, v. Aref
Fakhoury, et al., Defendant(s), Case No. 5: 13-cv-02359 AB
(PJW)(C.D. Cal.), pending before the Hon. Andre Birotte Jr.

On September 16, 2016, Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh
recommended that the District Court dismiss Mr. Upton's U.S.
Const., Amdt. 14 Due Process, Deliberate Indifference to the U.S.
Const., Amdt. 8 prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment,
and 18 U.S.C Sec. 241 and 242 criminal conspiracy claims against
Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Silvia Garcia on the premise of "no
constitutional right to a prison grievance system" and the
immunity accorded the defendants in Engebretson v. Mahoney, 724 F.
3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2013).

On October 4, 2016, Mr. Upton filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation, arguing that:

     (1) Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia should not be
         entitled to dismissal with prejudice because she
         personally participated in or directed a criminal
         conspiracy to defy a facially valid court order, or knew
         about the criminal conspiracy and failed to act to
         prevent it;

     (2) Plaintiff was entitled to release from the custody of
         the state prison in uniformity and compliance with the
         four-year determinate term of imprisonment imposed by
         the trial court in San Bernardino County Superior Court
         Case Number FWV035165;

     (3) Because Plaintiff states a claim upon which relief can
         be granted Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia is not
         entitled to dismissal with prejudice because she
         personally participated in or directed and/or otherwise
         knew of and failed to act to prevent the criminal
         conspiracy to defy the facially valid court order; and

     (4) Even Counsel for the Defense, California Deputy Attorney
         General Leena M. Sheet contributes to the criminal
         conspiracy to defy the facially valid court order with
         the intent to subject Plaintiff to deprivation of his
         federal constitutional rights.

Counsel for the Defense did not file a reply to Plaintiff's
objections and Magistrate Judge Walsh did not file a final report
and recommendation acknowledging Plaintiff's objections.

On December 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a 28 U.S.C Sec. 144 Affidavit
requesting recusal of Magistrate Judge Walsh on the grounds that:

     (1) Judge Walsh's departure from the principles of law
         articulated in the United States Court of Appeal for the
         Ninth Circuit's en banc ruling in Haygood v. Younger,
         769 F. 2d 1350 (9th Cir. 1985) in his September 16, 2016
         Report and Recommendation dismissing Chief Deputy Warden
         Defendant Garcia with prejudice demonstrated a personal
         bias and prejudice against Plaintiff and in favor of
         Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia; and,

     (2) the manner by which judge Walsh dismissed Plaintiff's
         federal constitutional claims against Chief Deputy
         Warden Defendant Garcia with prejudice in spite of the
         evidence presented by Plaintiff refuting Garcia's
         administrative appeal response in the regard of
         Plaintiff's January 1, 2012 release date computation
         issue implicated Sec. 3 of Title 18 of the United States
         Code.

On December 27, 2016, District Court Judge Andre Birotte, Jr.
denied Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Magistrate Judge Walsh
citing the absence of an "extrajudicial source" of bias or
prejudice.  On December 29, Mr. Upton filed a Motion for
Reconsideration on the grounds that the District Court's order
denying his Motion to Disqualify Judge Walsh was manifestly unjust
and clear error because the District Court ignored evidence that
Judge Walsh had the 'extrajudicial knowledge' that Chief Deputy
Warden Defendant Garcia's administrative appeal response
concerning Plaintiff's January 1, 2012 release date computation
issue implicated Sec. 1001(a)(1)-(3) of Title 18 of the United
States Code within the meaning of Sec. 3 of Title 18 of the United
States Code.

On January 13, 2017, District Court Judge Birotte denied
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration re Plaintiff's Motion to
Disqualify Magistrate Judge Walsh.  Judge Birotte opines that "it
is difficult to ascertain the significance" of the knowledge that
Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia's administrative appeal
response in the regard of Plaintiff's January 1, 2012 release date
computation issue implicates Sec. 1001(a)(1)-(3) of Title 18 of
the United States Code.

On January 19, 2017, the District Court issued an Order Accepting
Report and Adopting Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of
United States Magistrate Judge.

On February 1, 2017, Mr. Upton filed a Motion for Reconsideration
of the Order Accepting Report and Adopting Findings, Conclusions,
and Recommendations on these grounds:

     (1) The District Court erred when it dismissed Plaintiff's
         42 U.S.C Sec. 1983 claims against Chief Deputy Warden
         defendant Garcia with prejudice on the premise of "no
         constitutional right to a prison grievance system"
         because Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia had
         authority to rectify the issue of Plaintiff's prolonged
         detention from January 1, 2012 to April 18, 2012 in
         which case, Due Process required the State to provide a
         hearing after the responsible state officials were put
         on notice of Plaintiff's release date computation issue
         before a further denial of liberty [could] be said to be
         free from Sec. 1983 liability within the meaning of the
         principles of law articulated in Haygood v. Younger, 769
         F. 2d 1350, 1354-55, 1359 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)
         therefore, the fraudulent misrepresentations employed by
         Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia in her March 28,
         2012 administrative appeal response in the regard of
         Plaintiff's January 1, 2012 release date deprived
         Plaintiff on liberty without due process of law and
         warrant reconsideration under both C.D. Cal. Civ. Local
         Rule 7-18(c) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule
         60(b)(1) and (3);

     (2) The District Court defied the principles of law
         articulated in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 631
         (1993) when it dismissed Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C Sec. 1983
         claims against Chief Deputy Warden defendant Garcia with
         prejudice on the premise of the 'absolute immunity'
         accorded the prison officials in Engebretson v. Mahoney,
         724 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2013) because this case
         falls outside of the limitations of Engebretson where
         Plaintiff's claims of entitlement to relief are
         predicated on how the named Defendants "executed" the
         State trial court's sentencing order in violation of
         California Penal Code Sec. 654, thereby warranting
         reconsideration under both C.D. Cal. Civ. Local
         Rule 7-18(c) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule
         60(b)(3);

     (3) The District Court erred when it dismissed Plaintiff's
         42 U.S.C Sec. 1983 claims against Chief Deputy Warden
         defendant Garcia with prejudice because albeit Chief
         Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia's act of granting
         plaintiff's administrative appeal, sufficiently
         invalidated the prison disciplinary action(s) at bar in
         the context of the "favorable termination rule"
         applicable to Sec. 1983 suits involving the overall
         length of a prisoner's confinement within the meaning of
         the principles of law articulated in Ramirez v. Galaza,
         334 F. 3d 850, 865 (9th Cir. 2003), the fraudulent
         misrepresentations employed by Chief Deputy Warden
         Defendant Garcia in her March 28, 2012 administrative
         appeal response in the regard of Plaintiff's January 1,
         2012 release date:

          (A) implicate Sec. 1001(a)(1) and (3) of Title 18 of
              the United States Code for which Plaintiff demands
              to press criminal charges,

          (B) evince her individual culpability in the 'intent to
              punish' Plaintiff under color of state law and
              that she was 'deliberately indifferent' to
              Plaintiff's U.S. Const., Admt. 8 right to be free
              from cruel or unusual punishment within the meaning
              of the principles of law articulated in Haygood v.
              Younger, 769 F. 2d 1350, 1354-55, 1359 (9th Cir.
              1985) (en banc), and

          (C) mandate reconsideration of the order dismissing her
              with prejudice within the meaning of Federal Rules
              of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(3);

     (4) Because 28 U.S.C Sec. 1331 confers upon the district
         courts original jurisdiction to entertain "federal
         questions" in all civil actions arising under the
         Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,"
         the District Court erred when it dismissed Plaintiff's
         federal constitutional claims against Chief Deputy
         Warden Defendant Garcia brought under 18 U.S.C Sections
         241 and 242 with prejudice, because Plaintiff's claims
         are "federal questions" and 18 U.S.C Sections 241 and
         242 are laws of the United States; and

     (5) The District Court abused its discretion when it
         dismissed Plaintiff's U.S. Const., Amdt.  14 Due
         Process, Deliberate Indifference to the U.S. Const.,
         Amdt. 8 prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment,
         and 18 U.S.C Sections 241 and 242 criminal conspiracy
         claims against Chief Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia
         without leave to amend, thereby warranting
         reconsideration under both C.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule
         7-18(c) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule
         60(b)(1) and (3).

On February 15, 2017, Defendant(s) filed an Opposition to
Plaintiff's request, arguing that (1) Plaintiff Does Not Meet The
Standard for Reconsideration; and (2) Plaintiff Does Not Meet The
Standard To Vacate An Order.

Mr. Upton contends that Defendant(s) arguments in opposition to
reconsideration must be rejected and Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration should be granted in its entirety because the
facts and law presented in Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration
establish that the Court committed clear error and the order
dismissing Plaintiff's federal constitutional claims against Chief
Deputy Warden Defendant Garcia is manifestly unjust.


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Gordon Seeks Certification of TCPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Gordon moves the Court for an order certifying the case
captioned RICHARD GORDON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC., a Florida
corporation, and TRAVEL REWARDS, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Case No. 1:14-cv-05848 (N.D. Ill.), as a class action
pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Plaintiff brings the class action
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act on behalf of a
class defined as:

     All individuals in the United States who received one or
     more unsolicited text messages from or on behalf of
     Defendant Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. (the "Class").

     Excluded from the Class are Defendant and its subsidiaries
     and affiliates; all persons who make a timely election to be
     excluded from the Class; governmental entities; and the
     judge to whom this case is assigned and any immediate family
     members thereof.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court for an order (i) reserving
ruling on the Motion for Class Certification, and (ii) allowing
for and scheduling discovery to take place on class-wide issues.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Q1Rx5Xqi

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          211 W. Wacker, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com


CARRABBA'S ITALIAN: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez at Florida Record reports a New York woman has
filed suit against Carrabba's Italian Grill alleging she is owed
unpaid wages.

Kyley Reining, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated filed a complaint on April 7 in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida against Bloomin' Brands Inc.
and Carrabba's Italian Grill LLC alleging that the joint employers
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she was
employed at the defendants' Amherst, New York location from
January 2013 to May 2015. She alleges that throughout her
employment with defendants, she frequently worked more than 60
hours per week without receiving overtime compensation for worked
over 40 in a workweek.

The plaintiff holds Bloomin' Brands Inc. and Carrabba's Italian
Grill LLC responsible because the defendant allegedly classified
her as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA, did not
pay her premium overtime pay and failed to keep accurate time
records.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an order allowing
the case to proceed as a collective action, award for unpaid
wages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs and such other
relief as the court shall deem just and proper. She is represented
by Gregg I. Shavitz -- gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com -- of Shavitz Law
Group PA in Boca Raton and Michael Palitz --
mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com -- of Shavitz Law Group PA in New York.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida Case number
8:17-cv-00820


CERTEGY CHECK: Alexander Moves to Certify 2 Classes, 2 Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MICHAEL ALEXANDER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. CERTEGY CHECK
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 8:16-cv-00859-EAK-JSS (M.D. Fla.), seeks
an order certifying these classes and subclasses:

     For the period between August 15, 2013 and the present, a
     nationwide class of consumers whose checks were declined
     after tender by a consumer to a Certegy merchant, and a
     recommendation for declination was reported to that merchant
     by Certegy.

     For the period between August 15, 2013 and the present, a
     second nationwide class of consumers who visited Certegy's
     website, filled out the web-based form set forth on
     Certegy's "Declined Check Lookup" page, or who contacted
     Certegy by telephone, but who never were provided with the
     information contained in their file.

     For the period between December 1, 2012 and the present, a
     first subclass of Florida consumers whose checks were
     declined after tender by a consumer to a Certegy merchant
     and a recommendation for declination was reported to that
     merchant by Certegy.

     For the period between December 1, 2012 and the present, a
     second subclass of Florida consumers who visited Certegy's
     website, filled out the web-based form set forth on
     Certegy's "Declined Check Lookup" page, or who contacted
     Certegy by telephone, but who never were provided with the
     information contained in their file.

In his complaint, Mr. Alexander alleges that the Defendant
violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  In violation of the FCRA,
Certegy routinely fails to assure the maximum possible accuracy of
consumer information it provides to merchants in connection with
its check-authorization recommendations, he contends.  He adds,
among other things, that when consumers dispute the accuracy of
that information, Certegy also routinely and systematically
violates FCRA by failing to conduct reasonable and timely
reinvestigations of disputed information.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=i0In985C

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven W. Teppler, Esq.
          Brittany R. Ford, Esq.
          ABBOTT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          2929 Plummer Cove Road
          Jacksonville, FL 32223
          Telephone: (904) 292-1111
          Facsimile: (904) 292-1220
          E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com
                  bford@abbottlawpa.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Marcio W. Valladares, Esq.
          Patrick A. Barthle, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 222-4738
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  mvalladares@forthepeople.com
                  pbarthle@forthepeople.com


CHARIOTS OF HIRE: Certification of Class Sought in "Phipps" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned GREGORY PHIPPS AND BRIAN
MENSING, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. CHARIOTS OF HIRE, INC. AND JOHN MARK PARSONS, Case No.
3:17-cv-00097-TAV-CCS (E.D. Tenn.), move the Court to:

   (1) authorize the case to proceed as an opt-in collective
       action for overtime violations under the Fair Labor
       Standards Act of 1938, on behalf of non-exempt employees
       who worked for Defendant, and who, during the last three
       years, were denied minimum wage and proper overtime
       compensation;

   (2) order the Defendant(s) to immediately provide a list of
       names, last known addresses, last known telephone numbers,
       and e-mail addresses for all employees of Defendants, who
       were non-exempt employees of Defendants during the
       previous three years and were denied proper minimum wage
       and overtime compensation;

   (3) order notice be mailed to employees, posted prominently at
       any location where putative class members work, e-mailed
       to employees, enclosed with putative class members' next
       regularly scheduled paychecks, and posted prominently at
       Defendants' places of business so they can assert their
       claims on a timely basis as part of this litigation; and

   (4) order the statute of limitations for the putative class be
       tolled as of the date the Motion is granted.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court that opt-in plaintiffs' Consent
Forms be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan A. Street, Esq.
          G. Brandon Hall, Esq.
          THE EMPLOYMENT & CONSUMER LAW GROUP
          525 4th Ave. South
          Nashville, TN 37210
          Telephone: (615) 850-0632


CHOCK DEE CORP: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Romualdo Sosa Lopez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. Chock Dee Corp., Lucky Fluke Corp., Pamuan
Likitsansook and Phimploy Likitsansook, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-02731 (S.D. N.Y., April 14, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum and
overtime wages, spread-of-hours premium, applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Laws.

Chock Dee Corp. and Lucky Fluke Corp. operate Wondee Siam I and
Wondee Siam II, Thai restaurants owned by Pamuan Likitsansook and
Phimploy Likitsansook, located at 792 Ninth Avenue, New York, NY
10019 where Plaintiff worked as a general laborer. Sosa regularly
worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for any of the
hours that he worked each week. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200


CMC DRYWALL: "Maradiaga" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Horian Elias Maradiaga, on behalf of himself and other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. C.M.C. Drywall, Inc. and Tulio
Murillo, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03469 (E.D. La., April 14,
2017) seeks unpaid overtime wages due and owing, applicable
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest on all monetary amounts
awarded and such other general and equitable relief pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

CMC is a commercial drywall contractor specializing in installing
drywall, insulation and other related activities where Plaintiff
was employed as a general construction laborer. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
      Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Louisiana Bar #33696
      Telephone: (504) 534-5005
      Facsimile: (504) 272-2956
      Email: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com
             emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

             - and -

      William H. Beaumont, Esq.
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone: (504) 483-8008
      Email: whbeaumont@gmail.com


COMCAST CORP: Judge Says Class Action Unlikely to Net Big Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino at Courthouse News reports a class action claiming
Comcast siphons billions of dollars from cable TV subscribers
through phony, undisclosed fees is unlikely to net a big payout, a
federal judge said on April 20.

"The case seems to be worth very little money in any event, and
the claims of plaintiffs are sketchy," U.S. District Judge Vince
Chhabria said during a hearing on a motion to dismiss.
Lead plaintiff Dan Adkins sued Comcast in October 2016, claiming
it added "newly invented" fees to cable bills, raising customers'
monthly charges above the prices they were promised when they
signed up.

Lead class counsel Daniel Hattis said Comcast misrepresented the
total cost of its TV bundles by charging up to USD10 extra each
month in "broadcast TV" and "regional sports" fees, which it tried
to pass off as government-imposed taxes.

The complaint cites web chats with Comcast agents, who told
consumers and subscribers they would not incur extra charges on
their bills beyond taxes, and that the disputed fees were in fact
government required fees, though they are not.
However, because customers have the option to cancel service and
get a full refund within 30 days, Chhabria said the case is
"potentially worth very little money."

Adkins was named lead plaintiff less than 30 days after he signed
up for service. Instead of suing the nation's largest cable-media
company, he could have simply canceled his subscription and
received a full refund, Comcast attorney Seamus Duffy --
seamus.duffy@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle argued.
Chhabria replied: "He still has a claim for being duped into
signing up for service."

In its motion to dismiss, Comcast said it charges the fees to
recover some of the costs of "retransmitting broadcast TV signals"
and "distributing regional sports networks." It says Congress
"encouraged" it to itemize those costs as separate charges when it
passed the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition
Act of 1992, in an attempt to "educate consumers about the cause
of bill increases."

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs say Comcast failed to clearly
disclose those hidden fees and charges when it quoted prices to
customers who were signing up for service.

Chhabria did not find Comcast's direct mail ads and itemized bills
particularly misleading, but he did find the failure to clearly
disclose extra fees during the signup process sufficient to
support a claim of misrepresentation.

Duffy said the extra fees were clearly disclosed in contracts
signed by customers and in a separate link to terms of service in
the online ordering process.

"The problem is, two contradictory representations were made,"
Chhabria replied. "You have the contract terms, but the order
summary doesn't mention those fees."
Chhabria said the order summary, which quoted a lower monthly
price than the actual total, was displayed more prominently than a
link to the terms of service.

Duffy countered that the contract documents deserve greater focus
and attention when analyzing Comcast's liability.
"It's not unusual to have a monthly recurring charge," Duffy said.
"That's what customers expect."

The Comcast attorney said Adkins and others agreed to be bound by
the contractual terms when they signed up.

"At least the contract claim should be dismissed because the
contract says those charges will be included," Duffy said.
Chhabria said he would dismiss with leave to amend, and that the
plaintiffs have "some cleaning up to do" before they file an
amended complaint.

He stayed ruling on whether six out-of-state named plaintiffs
could also sue Comcast over the fees, pending resolution of a
Supreme Court case set to be decided in June. A ruling in Bristol-
Myers Squibb Co. v. San Francisco County Superior Court will
determine whether out-of-state plaintiffs can sue an out-of-state
entity like Comcast, headquartered in Pennsylvania, for injuries
suffered in a separate state.

All eight named plaintiffs in the Adkins suit opted out of
Comcast's arbitration clause, which would have forced them to
resolve their claims outside of court.

A second federal class action against Comcast was filed in San
Francisco by lead plaintiff Joseph Loomis, who did not opt out of
the arbitration clause but claims it is unenforceable under
California law.

Internet and cable TV providers are among the most-hated companies
in America, according to numerous customer surveys, and the Yahoo
Finance website reported in January that Comcast leads the list.
Comcast is the nation's largest cable-media company and the 35th
largest publicly traded company on the planet, with USD74.5
billion in annual revenue and USD148.2 billion in market
capitalization as of May 2016, according to Forbes.

Comcast did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment
April 20.


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Defending Suit over FairPoint Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. is defending a class
action lawsuit related to the merger with FairPoint, Consolidated
Communications said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "On December 3, 2016, we entered into a
definitive agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement")
with FairPoint Communications, Inc. ("FairPoint") to acquire all
the issued and outstanding shares of FairPoint in exchange for
shares of our common stock.  FairPoint is an advanced
communications provider to business, wholesale and residential
customers within its service territory, which spans across 17
states.  FairPoint owns and operates a robust fiber-based network
with more than 21,000 route miles of fiber, including 17,000 route
miles of fiber in northern New England.  This pending acquisition
reflects our strategy to diversify revenue and cash flows amongst
multiple products and to expand our network to new markets.  The
merger is subject to standard closing conditions including the
approval of our stockholders and FairPoint's stockholders, the
approval of the listing of additional shares of Consolidated
common stock to be issued to FairPoint's stockholders, required
federal and state regulatory approvals and other customary closing
conditions.  We expect the merger to close by mid-2017."

The Company said, "On February 7, 2017, an alleged class action
complaint was filed by a purported stockholder of FairPoint in the
United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina (Case No. 3:17-cv-51) against us, FairPoint and its
directors.  Among other things, the complaint alleges that the
disclosures in our Form S-4 Registration Statement filed with the
SEC on January 26, 2017, in connection with the Merger Agreement,
are materially incomplete and misleading in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.  The plaintiff seeks to enjoin us from consummating the
merger with FairPoint on the agreed-upon terms or, alternatively,
to rescind the merger in the event that we consummate the merger,
in addition to damages and attorney fees and costs."

"We believe the allegations made in this complaint are without
merit.  We have not yet filed an answer or other responsive
pleading to the complaint."


CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Bakov Seeks Certification of TCPA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying the case
entitled ANGEL BAKOV, JULIE HERRERA, and KINAYA HEWLETT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CONSOLIDATED WORLD TRAVEL, INC. d/b/a HOLIDAY CRUISE LINE, a
Florida corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-02980 (N.D. Ill.), as a
class action pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Angel Bakov, et al., bring the class action alleging violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act on behalf of two classes
defined as:

(1) All individuals in the United States whose cellular
     telephone number Defendant, or someone on Defendant's
     behalf, called using an automatic telephone dialing system
     or an artificial or prerecorded voice without prior express
     written consent of the called party (the "TCPA Class"); and

(2) All persons in the State of Illinois who Defendant, or
     someone on Defendant's behalf, called and played a
     prerecorded message placed by any device or system
     programmed to sequentially or randomly access stored
     telephone numbers to automatically connect a telephone with
     a recorded message (the "ATDA Class").

Excluded from the Classes are Defendant and its subsidiaries and
affiliates; all persons who make a timely election to be excluded
from the Class; governmental entities; and the judge to whom the
case is assigned and any immediate family members thereof.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter and reserve ruling on
their Motion for Class Certification, and to allow for and
schedule discovery to take place on class-wide issues.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=G0ya9kCT

Plaintiffs Angel Bakov and Julie Herrera are represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
                  kshamberg@litedepalma.com
                  isalam@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
          JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C.
          221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 789-9700
          E-mail: jeff@jgbrownlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com

               - and -

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

Plaintiff Kinaya Hewlett is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7127
          E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com


CRUMP LIFE: Dolemba's Bid to Certify Denied But May Be Renewed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on March 17, 2017, in the case
entitled Scott Dolemba v. Crump Life Insurance Services, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-08091 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, which has been repeatedly stayed pending settlement
negotiations, is denied without prejudice to renewal if the
negotiations are unsuccessful.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=A7N5oe03


CVS HEALTH: Corcoran's Bid to Certify Denied; Conference on May 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, ET AL. v. CVS HEALTH, ET AL., Case
No. 4:15-cv-03504-YGR (N.D. Cal.):

   * denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class
     certification;

   * granting in part the Defendants' motion to strike the
     declaration of Dr. Navarro; and

   * denying as moot the Defendants' motion to strike the
     declaration of Dr. Hay.

The Court previously scheduled a case management conference for
May 1, 2017, at 2:00 p.m.  No later than April 24, 2017, the
parties must file an updated joint case management statement, but
it shall focus on the next steps of the litigation, in particular,
whether the Plaintiffs intend to file an amended motion for class
certification and the parties' plans for any dispositive motions
and the timing for the same.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against the
Defendants alleging that they knowingly overcharged millions of
insured patients by submitting falsely inflated drug prices to
pharmacy benefit managers and third-party payor insurance
providers, which resulted in higher copayment obligations for the
Plaintiffs.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=E3GlFRdP


DEALDASH INC: Sells Phony Name-Brand Products, Pstikyan Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dionne Cordell-Whitney, writing for Courthouse News Service,
reported that the penny auction site DealDash made hundreds of
thousands of dollars selling phony name-brand products, according
to a class action in Minneapolis, from a Californian who says he
lost thousands of dollars to the scam.

Grant Pstikyan filed the complaint against DealDash in April 13,
with a federal judge in Minnesota.

DealDash, founded in 2009, has registered millions of paying users
throughout the United States, and American retirees are its
largest demographic, according to the 35-page lawsuit.  While
purportedly based in Finland by its 24-year-old "controlling
owner," William Wolfram, DealDash exclusively targets American
consumers and ships merchandise only to the United States, the
complaint states.

DealDash.com "purports to offer consumers the chance to win brand
name merchandise for a tiny fraction of the retail price.
Consumers pay money in advance for a certain number of intangible
'bids,' and then spend those bids in daily 'auctions' in hopes of
winning the offered products at steep discounts. DealDash
continually advertises to consumers that they can save up to 90%,
or more, off brand name merchandise ranging from electronics, to
furniture, to art, to flatware, to clothing and accessories," the
complaint states.

It adds: "The problem is that DealDash is sham." Pstikyan claims
that Deal Dash actually is an illegal lottery, and that "the
luxury 'brand name' products that DealDash offers consumers are
not true luxury brands at all; they are cheap, generic brands that
do not sell in substantial volumes anywhere, except through
DealDash and one of its affiliates."

Pstikyan says he spent $5,923 buying 44,250 bids on DealDash's
website in November and December 2016. He says he spent still more
money on the bids themselves, but lost most of the auctions, and
even when he "wins," he and others spend far more, through buying
the right to bid and the bids, and the sale price, than the cheap,
generic knockoffs are worth.

"DealDash advertises its fake 'brand name' products at
outrageously high retail prices -- totally divorced from economic
reality," the complaint states. "In fact, consumers are betting on
products that are not worth even half their advertised values, and
in some cases, not worth one tenth of the advertised value."

DealDash does not disclose how many prepaid bids its "winners"
spend on an item, Pstikyan says, though it's often more than the
item is worth. "Meanwhile, DealDash auction losers -- all but one
participant in each auction --  lose all of their prepaid 'bids'
and walk away with nothing. Thus, when a consumer loses a DealDash
'auction,' the House wins. When a consumer wins a DealDash
'auction,' the House wins. Even 'winning' consumers unwittingly
lose."

The hook is the 10-second countdown for each auction, Pstikyan
says. Once an auction begins, a 10-second clock begins to count
down. During the countdown, any user with prepaid bids in their
DealDash account can place the first bid. If there is a higher
bid, the countdown clock resets to 10, and the pattern continues
so longer as higher bids come in, until the 10-second clock runs
out.

Aside from the bid offer, the cost of making each bid comes to
whatever the consumer paid for it, usually 12 to 15 cents,
Pstikyan says.

But DealDash auctions usually run for several hours, or even days,
so the costs of bids alone can exceed the cost of any item. "If
the 10-second clock runs out at a time when the featured item's
price has ticked up to $100.00, this means that participating
consumers have spent a total of $10,000 bids in the auction, with
the last bidder (whoever they are) 'winning' the right to purchase
the offered product from DealDash for an additional $100.00,'"
Pstikyan says.

In other words, a winning bidder who jumps in at the end may spend
less than $1 on his bid, but the losers collectively may have
spent more than $1,000 for the right to lose.

DealDash did not respond to a request for comment on April 14.

Pstikyan seeks class certification, disgorgement of unjust
profits, and damages for consumer fraud, false advertising,
unlawful trade practices and unjust enrichment.

The case is captioned, GRANT PSTIKYAN, Plaintiff, v. DEALDASH,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-01164 (D. Minn., April 13,
2017).

Liaison Counsel for Plaintiff:

     Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
     Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
     Eric S. Taubel, Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     Canadian Pacific Plaza
     120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Telephone: (612) 333-8844
     Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
     Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
            dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
            etaubel@gustafsongluek.com

Lead Counsel for Plaintiff:

     Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
     David J. Harris, Jr., Esq.
     Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
     550 West C Street, Suite 1760
     San Diego, California 92101
     Telephone: (619) 238-1333
     Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
     E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
             djh@classactionlaw.com
             trk@classactionlaw.com


DELAWARE: 3rd Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Inmates' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed district
court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Danberg, McBride
and Coupe in the case captioned, PHILIP A. WHARTON; JOSEPH
ROUNDTREE; JAMES MADDOX; LAMAR CORREA, Appellants, v. CARL C.
DANBERG; CATHY ESCHERICH; REBECCA MCBRIDE; ROBERT COUPE, Case No.
16-1988 (3rd Cir.).

The putative class action alleges that the Delaware correctional
system routinely fails to release inmates in a timely manner,
holding them for days or weeks beyond when they should be set
free. Appellants, a group of inmates who were over-detained, have
sued top correctional officials -- specifically, former Delaware
Department of Corrections (DDOC) Commissioner Carl Danberg,
current DDOC Commissioner Robert Coupe, and Rebecca McBride, the
current Director of the DDOC Central Offender Records division
(COR)--seeking both damages and structural reform of COR.

At the close of discovery, Plaintiffs moved for class
certification and Defendants for summary judgment. The Court found
that there was no "common contention" the truth of which could
"resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of
the claims in one stroke." The Court also found that all claims
against Defendants in their official capacities were barred by
sovereign immunity; it declined to reach the question of qualified
immunity; and it granted summary judgment on Appellants' state law
claims.

Plaintiffs filed a Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment, which
was denied because Plaintiffs simply rehashed the arguments posed
on summary judgment. Plaintiffs then appealed all of the federal
claims asserted.

In a Memorandum dated April 19, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/2uh9aQ from Leagle.com, the Third Circuit held that
Appellants have not shown deliberate indifference on all Eighth
Amendment claims.

Philip A. Wharton, et al. are represented by:

      Stephen A. Hampton, Esq.
      GRADY & HAMPTON
      6, North Bradford Street,
      Dover, DE 19904
      Tel:(302)678-1265

Carl C. Danberg et al. are represented by:

      Michael F. McTaggart, Esq.
      DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
      820, North French Street,
      Carvel Office Building,
      6th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302)577-8993


DRIVE SAFE: "Payton" Sues Over Illegal Text Blast Ads
-----------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Payton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Drive Safe Ride Safe, LLC, and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. BC657580 (Cal.
Super., April 12, 2017), seeks damages and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related regulations.

Defendant sent unsolicited text messages offering a job to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone via Defendant's SMS Blasting
Platform. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Suit Stresses Importance of Sweepstakes Atty
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq., at Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article
for Lexology, wrote that a federal district court in Detroit
refused to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit filed against
Dunham's Athleisure Corporation ("Dunham's") concerning the
regional sporting goods retailer's sweepstakes sponsorship and
marketing practices, reinforcing the importance of consulting an
experienced sweepstakes lawyer when formulating and/or sponsoring
a promotional contest or sweepstakes.

How can a sweepstakes lawyer help keep promotions legally
compliant?

Sweepstakes and Promotional Contests

Dunham's sells athletic equipment, sports apparel, footwear and
other sporting goods at over 230 Dunham's Sports stores throughout
the Midwest.

As a marketing vehicle for its sporting goods sales, Dunham's
sponsors a variety of online promotional contests and sweepstakes.
Prizes and giveaways have included free sporting goods, sports
tickets, trip packages and Dunham's gift cards and products.

Sweepstakes Lawsuit

In May 2016, Michigan resident Abdul Hamza sued Dunham's in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Case No.
16-cv-11641) for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"). Mr. Hamza's putative class action
complaint claims that Dunham's delivered thousands of unsolicited
promotional text messages to consumers' mobile phones.
Dunham's claims that Aisha Hamza entered one of its sweepstakes
promotions in February 2016 and, at that time, opted into Dunham's
promotional text messaging program using Mr. Hamza's mailing
address and telephone number.

On March 22, 2017, the Court denied in part Dunham's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit, finding that Mr. Hamza had alleged sufficient
violations of the TCPA. Since that time, Dunham's has filed a
third-party complaint against Ms. Hamza for alleged fraud, asking
the Court to enter judgment against Ms. Hamza in an amount equal
to any sums Dunham's is required to pay Mr. Hamza.

How a Sweepstakes Lawyer Can Help

When administered effectively, promotional contests and
sweepstakes have the potential to create a lot of buzz (and
revenue) for the sponsor. However, as the above-referenced case
demonstrates, sweepstakes sponsors may also find themselves facing
substantial legal liability.

Many sweepstakes-related legal risks can be minimized or
eliminated entirely by working with experienced marketing counsel
before sponsoring a promotion. Well-planned promotions can help
protect contest and sweepstakes sponsors from substantial
liability. Additionally, a sweepstakes lawyer can help promotion
sponsors address a number of other legal concerns related to
contest rules, advertising, consumer privacy, bonding requirements
and other areas of compliance.


E TRANSPORT CARRIERS: "Reynolds" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Reynolds, on behalf of himself individually, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. E Transport Carriers and PHB
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01185 (S.D. Tex., April 16,
2017), seeks all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

PHB Inc., is a staffing company that hired Plaintiff and assigned
him to E Transport Carriers as a yard driver. [BN]

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
      Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
      Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


ECLINICALWORKS LLC: Licari Family Seeks Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled LICARI FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC
INC., a Florida corporation, and PETER LICARI, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
ECLINICALWORKS, LLC, ECLINICALDIRECT, LLC, ECLINICALWEB, LLC, and
JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 8:16-cv-03461-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla.), seeks
an order certifying this class:

     All persons who were sent one or more of the facsimile sent
     on or about February 4, 2014, from either "eClinicalWorks,
     LLC, eClinicalDirect LLC, or eClinicalWeb, LLC," which
     contained an opt out notice the same or similar to the
     following: "If you would like to opt out from fax
     communications please go to
     www.eclinicalworks.com/optoutfax."

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives and appoint the law firm of Anderson + Wanca as
class counsel.

The case arises out of a fax-advertising campaign wherein
facsimile advertisements were sent to the Plaintiffs and the
proposed class in one broadcast conducted on February 4, 2014.
The Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit alleging that the Fax violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

The Plaintiffs suggest that notice under Rule 23(c)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure be first attempted by fax (three
attempts) and if unsuccessful, by postcard (U.S. Mail).  The
Plaintiffs submit that in the event the Court certifies the
Class, notice by fax would defray costs and is particularly
expeditious in this case as all of the fax numbers to which notice
would be sent are already of record.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=k6XZB8Yi

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          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: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com


EPATIENTS.COM INC: "Gress" Suit Voluntarily Tossed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on March 21, 2017, in the case titled
William P. Gress v. ePatients.com, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-
01119 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable
Milton I. Shadur.

The minute entry states that:

   -- the case in its entirety is voluntarily dismissed without
      prejudice and without costs;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is denied as moot; and

   -- status hearing set for April 18, 2017, is stricken.

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


FAT DADDY: Judge Certifies Unpaid Overtime Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Gilliland at Ocean City Today reports U.S. District Judge
Richard Bennett conditionally certified a class action suit
against the owners of Fat Daddy's restaurants in Ocean City,
alleging wage violations stemming from unpaid overtime at both
resort locations.

The court will be issuing notices to workers employed at the
restaurants between April 13, 2014 and April 13, 2017, allowing
them to opt in to the case as part of the discovery phase. The
lawsuit was filed in December.

The plaintiff, Brandon Ware, alleges that owners Edward and Lisa
Braude implemented and enforced a policy of not paying overtime to
employees who were regularly scheduled for more than 40 hours of
work per week.

The Fair Labor Standards Act provides that, unless a business is
exempt, eligible employees must receive overtime pay for any hours
worked over 40 in one workweek. There is an exemption for
employees of seasonal businesses, although both Fat Daddy's
locations are open year-round. Restaurants were exempt from
certain provisions of the Maryland Wage and Hour Law until July
2014.

Ware, according to the judge's order, was employed at the uptown
eatery at 8201 Coastal Highway from June to October 2016. The
downtown restaurant is at 216 Baltimore Ave.

Ware alleges Edward Braude told him at his interview that "Fat
Daddy's did not pay overtime," and that employees were required to
work a set number of weekly hours that exceeded the standard 40.
The ruling states Ware provided affidavits and pay stubs revealing
he was paid on an hourly basis even after working 40 hours per
week and never received overtime compensation.

Ware said neither he, nor any other similarly situated employee,
were paid overtime for the hours they worked in excess of 40 per
week. According to the ruling, Ware provided documentation of
conversations with two employees at the uptown store, along with
two employees who worked at both locations, none of whom received
overtime compensation.

He also provided evidence to the court that the restaurants shared
resources and supplies, which, according to the court, unites the
operations for a single business purpose -- thus linking them for
legal purposes.

The defense countered this argument, unsuccessfully, by asserting
that Ware was only employed at the uptown restaurant and he failed
to prove other employees were subjected to the same policy.
However, the judge ruled that because "similarly situated" is not
necessarily the same thing as "identical."

Edward Braude did not respond to requests for comment on this
story.


FIELD ASSET: Bid to Decertify Class in "Bowerman" Suit Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William H. Orrick entered an order in the lawsuit styled
FRED BOWERMAN, et al. v. FIELD ASSET SERVICES, INC., et al., Case
No. 3:13-cv-00057-WHO (N.D. Cal.):

   -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
      judgment as to their status as employees under the law, and
      their resulting entitlement to expenses and overtime pay;

   -- denying FAS's motion to decertify the class;

   -- granting FAS's motion for summary judgment with respect to
      Julia Magdaleno; and

   -- denying FAS's motion for summary judgment with respect to
      Matthew Cohick and Eric Ackel.

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

The lawsuit is a classwide misclassification case involving
vendors, who perform property preservation services in California
for FAS.  The certified class is defined as:

     All persons who at any time from January 7, 2009 up to and
     through the time of judgment (the "Class Period") (1) were
     designated by FAS as independent contractors; (2) personally
     performed property preservation work in California pursuant
     to FAS work orders; and (3) while working for FAS during the
     Class Period, did not work for any other entity more than 30
     percent of the time. The class excludes persons who
     primarily performed rehabilitation or remodel work for FAS.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H8q3m6Es


FIRST TENNESSEE: Judge OKs $16.8-Mil. Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Andy Meek at Memphis Daily News Shelby County Circuit Court Judge
Mary Wagner has approved an agreement to settle a class-action
lawsuit against First Tennessee Bank related to overdraft fees
that calls for the bank to put USD16.8 million into a settlement
fund.

The case was approaching the six-year mark when attorneys for both
sides appeared in Circuit Court Thursday, April 20, for the final
hearing to approve the settlement. Jeff Ostrow, a Florida-based
attorney for the plaintiffs, said it had been "an incredibly hard-
fought case," with "an unbelievable opponent who fought us at
every turn."

That fight was over the way First Tennessee posted debit card
transactions from the highest dollar amount to the lowest. The
plaintiffs in the case argued that led to "an increased number of
overdraft fees assessed to customers."

First Tennessee maintains it did nothing wrong and followed
applicable laws and regulations, although it has changed its
practice of posting from high to low.

Ostrow said affected members of the class don't have to take extra
steps to benefit from the settlement fund; once customers are
deemed eligible, they'll get their share via either direct deposit
or a check mailed to them.

"We're extremely pleased with the settlement," he said about the
case, which included 18 depositions, adding that no money would go
back to the bank if anything is left over after the disbursements.
Plaintiffs William and Sylvia Hawkins brought the suit on Sept. 6,
2011. The dates the suit covers are Sept. 6, 2005, through Feb.
20, 2013.

A First Tennessee representative was not immediately available for
comment. However, the bank previously noted that not only has it
followed all laws and regulations in its overdraft assessments,
but the "high-to-low" practice was once a common banking industry
practice. First Tennessee has also since changed the way it
handles those transactions.

A website related to the settlement,
firsttennesseebankoverdraftlitigation.com, includes relevant case
documents and other questions that settlement participants need to
know. Among other things, it also includes a "Payment Estimator"
tab that lets class members estimate the share of the settlement
fund they could get using a unique identifying number they
received via postcard.

Attorneys' fees, costs and expenses awarded to the class counsel
will come out of the settlement, as well as other relevant costs,
expenses and awards.

The exact amount members of the settlement will receive is still
being determined.


FITBIT INC: July 10 Trial in Sleep Tracking Suit
------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that trial is scheduled for
July 10, 2017, in a class action lawsuit over its sleep tracking
devices.

On May 8, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, alleging that the sleep tracking function available
in certain trackers does not perform as advertised. Plaintiffs
seek class certification, restitution, an award of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, an award of reasonable costs
and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief
as the Court may deem just and proper. Plaintiffs have amended
their complaint four times, and on January 15, 2016, the Company
moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. On July 15, 2016,
the Court denied the motion to dismiss. Trial is currently
scheduled for July 10, 2017.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.
Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation
matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible
loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.


FITBIT INC: Class Suit Over Heart Rate Devices Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a hearing was scheduled
for March 16, 2017, on the Company's motion to compel arbitration
related to the class action lawsuit over its heart rate tracking
devices.

On January 6, 2016 and February 16, 2016, two purported class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging
that the PurePulse heart rate tracking technology does not
consistently and accurately record users' heart rates. Plaintiffs
allege common law claims as well as violations of various states'
false advertising and unfair competition statutes, and seek class
certification, injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, an
award of unspecified compensatory damages, exemplary damages,
punitive damages, and statutory penalties and damages, an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and
other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

On April 15, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Master
Class Action Complaint and, on May 19, 2016, filed an Amended
Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint. The Company has filed
a motion to compel arbitration, and a hearing was scheduled for
March 16, 2017.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.
Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation
matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible
loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.


FITBIT INC: IPO Securities Litigation Pending
---------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit related to
its IPO, Fitbit said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On January 11, 2016, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
naming as defendants the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and underwriters of the Company's IPO. On May 10, 2016,
the Court appointed the Fitbit Investor Group (consisting of five
individual investors) as lead plaintiff, and an Amended Complaint
was filed on July 1, 2016. Plaintiffs allege violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act,
based on alleged materially false and misleading statements about
the Company's products between October 27, 2014 and November 23,
2015. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities (i) on
the open market between June 18, 2015 and May 19, 2016; and/or
(ii) pursuant to or traceable to the IPO. Plaintiffs seek class
certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an
award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees,
and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.


FITBIT INC: 2 Class Suits Consolidated in San Francisco Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that two securities class
action lawsuit have been consolidated in the County of San
Francisco.

On April 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Securities Act was filed in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the
Company, certain of its officers, its board members, underwriters
of our IPO, and a number of its investors. Plaintiff alleges that
the IPO registration statement contained material misstatements
about the Company's products. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class
of persons who purchased the Company's common stock in and/or
traceable to the IPO. Plaintiff seeks class certification, an
award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further
relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On May 17, 2016, a
similar class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco. The cases have now been
consolidated in the County of San Francisco.


FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Hill" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS HILL, Individually and On behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES OPERATING COMPANY,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01324-WSD (N.D. Ga., April 13,
2017), alleges that in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Plaintiff, and all other inside sales representatives, routinely
worked over 40 hours without any pay or compensation, or any
record of their actual times, and the Defendant maintained a
common unlawful pay practice and policy of simply not paying
overtime wages even when it absolutely knew the inside sales
representatives were routinely working over 40 hours in work
weeks.

Defendant provides fuel cards and workforce payment products to
businesses, commercial fleets, oil companies, petroleum marketers
and government entities throughout the United States.  Plaintiff
worked as an inside sales representative selling fuel cards.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
     1201 Peachtree Street
     Colony Square, Suite 200,
     Atlanta, GA 30361
     Phone: (813) 639-9366
     Fax: (813) 639-9376
     E-mail: mlf@feldmanlegal.us


FORTRESS INVESTMENT: Court Bars Mother from Filing FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California barred Lynn Gavin from filing suit
and granted Bamidele Hambolu's application to proceed in forma
pauperis in the case captioned, BAMIDELE HAMBOLU, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. FORTRESS INVESTMENT GROUP, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-01039-JSC (EMC) (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Lynn Gavin and Bamidele Hambolu (mother and son,
respectively) initially filed the instant putative class action in
the Central District of California. In February 2017, the Central
District court transferred the action to the District.  Upon
transfer, the Court ruled that as to Ms. Gavin, her claims for
relief are barred as they fall within the scope of the pre-filing
review order, With respect to Mr. Hambolu, who is a co-plaintiff
in the case, the Court orders the Clerk of the Court to reassign
the entirety of the case, including Mr. Hambolu's claims.

Ms. Gavin alleges, inter alia, that Defendants engaged in
practices that violate the Fair Debt Collections Practice Act
(FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692(e), and that constitute wrongful
eviction. Since the case arises from Ms. Gavin's Parkmerced
eviction in 2012, the case falls squarely within the Court's
previous pre-filing review order barring Ms. Gavin from filing any
further suits based on her alleged wrongful eviction from
Parkmerced apartments.

Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, applied to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP).

In his Order dated April 19, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/qcgxgj from Leagle.com, Judge Chen finds Ms. Gavin's
claims barred by the pre-filing order. The Court also grants Mr.
Hambolu's IFP application but, pursuant to its Section 1915(e)
review, it dismisses with prejudice his federal claims and
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state
claims.

Mr. Hambolu is ordered to file within two weeks to show cause as
to why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant.


FOX LAKE, IL: Faces Class Suit over Cop's Staged Suicide
--------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that three men arrested in the investigation of a veteran police
officer's death sued Fox Lake, Ill., claiming it had reason to
know the officer's death was a suicide, not a murder.

Officer Charles Joseph Gliniewicz of the Fox Lake Police
Department was found dead on Sept. 1, 2015, in the woods along the
village.  Immediately before his death, Gliniewicz radioed
dispatchers that he was in pursuit of three suspects at an
abandoned cement plant, according to court records. When he was
found shot with his own weapon, it was assumed that he was killed
by one of the suspects.

Early media reports blamed the "Black Lives Matter" movement and
tied Gliniewicz's death to a "war on police." Thousands of people
attended his funeral, and Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner ordered the
state to fly flags at half mast in his honor.

A massive manhunt with more than 400 police officers raked the
woods near the lake, but searchers had no description of the
purported murder suspects except Gliniewicz's claim that he was
chasing two "male whites" and one "male black."

Three men caught up in this sweep -- Raymond Willoughby, Damien
Ward and Dan Cooper -- sued the Village of Fox Lake, Police Chief
Michael Behan, and John Doe police officers for arresting them
without probable cause. Their class-action complaint was filed on
April 13, in Chicago federal court.

Willoughby, Ward and Cooper were allegedly held up to 10 hours
with no evidence tying them to the officer's death.

The investigation ultimately revealed that Gliniewicz's death was
a carefully staged suicide, as an audit was close to unearthing
evidence he had been embezzling money from the police department's
Explorer initiative, a program for mentoring young people
interested in a law enforcement career, for at least seven years.

"Unbeknownst to the plaintiffs or the public at large, there was
good reason to suspect from the very outset that Gliniewicz's
death was a suicide, and even the initial Fox Lake police
department responders noted irregularities inconsistent with both
that of a murder victim and what they professed to have understood
of Gliniewicz's character," the lawsuit states.

Hundreds of people were stopped, questioned, arrested or detained
as part of the murder investigation, according to the complaint.

The three plaintiffs claim then-Police Chief Michael Behan did not
immediately tell investigators that Gliniewicz texted Behan hours
before his death, complaining that the auditor was requesting a
complete inventory and financial report of the Explorer program --
information which might have given investigators an early clue
about his motive for killing himself.

"In spite of such knowledge, the Fox Lake police department
continued to perpetuate the narrative that Gliniewicz's death was
a homicide, and continued to participate extensively in, and
detain innocent citizens pursuant to, an investigation that they
knew or had reason to know was pure fiction," the lawsuit
continues.

Willoughby, Ward and Cooper seek compensatory and punitive damages
and are represented by Gregory E. Kulis in Chicago.

The Fox Lake Police Department could not be reached for comment on
April 14.


FRONTIER SERVICES: "Moctezuma" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Wilber Moctezuma on behalf of himself individually, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Frontier Services Group LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01184 (S.D. Tex., April 16, 2017),
seeks all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Frontier Services Group LLC are into in estimating and repairing
water damage in Houston, Texas. Plaintiff worked for the
Defendants as technicians. [BN]

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
      Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
      Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


GERBER PRODUCTS: 9th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Baby Food Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district
court's ruling and remanded action in the case captioned, NATALIA
BRUTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 15-15174 (9th Cir.).

Plaintiff-Appellant Natalia Bruton filed a putative class action
against baby food manufacturer Gerber Products Company (Gerber).
Bruton alleged that labels on certain Gerber baby food products
included claims about nutrient and sugar content that were
impermissible under Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations
incorporated into California law.

The district court dismissed several of Bruton's claims, denied
class certification, denied partial summary judgment for Bruton,
and granted summary judgment to Gerber.

Bruton appeals, challenging the district court's orders contending
that the district court erred (1) in dismissing Bruton's claim for
unjust enrichment/quasi-contract; (2) when it held that the class
could not be certified because it was not "ascertainable"; (3) in
holding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact on
Bruton's claims that the labels were deceptive in violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and Prof. Code Section
17200, False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumer Legal Remedies
Act (CLRA); and (4) in granting summary judgment to Gerber on
Bruton's claims that the labels were unlawful under the UCL.

In a Memorandum dated April 19, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/FxvQDV from Leagle.com, the Ninth Circuit held that
Bruton has submitted sufficient evidence to create a genuine
dispute of material fact over the reasonable consumer test and the
FDA regulations include no requirement that the public be likely
to experience deception.

                           *     *     *

Nick Mccann at Courthouse News reports the Ninth Circuit revived a
proposed class action against Gerber, saying the mom who sued it
for labeling its sugar-laden baby food as "all natural" only had
to prove the labels were misleading, not necessarily false.

"Even technically correct labels can be misleading," the panel
wrote in an unpublished order on April 19, reversing and remanding
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh's dismissal.

Natalia Bruton sued Gerber and Nestle in 2012, claiming they
misbrand their food for babies and toddlers. She challenged the
labels that describe the food as "excellent source," "good
source," "as healthy as fresh," "no added sugar" and "natural."
The products include a variety of snack foods that allegedly
mislead consumers about being good sources of vitamins C and E,
iron and zinc, and support "healthy growth and development."
Koh dismissed Bruton's claims against Nestle in 2013 and denied
class certification, with leave to amend.

Bruton appealed, and on April 19 a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel
reversed and remanded, with one judge dissenting in part and
concurring in part.

"Bruton's theory of deception does not rely on proving that any of
Gerber's labels were false," the panel wrote, finding she had a
viable claim for deception.

"Rather, Bruton contends that the combination of (a) the presence
of the claims on Gerber's products (in violation of FDA
regulations), and (b) the lack of claims on competitors' products
(in compliance with FDA regulations), made Gerber's labeling
likely to mislead the public into believing that Gerber's products
were of a higher quality than its competitors' products.
"Doubtless, Bruton's theory of deception is unusual. But even
technically correct labels can be misleading."

If it is true that Gerber did not comply with FDA regulations that
prevent its competitors from making claims like "as healthy as
fresh," the labels' implications are misleading, the panel found.
"Shoppers in a supermarket aisle look for cues about quality in
the products they buy. If a shopper sees two products on a shelf
and one says 'Supports Healthy Growth & Development,' while the
other makes no similar claim and is cheaper, a likely inference is
that the first product will be viewed as healthier, explaining why
it costs more."

Sitting on the panel were Ninth Circuit Judges Ronald M. Gould and
Milan Smith, and Senior Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, who
wrote a partial dissent.

O'Scannlain took issue with the majority's conclusion that a
reasonable consumer would be deceived by Gerber's labels.

"There is nothing inherent in Gerber's labels that would support
an inferential leap from factually correct nutritional statements
to deceptive claims about product quality," O'Scannlain wrote.
"This is especially so because both Gerber's and its competitors'
labels included detailed information about their ingredients and
nutritional contents."

Despite the panel's ruling, a Gerber representative said the
company expects the case will ultimately be dismissed.

"The court acknowledged in its majority and dissenting opinions
that there is no evidence that Gerber's statements on its labels
were not truthful. Unfortunately, the district court, both in
denying plaintiff's motion for class certification and granting
Gerber's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim for unjust
enrichment, relied on cases that appellate courts have since
overruled and, thus, the Ninth Circuit had no choice but to return
those issues in this case to the district court for further
proceedings. We are confident that the district court will again
rule in Gerber's favor," the Gerber representative said.


GLOBAL CREDIT: Certification of "Halberstam" as Class Suit Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Herschel Halberstam asks the Court to certify the action entitled
HERSCHEL HALBERSTAM, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. GLOBAL CREDIT & COLLECTION CORP., Case No.
1:15-cv-05696-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), as a class action.

Mr. Halberstam brought the lawsuit pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.  He alleges that the Defendant attempted
to collect from him an alleged personal debt.  He notes that the
Court has already ruled in his favor on the issue of liability.
The Defendant sought permission to appeal to the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals, which was denied.

A copy of the memorandum filed in support of the Motion is
available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AE3Y2ZQc

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (516) 668-6945
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: NY Judge Revives "Chen-Oster" Gender Bias Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
removing a hurdle that kept former Goldman Sachs employees from
class certification in a gender bias suit, a federal judge in
Manhattan ruled on April 12, that her predecessor misinterpreted
Supreme Court precedent in the case alleging a "boy's club" at the
megabank.

U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres gave two women who used to work
at Goldman Sachs the green light to pursue an injunction to repair
the bank's allegedly sexist culture under Title VII.

"Justice was served today," their attorney Adam Klein, from the
firm Outten & Golden, said in a phone interview.

Cristina Chen-Oster and four other women have been waiting seven
years for their claims against Goldman Sachs to reach this stage.

Filed in 2010, the lawsuit accused the bank's managers of sexual
assault and hiring female escorts "wearing short black skirts,
strapless tops, and Santa hats" for a holiday party.  Two of the
plaintiffs -- Allison Gamba and Mary De Lius -- stumbled in
getting their claims off the ground in the courtroom of the late
U.S. District Judge Leonard Sand, who found that the Supreme
Court's controversial ruling in Walmart v. Dukes denied standing
to the women.

Before he died late last year, Sand expressed "significant
reservations" with the Supreme Court's ruling in Wal-Mart, though
he found that precedent tied his hands in the Goldman Sachs case.

Replacing Sand in the case, Judge Torres said that her predecessor
read the Wal-Mart case "too broadly."

Goldman Sachs spokeswoman Leslie Shribman said in a statement, "We
are examining the implications of the latest ruling, and we'll
continue to contest this matter vigorously."

The case is captioned, Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs, Inc., Case No.
10-06950 (S.D.N.Y.).


GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Class Action Settlement Awaits Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gramercy Property Trust said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the court has not yet
entered a final judgment approving the settlement of a class
action lawsuit.

The Company said, "We were formed as a Maryland REIT in March
2004. In December 2015, we completed a merger (the "Merger") of
Gramercy Property Trust Inc. ("Legacy Gramercy") into Chambers
Street Properties ("Chambers"), with Chambers as the surviving
entity. Following the Merger, we changed our name to "Gramercy
Property Trust" and our New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") trading
symbol to "GPT.""

"Legacy Gramercy, its board of directors, Chambers and/or Merger
Sub, a subsidiary of Chambers, were named as defendants in two
pending putative class action lawsuits brought by purported Legacy
Gramercy stockholders challenging the Merger. Two suits that were
separately filed in New York Supreme Court, New York County,
captioned (i) Berliner v. Gramercy Property Trust, et al., Index
No. 652424/2015 (filed July 9, 2015) and (ii) Gensler v. Baum, et
al., Index No. 157432/2015 (filed July 22, 2015), have been
consolidated into a single action under the caption In re Gramercy
Property Trust Stockholder Litigation, Index No. 652424/2015 (the
"New York Action").

"In addition, four suits that were separately filed in Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned (i) Jobin v. DuGan,
et al., Case No. 24C15003942 (filed July 27, 2015); (ii) Vojik v.
Gramercy Property Trust, et al., Case No. 24C15004412 (filed
August 25, 2015)? (iii) Hoffbauer et al. v. Chambers Street
Properties, et al., 24C15004904 (filed September 24, 2015)
(originally filed as two separate suits in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore County, Maryland, captioned Plemons v. Chambers Street
Properties, et al., Case No. 03C15007943 (filed July 24, 2015) and
Hoffbauer et al. v. Chambers Street Properties, et al., Case No.
03C15008639 (filed August 12, 2015), and refiled as a single
action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on September 24,
2015)? and (iv) Morris v. Gramercy Property Trust, et al., Case
No. 24C15004972 (filed September 28, 2015) have been consolidated
into a single action under the caption Glenn W. Morris v. Gramercy
Property Trust Inc. et al., Case No. 24C15004972 (the "Maryland
Action," and together with the New York Action, the "Actions").

"The complaints allege, among other things, that the directors of
Legacy Gramercy breached their fiduciary duties to Legacy Gramercy
stockholders by agreeing to sell the Company for inadequate
consideration and agreeing to improper deal protection terms in
the merger agreement, and that the preliminary joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on Form S4 on September
11, 2015 was materially incomplete and misleading. The complaints
also allege that Chambers, Merger Sub and/or Legacy Gramercy aided
and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The
amended complaint in the Morris consolidated action also asserts
derivative claims on behalf of Legacy Gramercy for breach of
fiduciary duty against the directors of Legacy Gramercy.
Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an injunction barring the
Merger, rescission of the Merger to the extent it is already
implemented, declaratory relief, an award of damages and/or
costs/attorney fees.

"On December 7, 2015, the parties to the Actions entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU"), which provides for the
settlement of the Actions. While the defendants in the Actions
continue to vigorously deny all allegations of wrongdoing, fault,
liability or damage to any of the plaintiffs or the class of
stockholders of Legacy Gramercy, and believe that no supplemental
disclosure is required under the applicable law, in order to (i)
avoid the burden, inconvenience, expense and distraction of
further litigation in connection with the Actions, (ii) finally
put to rest and terminate all of the claims that were or could
have been asserted against the defendants in the Actions and (iii)
permit the Merger to proceed without risk of the courts in New
York or Maryland ordering an injunction or damages in connection
with the Actions, Chambers and Legacy Gramercy agreed, without
admitting any liability or wrongdoing, pursuant to the terms of
the MOU, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the
Merger, which were set forth in Legacy Gramercy's Current Report
on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on December 7, 2015.

"Pursuant to the MOU, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement. The stipulation of settlement is subject to customary
conditions, including, among other things, court approval
following notice to Legacy Gramercy stockholders. On November 2,
2016, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the
settlement.

"On February 1, 2017 the court held a hearing to consider the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement, and
expressed an intent to grant final approval. However, the court
has not yet entered a final judgment approving the settlement. If
the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve
and release all claims by stockholders in the Actions of Legacy
Gramercy challenging the Merger, the Merger Agreement and any
disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that
will be set forth in the notice sent to Legacy Gramercy
stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In
addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Gramercy or
its successor. There can be no assurance that the court will
approve the settlement. In the event that the settlement is not
approved or that the conditions are not satisfied, the settlement
may be terminated."

Gramercy Property Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust
("REIT"), is a global investor and asset manager of commercial
real estate.


GULFSTREAM PARK: "Gonzalez" Files Lawsuit Over 'Tip-Credit'
-----------------------------------------------------------
SANTIAGO GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, vs. GULFSTREAM PARK RACING
ASSOCIATION, INC. d/b/a GULFSTREAM PARK RACING AND CASINO, a
Florida profit corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-60722-JIC
(S.D. Fla., April 13, 2017), alleges on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, that during the employment of the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated, the Defendant illegally
claimed a 'tip-credit' for the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated, and paid those employees below the statutorily required
minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, were poker dealers
at the Defendant's casino.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GURSTEL CHARGO: Wins Summary Judgment in Debt-Collection Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David S. Dotty of the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota granted defendant Gurstel Chargo
P.A.'s motion for summary judgment in the case captioned, Troy K.
Scheffler, Plaintiff, v. Gurstel Chargo, P.A., Defendant, Case No.
15-4436(DSD/SER) (D. Minn.).

The debt-collection dispute arises out of plaintiff Troy
Scheffler's acknowledged credit card debt in the amount of
$9,896.90 owed to Discover Bank. Scheffler is a former debt
collector who has filed many lawsuits in the district alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA).

On July 31, 2009, Gurstel secured a judgment against Scheffler on
Discover's behalf. On November 20, 2015, Scheffler commenced the
putative class action in Hennepin County District Court, alleging
that Gurstel's letter and his conversation with Salter violated
the FDCPA. Gurstel timely removed to the court. On March 1, 2017,
Scheffler filed a second amended complaint alleging violations of
15 U.S.C. Sections 1692c(c) & 1692e(10).

Gurstel moves for summary judgment.

In his Order dated April 19, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/ImoBYg from Leagle.com, Judge Dotty held that
Gurstel is entitled to summary judgment because the mere fact that
the letter states at the bottom that it 'is an attempt to collect
a debt' does not transform the letter into an unlawful demand for
payment and that Gurstel did not violate the FDCPA by sending the
garnishment notice.

Troy K. Scheffler is represented by Peter J. Nickitas, Esq. --
peterjnickitaslawllc@gmail.com -- PETER J. NICKITAS LAW FIRM, LLC

Gurstel Chargo, P.A. is represented by Amy M. Goltz, Esq. --
a.goltz@gurstel.com -- GURSTEL CHARGO, PA -- Manuel H. Newburger,
Esq. -- Mnewburger@bn-lawyers.com -- BARRON & NEWBURGER PC


HIGHER ONE: Faces Class Action Over Fees on Student Debit Cards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lowell Neumann Nickey at Courthouse News reports saying that
federal sanctions failed to change its unscrupulous practices, a
Pennsylvania woman slapped Higher One Holdings with a federal
class action over the fees it charges on student debit cards.

Higher One is not a bank, but the April 13 complaint notes that
the organization has arrangements with colleges across the country
to store any unused financial aid that the schools must refund to
students.

Though students can opt out of using so-called OneAccounts, most
don't.

Lead plaintiff Shaya Edelman says she was one of the 80 percent of
vulnerable students whom Higher One plied into opening a co-
branded debit card. Though the account gave her immediate access
to her funds, Edelman says she faced "unconscionable and unusual
bank fees" as a result. Other options like direct deposit and
paper check would take up to one week and 21 days to clear,
respectively.

"Based on information and belief, the fees assessed to plaintiff
Edelman are representative of millions of dollars of fees that
defendants wrongfully assessed and deducted from student
customers' accounts," the complaint states.

A resident of King of Prussia, Edelman says Higher One and its
banking partners have been under fire by financial industry
authorities for years.

The complaint describes a USD15 million settlement that Higher One
reached with two others in 2014, compensating students who opened
accounts between 2006 and 2012. Higher One committed another USD31
million in restitution the following year, Edelman notes, as part
of a consent order after the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission
nailed it for misleading students enrolled in OneAccounts.

Also in December 2015, according to the complaint, Higher One
faced a cease-and-desist order and USD24 million penalty from the
Federal Reserve.

"Despite the penalties it had received, and its promises to change
its behavior, Higher One continued to profit from deceptive
practices and improper fees," the complaint states.
Edelman signed up for a Mustang Card while enrolled at Montgomery
County Community College.

"Targeting students with excessive bank fees -- and using scarce
financial aid funds (much of which is taxpayer money) to pay those
fees -- is unethical, contrary to public policy, and makes it more
difficult for students to avoid crippling debt."

Edelman says the unconscionable bank fees that Higher One charges
are "often at 7 percent interest or higher."
These kinds of fees "are rarely, if ever, charged by other banks"
with similar checking services.

"Many students receiving grant and financial aid are low-income,
with a disproportionately higher level of need than the general
student body," the complaint continues.

Edelman seeks punitive damages and rescission, alleging unjust
enrichment, conversion and violation of Pennsylvania consumer-
protection law. She is represented by Charles Schaffer with Levin,
Sedran & Berman.

In addition to Higher One, the class action names as a defendant
its banking partner WEX Bank and Customers Bancorp, which Edelman
says acquired the OneAccounts business last year.

The defendants did not return a request for comment.


HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES: Gorbatchev Sues Over Nexus 6P Bootloop
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action in Sherman, Texas against Google and Huawei
Technologies claims that Google Nexus 6P smartphones have a
bootloop defect that makes them inert while the battery drains.

The case is captioned, ALEX GORBATCHEV, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HUAWEI
TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC. and GOOGLE, INC., Defendants, Case 4:17-cv-
00260 (E.D. Tex., April 14, 2017).

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

     Cory S. Fein, Esq.
     Cory Fein Law Firm
     712 Main St., #800
     Houston, TX 77002
     Telephone: (281) 254-7717
     Facsimile: (530) 748-0601
     E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com

          - and -

     Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
     Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
     Jessica L. Titler, Esq.
     CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
     One Haverford Centre
     361 West Lancaster Avenue
     Haverford, PA 19041
     Phone: (610) 642-8500
     Fax: (610) 649-3633
     Email: bfj@chimicles.com
     Email: awf@chimicles.com
     Email: jlt@chimicles.com

David Karavets at Ars Technica reports that it seems like makers
of flagship Android devices can't get it right these days. We
recently reported on an ever-expanding class-action lawsuit
targeting LG's flagships: the G4, G5, V10, V20, and Nexus
5X. Those phones, according to the suit and thousands of online
complaints by users, have a legendary bootloop issue caused by
shoddy construction that bricks the phones or slows them to a
crawl.

Now the Nexus 6P phablet, unveiled in September 2015 for pre-
order, is also being accused in a class-action lawsuit of having a
"Bootloop Defect."  According to the suit, the Nexus 6P
devices "are defective because they are prone to enter an endless
bootloop cycle which renders them unresponsive and unusable."
What's more, the suit also alleges a "Battery Drain Defect," which
has also been the subject of repeated online criticism by unhappy
Nexus 6P consumers.

"As the numerous complaints posted on product reviews, blogs and
other consumer resources reveal, countless consumers have
experienced this Defect," according to the suit. The lawsuit mocks
one of the advertisements about the device that claimed: "Battery
life keeps you going all day and into the night."
Phone fraud?

The suit, which seeks class-action status, names hardware maker
Huawei Device USA of Texas and software maker Google of
California. The lawsuit says the defects materialize both before
and after the warranty period. Sometimes the warranty is not
honored, and when it is honored, "consumers have had to wait
several days or weeks to receive an accommodation, which often
ends up being a refurbished Phone that suffers from the same
Defect," according to the suit.

The Northern California federal lawsuit claims breach of warranty,
fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of numerous federal and
state consumer laws. It seeks unspecified damages proven at trial
to compensate consumers nationwide for a device that retailed from
USD499 to USD649.

"When the bootlooping occurs, the phone is essentially a very
expensive paperweight," the suit says.

The suit claims that neither Google nor Huawei has publicly
acknowledged the alleged defects, and they have "no intention of
universally remedying these problems, as Defendants routinely
declined to repair defective Phones."

Google did not immediately respond for comment. Huawei declined
comment. No trial date has been set at this time.


HUNGARY: Star Seeks Certification of Holocaust Victims Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned Joe W. Star, Stephan
Istvan Bass, Edith Reich Alexander, Judith Varnai Aronson, Iren
Schwarz Gati, Ani Brieger, Gizella Frischman Barabas and Mary
Keller Wexler, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Republic of Hungary, Case No. 1:16-cv-05709 (N.D.
Ill.), file a placeholder motion for the certification of this
class:

     All survivors, heirs, and next of kin, of persons of Jewish
     descent who were the victims of the Hungarian Holocaust, and
     who (a) reside in the United States, or (b) are U.S.
     citizens residing abroad.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the class action for
compensation for victims, survivors, heirs, and next of kin of
Hungarian Jews, who were deprived of their property and
possessions as a result of the Holocaust conducted by the Republic
of Hungary during World War II.  They also ask the Court to
designate the Named Plaintiffs as the Class representatives and
their counsel as Class counsel.

                          *     *     *

In a minute entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr., the
Court ruled that the Plaintiffs' previous motion is stricken as it
is replaced by their placeholder motion for class certification.
The latter motion is entered and continued generally.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=K5eFzwKM

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4EDeBWOo

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony D'amato, Esq.
          5807 Lake Shore Drive
          Holland, MI 49424
          Telephone: (616) 399-6344
          E-mail: a-damato@northwestern.edu


HUNTINGTON, IN: Hale Moves to Certify Indigent Prisoners Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled THOMAS HALE and JUSTIN WALLS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
TERRY STOFFEL, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:17-cv-00108
(N.D. Ind.), ask the Court to certify a proposed class:

     All indigent individuals incarcerated in the Huntington
     County Jail who seek to bring nonfrivolous civil rights or
     habeas corpus claims, are not represented by counsel for
     those claims, and are prevented from bringing those claims
     in court or have had their claims dismissed due to lack of
     access to a law library, legal research materials, or
     professional legal assistance.

Defendant Terry Stoffel, sheriff of Huntington County and operator
of the Huntington County Jail, has acted or refused to act on
grounds that apply generally to the Class through his denial
access to the courts in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution and the Indiana State Constitution,
the Plaintiffs allege.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ILG INC: Suit over Fractional Offering Plan Pending
---------------------------------------------------
ILG, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit related to
fractional offering plan, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "On December 5, 2016, individuals and entities
who own or owned 107 fractional interests of a total of 372
interests created in the Fifth and Fifty-Fifth Residence Club
located within The St. Regis, New York filed suit against us,
certain of our subsidiaries, Marriott International Inc. and
certain of its subsidiaries including Starwood Hotels and Resorts
Worldwide LLC. The case is filed as a mass action in federal court
in the Southern District of New York, not as a class action."

"The plaintiffs principally challenge the sale of less than all
interests offered in the fractional offering plan, the  amendment
of the plan to include additional units, the failure to amend the
plan to provide for certain alleged changes, and the rental of
unsold fractional interests by the plan's sponsor, claiming that
alleged acts by us and the other defendants breached or undermined
the relevant agreements and harmed the value of plaintiffs'
fractional interests. The relief sought includes, among other
things, compensatory damages, rescission, disgorgement, attorneys'
fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

"In response to our request to file a motion to dismiss, the
plaintiffs have agreed to amend their complaint on or before March
6, 2017.

"We will determine at that time whether to request permission to
file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. We dispute the
material allegations in the complaint and intend to defend against
the action vigorously. Given the early stages of the action and
the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot estimate a
range of the potential liability, if any, at this time."

ILG, Inc. is a provider of professionally delivered vacation
experiences and the exclusive global licensee for the Hyatt(R),
Westin(R) and Sheraton(R) brands in vacation ownership.


INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Court Dismisses Stockholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports Integra Lifesciences Holdings Corp says court
dismissed stockholder class action lawsuit in relation to derm
deal; Integra to pay plaintiffs' counsel USD225,000.


INTELEOS INC: Faces Suit over Sonography Exam Scores
----------------------------------------------------
Brian Grosh, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
two healthcare workers who make their living performing diagnostic
ultrasounds claim in a federal class action in Cleveland, Ohio,
that the organization that awards their professional credentials
incorrectly reported that they failed their sonography
certification exams.

Lead plaintiffs Stephanie Miller and Mary Alyce Dawson sued
Inteleos Inc. -- the organization that governs and manages the
American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, or ARDMS -- in
Cleveland federal court, seeking damages for lost wages, lost job
opportunities and harm to their professional reputations.

Sonography is a medical imaging technique that uses echoes of
high-frequency sound waves to build an image of organs and other
body structures.  Like many sonographers, Miller and Dawson were
required by their employers to take and pass the sonography
certification examination administered by ARDMS to demonstrate
their competency.

Both Miller and Dawson passed the exam, but they claim ARDMS
scored their tests incorrectly and falsely reported that they had
failed.  As a result, Miller and Dawson were taken off of their
respective work schedules and forced to wait 60 days before they
could retake the exam, according to their lawsuit.

ARDMS recently acknowledged it had experienced a system-wide
internal error in the calculation of its exam scores, the lawsuit
states.  That internal error allegedly resulted in the false
reporting of failing scores for sonographers who took the exam
between Sept. 6, 2016 and March 14 of this year.

"Plaintiffs and class members paid a $250 fee to defendant in
exchange for defendant's proper administration and accurate
scoring of the exam. Plaintiffs and class members suffered the
loss of this fee because they paid for an exam that was improperly
scored, and their exam results were inaccurately reported," the
complaint states. "Indeed, because plaintiff Dawson and other
class members falsely believed that they had failed the exam, they
paid another $250 fee to defendant in order to re-take the exam,
even though they had already passed the exam and received no
benefit from re-taking the exam." (Emphasis in original.)

Miller and Dawson seek to represent all sonographers throughout
the United States impacted by ARDMS' actions. They are represented
by former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann of the Cleveland-based
Dann Law Firm, and by Thomas Zimmerman Jr. of the Chicago-based
Zimmerman Law Firm.

"Because it denotes a lack of competency, knowledge and expertise
in sonography, there is a serious stigma associated with failure
to pass the credentialing examination," Zimmerman said in a press
release on Dann Law Firm's website.

Miller and Dawson allege breach of contract, negligence, unjust
enrichment and violations of the the Maryland Consumer Protection
Act, Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act and Ohio Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. They say the matter in controversy exceeds $5
million.

ARDMS did not immediately respond to a phone call requesting
comment on the lawsuit.

The case is captioned, STEPHANIE MILLER 6403 Summers Road Windsor,
Ohio 44099 and MARY ALYCE DAWSON 1183 East 347th Street Eastlake,
Ohio 44095, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,  Plaintiffs, v. INTELEOS, INC., an Ohio corporation,
f/k/a the AMERICAN REGISTRY OF DIAGNOSTIC MEDICAL SONOGRAPHY, INC.
1401 Rockville Pike, Suite 600 Rockville, Maryland 20852,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00763 (N.D. Ohio, April 10, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class:

     Marc E. Dann, Esq.
     William C. Behrens, Esq.
     The Dann Law Firm Co., LPA
     P.O. Box. 6031040
     Cleveland, Ohio 44103
     Tel: (216) 373-0539
     Fax: (216) 373-0536
     E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com

          - and -

     Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
     Zimmerman Law Offices, PC
     77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
     Chicago, Illinois 60602
     Tel: (312) 440-0020
     Fax: (312) 440-4180
     E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com


INTREXON CORPORATION: Wins Dismissal of Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Intrexon Corporation's motion to dismiss a consolidated
shareholder class action lawsuit has been granted, the Company
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "In May 2016, two putative shareholder class
action lawsuits, captioned Hoffman v. Intrexon Corporation et al.
and Gibrall v. Intrexon Corporation et al., were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of our common stock between May 12, 2015 and April
20, 2016, or the Class Period."

"In July 2016, the court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed a
lead plaintiff. The consolidated amended complaint names as
defendants us and certain of our current and former officers, or
the Defendants. It alleges, among other things, that the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
during the Class Period with respect to our business, operations,
and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiffs'
claims are based in part upon allegations in a report published in
April 2016 on the Seeking Alpha financial blog. The plaintiffs
seek compensatory damages, interest and an award of reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants moved to dismiss the
case.

On February 24, 2017, the court granted our motion to dismiss the
lawsuit on the grounds that plaintiff failed to state a claim,
while granting plaintiff leave to amend. Any such amended
complaint must be filed by the plaintiff within 30 days.

"We intend to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however,
there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this
case."

Interexon is a leader in the field of synthetic biology, an
emerging and rapidly evolving discipline that applies engineering
principles to biological systems to enable rational, design-based
control of cellular function for a specific purpose.


IXIA: Court Approves Settlement Fund Distribution
-------------------------------------------------
IXIA said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016, that the Court has approved the distribution of
the settlement fund to class members who had submitted claims.

The Company said, "On August 1, 2016, the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (the "Court") entered an order
granting final approval of a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, dated November 11, 2015, providing for the settlement
of the securities class action, captioned Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension & Retirement System, et al. v. Ixia, et al., filed in
November 2013 against the Company and certain of our current and
former officers and directors (the "Class Action Settlement
Agreement"). The Class Action Settlement Agreement provides, among
other terms, for a settlement payment in the amount of $3.5
million."

"In March 2016, one of our insurance carriers made the settlement
payment, which will fund all payments to class members pursuant to
the Class Action Settlement Agreement and the award of attorneys'
fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel as approved by the Court.
The settlement does not include any admission of wrongdoing or
liability on the part of Ixia or the individual defendants and
provides for a dismissal of, and a release of all claims asserted
against the defendants in, the class action.

By an amended order, dated February 21, 2017, the Court approved
the distribution of the settlement fund to class members who had
submitted claims."

Ixia was incorporated in 1997 as a California corporation.  Ixia
helps customers validate the performance and security resilience
of their applications and networks.


JS SEPTIC SERVICES: "Ruiz" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Javier Ruiz, on behalf of himself individually, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. J.S. Septic Services Corp.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01186 (S.D. Tex., April 16, 2017),
seeks all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, post-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant is a septic services company where Javier Ruiz worked as
a driver. He claims to have regularly worked more than 40 hours in
a workweek without overtime premium. [BN]

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
      Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
      Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Juno Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that defendants' motion to
dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit remains
pending.

The Company said, "Beginning on July 12, 2016, three putative
securities class action complaints were filed against Juno and
several of our officers. On October 7, 2016, these complaints were
consolidated by the federal district court for the Western
District of Washington into a single action titled "In re Juno
Therapeutics, Inc." On October 19, 2016, the Court appointed a
lead plaintiff. On December 12, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint."

"The putative class in the amended complaint is composed of all
purchasers of Juno's securities between May 9, 2016 and November
22, 2016, inclusive. The amended complaint names as defendants
Juno, our chief executive officer, our chief financial officer,
and our chief medical officer and generally alleges material
misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding
patient deaths in Juno's Phase II clinical trial of JCAR015 and
the safety of JCAR015, violations by all named defendants of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as
well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the
individual defendants. The amended complaint seeks compensatory
damages of an undisclosed amount.

"On February 2, 2017, Juno and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.  We have not recorded any
liability as of December 31, 2016 since any potential loss is not
probable or reasonably estimable given the preliminary nature of
the proceedings."


KEENWAWA INC: American Council of the Blind Asserts ADA Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Council of the Blind on behalf of itself, its members and
others similarly situated and Michael Godino, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Keenwawa, Inc., d/b/a
Eatsa, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02096-JGK (S.D. N.Y., March 23,
2017) seeks an order requiring that Defendant takes the necessary
steps to ensure that the food ordering and delivery systems within
Eatsa restaurants must comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

The Complaint states that the Defendant has a common policy and
practice of denying blind person access to the services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations they provide
at their restaurants and via Eatsa's self-service technology since
all ordering and food-delivery systems have a common design that
is inaccessible to blind persons. Further, due to Defendant's
policies and practices of failing to remove access barriers, blind
persons have been and are being denied full and equal access to
the services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodation
of Defendant's mobile application and its restaurants in New York
City.

Keenwawa Inc. d/b/a Eatsa operates a chain of fast-casual
restaurant in New York City, California and Washington, DC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Michelle Caiola, Esq.
   Rebecca C. Serbin, Esq.
   Disability Rights Advocates
   675 Third Avenue, Suite 2216
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 644-8644
   Fax: (212) 644-8636


KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: 4 Class Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is defending four class action
lawsuits, Keryx said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The company said, "Four purported class action lawsuits have been
filed against us and certain of our current and former officers
(Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur and James
Oliviero).  Three of these actions have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned respectively Terrell Jackson v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-06131 filed on
August 2, 2016, Richard J. Erickson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al. No. 1:16-cv-06218, filed on August 4, 2016 and
Richard King v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-
cv-06233 on August 5, 2016."

"The Jackson complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
stockholders who purchased our common stock between February 25,
2016 and August 1, 2016, the Erickson complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our common stock
between March 2, 2016 and July 29, 2016, and the King complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our
stock between February 25, 2016 and July 29, 2016.

"On August 26, 2016, the fourth complaint, captioned Tim Karth v.
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-11745, was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, which complaint was subsequently amended.  The
Karth complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders
who purchased our stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016.
Each complaint generally alleges that we and certain of our
current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the
Company and its business operations and future prospects in light
of the August 1, 2016 announcement of an imminent interruption in
our supply of Auryxia.

"Two stockholder derivative complaints were also filed on December
16, 2016 against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur and
James Oliviero), certain of its current directors (Kevin J.
Cameron, Daniel P. Regan, Steven C. Gilman, Michael Rogers and
John P. Butler) and its former directors (Michael P. Tarnok,
Joseph Feczko, Jack Kaye and Wyche Fowler, Jr.), in the Superior
Court of Massachusetts, one captioned Venkat Vara Prasad Malledi
v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 16-3865 and one
captioned James Anderson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., No. 16-3866.

"Each of these two complaints generally allege that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company,
unjustly enriched themselves by their actions, abused their
control positions with the Company, mismanaged the Company and
wasted corporate assets since July 31, 2013 in light of the August
1, 2016 announcement by the Company of an interruption in the
supply of the Company's product Auryxia. All of the complaints
seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other
costs.

"We deny any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to vigorously
defend against these lawsuits. There is no assurance, however,
that we or the other defendants will be successful in our defense
of either of these lawsuits or that insurance will be available or
adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation
costs of these actions. Moreover, we are unable to predict the
outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible losses at this
time. A resolution of these lawsuits adverse to us or the other
defendants, however, could have a material effect on our financial
position and results of operations in the period in which the
particular lawsuit is resolved."

Keryx is a commercial stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
bringing innovative medicines to people with renal disease.


LA QUINTA: Bid to Dismiss Amended "Beisel" Complaint Challenged
---------------------------------------------------------------
La Quinta Holdings Inc. continues to defend against the amended
complaint in the "Beisel" class action lawsuit, La Quinta said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2016.

Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.  The Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of
Detroit on March 31, 2017, filed an Opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint.

On April 25, 2016, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit,
captioned Beisel v. La Quinta Holdings Inc. et al., was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant to the
Company's March 24, 2015 secondary public offering (the "March
Secondary Offering") and on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock from November 19, 2014 through October 29, 2015 (the
"Class Period").  On July 22, 2016, the court appointed lead
plaintiff, and on September 30, 2016, lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.

The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, certain
current and former Company officers, and certain current and
former members of the board of directors, among others.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that, in violation of the
federal securities laws, the registration statement and prospectus
filed in connection with the March Secondary Offering contained
materially false and misleading information or omissions and that
the Company as well as certain current and former officers made
false and misleading statements in earnings releases and to
analysts during the Class Period.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.

The Company believes that the putative class action lawsuit is
without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously;
however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome
of this lawsuit.


LINCOLN DELI: "Reyes" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Francisco Dorantes Reyes, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lincoln Deli Grocery
Corp., 2159 Deli Grocery Corp., Sadek Salem and Mehari
Equbeslasie, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02732 (S.D. N.Y., April
14, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-
hours premium, applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorney's
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and New York Labor Laws.

Lincoln Deli Grocery Corp. operates Lincoln Deli-Grocery, a
grocery/deli owned by Sadek Salem and Mehari Equbeslasie, located
at 2159 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, 10037, where Dorantes
worked long days as a grillman and sandwich preparer. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200


LOUISIANA, USA: Wheat Moves to Certify Two Classes of Arrestees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JAMES M. WHEAT and DANNY
BRINSON, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated v. MIKE CRAIG, JEFF R. THOMPSON, JEFF COX, E. CHARLES
JACOBS, MIKE NERREN, and PARKER SELF in their official capacities
as Judges of the 26th Judicial District Court; and JULIAN C.
WHITTINGTON, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Bossier
Parish, Case No. 5:17-cv-00424-SMH-MLH (W.D. La.), move the Court
for an order certifying the action as a class action and to
certify declaratory and injunctive Plaintiff classes consisting
of:

   (A) all arrestees unable to pay for their release pursuant to
       Defendants' fixed bail schedule who are currently in the
       custody of Defendant Whittington; and

   (B) all arrestees unable to afford payment of the $40 Public
       Defender Application fee on which their release has been
       conditioned by en banc order of the 26th Judicial District
       Court.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint their counsel as
class counsel.  They further ask the Court to schedule a hearing
on the matter.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GwYW2W62

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric Foley, Esq.
          Katie M. Schwartzmann, Esq.
          RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
          4400 S. Carrollton Ave.
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 620-2259
          Facsimile: (504) 208-3133
          E-mail: eric.foley@macarthurjustice.org
                  katie.schwartzmann@macarthurjustice.org


LUMENIS INC: Gillespie, et al. Sue Under FLSA, State Labor Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
COOPER GILLESPIE, LEIGHTON WYNTER, CHRISTOPHER CASTLE, MICHAEL
CONWAY, WILLIAM SEAN DUNEGAN, SKYLAR FISK, JEFF FOLZ, RANDY HILL,
AND DENNIS WALSH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. LUMENIS INC., and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02080-EDL (N.D. Cal.,
April 13, 2017), alleges that Defendant misclassified Plaintiffs
and the Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Class as exempt from
overtime and thus failed to pay them overtime as required by
federal law.

Plaintiff Gillespie also brings individual claims under California
law extending back four years prior to this action's filing date
through the trial of this action for Defendant's failure to pay
overtime compensation, failure to authorize and provide available
meal and rest breaks, and failure to provide premium pay for
missed meal and rest breaks.

Plaintiff Wynter brings claims against Defendant under New York
law extending back as much as six years prior to this action's
filing date through the trial of this action for Defendant's
failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to pay spread of
hours pay, failure to pay wages when due, failure to comply with
notice and record-keeping requirements, and failure to provide
accurate wage statements.

According to its website, Lumenis Inc. is "a global leader in the
field of minimally invasive clinical solutions for the Surgical,
Ophthalmology and Aesthetic markets," and develops and
commercializes "innovative energy-based technologies, including
Laser, Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) and Radio-Frequency (RF)."

Plaintiffs and the putative class members are or were employed by
Defendant Lumenis Inc., as customer service engineers, field
service engineers, and other job titles performing similar duties
and were denied proper compensation as required by federal and
state wage and hour laws.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bryan Schwartz, Esq.
     Rachel Terp, Esq.
     BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
     1330 Broadway, Suite 1630
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (510) 444-9300
     Fax: (510) 444-9301
     Email: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
            rachel@bryanschwartzlaw.com


M&C GLOBAL: Faces "Gomes" Suit in Tex. Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL GOMES and SEBASTIAN BRADFORD, Individually and On Behalf
Of All Similarly Situated Persons Plaintiffs, V. M&C GLOBAL, INC.
and PAUL BACHET, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17-cv-1141 (S.D.
Tex., April 13, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs and those employees
similarly situated to Plaintiffs were paid on an hourly basis and
were paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked, even those
hours over 40 in a workweek.

The Defendants placed the Employees to work at various automobile
dealers in the Houston area, and possibly other geographic areas.
Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an auto dealership porter, says
the complaint. [BN]

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


MDL 2420: Class Certification Bid Denied
----------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Oakland, Calif., on April 13, denied
certification to two proposed classes of plaintiffs in a sprawling
antitrust case accusing electronics firms of fixing the prices of
lithium ion batteries for more than a decade.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied without
prejudice motions by both indirect and direct purchasers of the
batteries, finding that both failed to show that the entire class
had been affected by the alleged price-fixing.

The batteries are found in everyday gadgets from smartphones and
laptops to power tools.  Though both proposed classes may file new
motions for certification, Gonzalez Rogers particularly encouraged
the indirect purchasers to refile. She said a renewed motion could
succeed if it dropped allegations of nationwide claims under
California's Cartwright Act.

The indirect purchasers sought to bring nationwide claims under
the California law because they said the defendants, which include
Panasonic, Samsung and Toshiba, maintain headquarters in the state
and chose California law as the framework for their battery
contracts.

However, "The court finds that a nationwide class under the
Cartwright Act would not be appropriate," Gonzalez Rogers wrote.
"Any renewed motion for class certification should take this
determination into account."

The multidistrict lawsuit, which was transferred to the Northern
District of California in 2013, accuses the defendants of
restricting output and collectively raising prices between 2000
and 2011. When the global financial crisis hit in 2008 and demand
for the batteries plummeted, prices nonetheless stayed constant
due to the conspiracy, they say.

In denying the indirect purchasers certification on April 13,
Gonzalez Rogers zeroed in on Edward Leamer's expert testimony,
which she said failed to show that "pass-through and damages can
be established by expert analysis on a class-wide basis."

To establish class-wide impact for indirect purchasers, plaintiffs
must show there is a method for proving whether the effects of an
overcharge were passed on to each indirect purchaser, and how much
the overcharge affected them.

Gonzalez Rogers said that while Leamer's analysis found a
statistically significant pass-through rate of nearly 100 percent,
it was unclear whether the analysis included different types of
class members and battery products.

"The court is not satisfied that plaintiffs or their experts have
explained how the pass-through analysis here demonstrates the
antitrust impact is 'passed on' to each level of the indirect
purchasers in the distribution chain," the judge wrote.

Indirect purchaser attorney Jeff Friedman said in an email
Thursday that his clients intend to file a renewed motion for
certification.

"We appreciate the detailed and thoughtful ruling by the court and
the time put into the findings," he said. "The analysis provides a
straightforward path to addressing the court's issues and we look
forward to doing so."

Gonzalez Rogers similarly focused on expert testimony in denying
direct purchasers class certification, finding that the analysis
of their expert, Roger Noll, did not satisfy predominance
requirements because it included data only for Toshiba laptops.

"The analysis of the Toshiba laptops alone does not satisfy the
court that a showing of antitrust impact for that product can be
extrapolated as a measure of impact for the rest of the cells,
batteries and finished products in the class definition," Gonzalez
Rogers wrote. "The court ? cannot ignore the large gaps in the
evidence supporting the ability to demonstrate impact and damages
on a class-wide basis."

The indirect purchasers sought to certify a class of all
individuals and entities in the United States who indirectly
purchased laptops, camcorders or power tools containing a
cylindrical lithium ion battery, or a replacement battery, made by
the defendants between Jan. 1, 2000 and May 31, 2011.

The direct purchasers sought to certify a class of all individuals
and entities that purchased a cylindrical or prismatic lithium ion
battery cell or battery, or a product containing a battery cell,
directly from defendants located in the United States between May
1, 2002 and May 31, 2011.

In a separate but related order on April 13, Gonzalez Rogers
denied a motion by Hitachi, LG Chem, Samsung and others to dismiss
TracFone's 2015 antitrust claim under Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act for being time-barred.

Gonzalez Rogers said TracFone's allegations that the defendants
had hidden their price-fixing scheme were sufficient to state a
claim under the Florida statute that is not time-barred.

The indirect purchasers are represented by Jeff Friedman with
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in Berkeley. The direct purchasers are
represented by Rick Saveri with Saveri & Saveri in San Francisco.

Neither attorney could be reached for comment late on April 13.

The case is captioned, IN RE: LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, This Order Relates to: All Indirect Purchaser and
Direct Purchaser Actions, Case No. 13-MD-2420 YGR (N.D. Cal.)


METLIFE INC: Westland Police Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that defendents continue to
defend against the case, City of Westland Police and Fire
Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed
January 12, 2012).

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011,
the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint alleging that
MetLife, Inc. and several current and former directors and
executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of
1933 ("Securities Act"), as well as the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning
MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in
insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or
escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief. The defendants intend to defend this
action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Settlement of Birmingham Suit Awaits Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the settlement of the
case, City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. MetLife,
Inc., et al. (Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama, filed
July 5, 2012), is awaiting final court approval.

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in
March 2011, the plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife,
Inc., certain current and former directors and executive officers
of MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several
provisions of the Securities Act related to the filing of the
registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of
dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

On December 7, 2016, the court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, under which
MetLife, Inc. agreed to pay $9.75 million, and conditionally
certifying a settlement class.


METLIFE INC: "Owens" Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that defendents continue to
defend against the case captioned, Owens v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
all persons for whom MLIC established a retained asset account,
known as a TCA, to pay death benefits under an ERISA plan. The
action alleges that MLIC's use of the TCA as the settlement option
for life insurance benefits under some group life insurance
policies violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under ERISA. As damages,
plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized on
accounts owned by members of the putative class.

On September 27, 2016, the court denied MLIC's summary judgment
motion in full and granted plaintiff's partial summary judgment
motion. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Dismissal of "Robainas" Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals affirmed a decision dismissing the case captioned,
Robainas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y.,
December 16, 2014).

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance
policies issued by MLIC from 2009 through 2014 (the "Policies").
Two similar actions were subsequently filed, Yale v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015) and International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015).

Both of these actions were consolidated with the Robainas action.
The consolidated complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately
disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain
reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies
were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and
thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the
adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuit sought recovery under
Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty
in the amount of the premiums paid for the Policies.

On October 9, 2015, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, finding that plaintiffs lacked Article III
standing because they did not allege any concrete injury as a
result of the alleged conduct. On February 23, 2017, the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.


METLIFE INC: Dismissal of "Intoccia" Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a decision dismissing
the case captioned, Intoccia v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015), MetLife, Inc. said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums for Guaranteed
Benefits Insurance Riders attached to variable annuity contracts
with MLIC from 2009 through 2015 (the "Annuities"). The court
consolidated Weilert v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y.,
April 30, 2015) with the Intoccia case, and the consolidated,
amended complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately disclosed in its
statutory annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions
with affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using
"contractual parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly
misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its
reserves. The lawsuits seek recovery under Section 4226 of the New
York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the
premiums paid for Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to
the Annuities.

The Court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss, adopting the reasoning
of the Robainas decision. On February 23, 2017, the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.


METLIFE INC: MLIC Paid Settlement Funds in "Fauley" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Settlement funds have been paid out in the case, Fauley v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al. (Circuit Court of the
19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Ill., July 3, 2014), MetLife,
Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On September 28, 2016, the Illinois Supreme Court denied an
objector's petition for leave to appeal from an order approving
MLIC's $23 million settlement of a class action alleging violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. MLIC paid out the
settlement funds in January 2017.


METLIFE INC: "Voshall" Class Suit Remains Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that defendents continue to
defend against the case, Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, April 8, 2015)

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability
income insurance policy issued by MLIC to public entities in
California between April 8, 2011 and April 8, 2015. Plaintiff
alleges that MLIC improperly reduced benefits by including cost of
living adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer
retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit
payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of action
for declaratory relief, violation of the California Business &
Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company intends to
defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Martin" Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal on the dismissal of the case, Martin v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, (Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Contra Costa, filed December 17, 2015),
remains pending, MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all California persons who have been charged
compound interest by MLIC in life insurance policy and/or premium
loan balances within the last four years. Plaintiffs allege that
MLIC has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound
interest on life insurance policy and premium loans without the
borrower authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes
an unlawful business practice under California law. Plaintiff
asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and unjust
enrichment. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified amount.

On April 12, 2016, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs have filed an appeal of this ruling.


METLIFE INC: "Lau" Class Action Remains Pending in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that defendents continue to
defend against the case, Lau v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (S.D.N.Y. filed, December 3, 2015).

This putative class action lawsuit was filed by a single defined
contribution plan participant on behalf of all ERISA plans whose
assets were invested in MetLife's "Group Annuity Contract Stable
Value Funds" within the past six years. The suit alleges breaches
of fiduciary duty under ERISA and challenges the "spread" with
respect to the stable value fund group annuity products sold to
retirement plans. The allegations focus on the methodology MetLife
uses to establish and reset the crediting rate, the terms under
which plan participants are permitted to transfer funds from a
stable value option to another investment option, the procedures
followed if an employer terminates a contract, and the level of
disclosure provided. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as damages in an unspecified amount. The Company
intends to defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: "Newman" Class Suit Underway in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that defendents continue to
defend against the case, Newman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (N.D. Ill., filed March 23, 2016).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of
action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
based on MLIC's class-wide increase in premiums charged for long-
term care insurance policies. Plaintiff alleges a class consisting
of herself and all persons over age 65 who selected a Reduced Pay
at Age 65 payment feature and whose premium rates were increased
after age 65. Plaintiff asserts that premiums could not be
increased for these class members and/or that marketing material
was misleading as to MLIC's right to increase premiums. Plaintiff
seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and punitive damages as
well as recessionary and injunctive relief. The Company intends to
defend this action vigorously.


MOVAGE INC: "Williams" Seeks Pay for OT, Unaccounted Travel Time
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jevon Williams, Mitchell Martinez, Dimitrije Zivkovic and Derrick
Adams individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Movage, Inc., Bajo Vujovic and Christian "Doe,"
Defendants, Case 1:17-cv-02628 (S.D.N.Y., April 12, 2017) seeks to
recover unpaid wages, unpaid wages due, liquidated damages and
reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and New York Labor Laws.

Defendants own and operate a moving business that provides
residential and commercial moving services to customers nationwide
and internationally. Plaintiffs worked as drivers and driver
helpers for Defendants' moving business. Defendants alternately
paid Plaintiffs on a percentage commission basis and then
switching to hourly pay scheme often without notice. Plaintiffs
claim that they missed out on overtime as Defendant often failed
to pay them for time spent during travel. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Albert Adam Breud, II, Esq.
      FIRESTONE & BREUD, P.L.L.C.
      356 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 3
      Commack, NY 11725
      Tel: (631) 543-3030, Ext. 2
      Email: breudlaw@optonline.net

             - and -

      Robert Wisniewski, Esq.
      ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C.
      225 Broadway, Suite 1020
      New York, NY 10007
      Tel: (212) 267-2101
      Email: rw@rwapc.com


NASDAQ INC: Appeal on Dismissal of "Rabin" Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Appeal on the dismissal of the case captioned, Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX
PHLX LLC, et al., remains pending, Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "we were named as a defendant in a putative
class action, Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, et al., No. 15-551
(E.D. Pa.), filed in 2015 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 21, 2016, the court
entered an order granting our motion to dismiss the complaint. The
plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit on May 18, 2016."

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

"Given that the complaint was dismissed at the preliminary stage
of the proceeding, we are unable to estimate what, if any,
liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe (as
the district court concluded) that the claims are without merit,
and we intend to defend the dismissal on appeal vigorously."


NASDAQ INC: Appeal in Providence Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------
The appeal in the case, City of Providence v. BATS Global Markets,
Inc., et al., remains pendig, Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The company said, "We are named as one of many defendants in City
of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811
(S.D.N.Y.), which was filed on April 18, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district
court appointed lead counsel, who filed an amended complaint on
September 2, 2014. The amended complaint names as defendants seven
national exchanges, as well as Barclays PLC, which operated a
private alternative trading system. On behalf of a putative class
of securities traders, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
engaged in a scheme to manipulate the markets through high-
frequency trading; the amended complaint asserts claims against us
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as
under Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act."

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 3,
2014. In response, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
on November 24, 2014, which names the same defendants and alleges
essentially the same violations. We then filed a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint on January 23, 2015. On August 26,
2015, the district court entered an order dismissing the second
amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice, concluding that
most of the plaintiffs' theories were foreclosed by absolute
immunity and in any event that the plaintiffs failed to state any
claim. The plaintiffs have appealed the judgment of dismissal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The
Second Circuit heard oral argument on August 24, 2016.

"On August 25, 2016, the Second Circuit issued an order requesting
the SEC's views on whether the district court had subject-matter
jurisdiction over the case, and whether the defendants are immune
from suit regarding the challenged conduct. The SEC filed its
brief on November 28, 2016. The exchanges and plaintiffs filed
supplemental briefs responding to the SEC's brief on December 12,
2016.

"Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, and particularly
the fact that the complaints have been dismissed, we are unable to
estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation.
However, we believe (as the district court concluded) that the
claims are without merit and will continue to litigate
vigorously."


NASDAQ INC: "Lanier" Plaintiff Did Not File SC Petition
-------------------------------------------------------
Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Plaintiff in the case
captioned, Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., did not file a
petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court by
the February 2, 2017 deadline.

The Company said, "we were named as one of many exchange
defendants in Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3745
(S.D.N.Y.), Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3865
(S.D.N.Y.), and Lanier v. Bats Exchange Inc., 14 Civ. 3866
(S.D.N.Y.), which were filed between May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The plaintiff is the same in each of these cases, and
the three complaints contain substantially similar allegations. On
behalf of a putative class of subscribers for market data provided
by national exchanges, the plaintiff alleges that the exchanges
provided data more quickly to certain market participants than to
others, supposedly in breach of the exchanges' plans for
dissemination of market data and subscriber agreements executed
under those plans. The complaint asserts contractual theories
under state law based on these alleged breaches."

"On September 29, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the
complaints. On April 28, 2015, the district court entered an order
dismissing the complaints in their entirety with prejudice,
concluding that they are foreclosed by the Exchange Act and in any
event do not state a claim under the contracts. The plaintiff
appealed the judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

"On September 23, 2016, the Second Circuit issued an opinion
affirming the district court's dismissal of all three complaints,
concluding that many of plaintiff's claims were preempted, that
plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of contract, and
that, insofar as plaintiff alleged that the exchanges'
implementation or operation of certain plans under Regulation NMS
violates the Exchange Act, plaintiff was required to exhaust his
administrative remedies before the SEC.

"Plaintiff filed a petition for panel or en banc rehearing before
the Second Circuit on October 7, 2016, in one of the three
appeals. The Second Circuit denied the petition on November 4,
2016. Plaintiff did not file a petition for certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court by the February 2, 2017 deadline."


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Settlement Could be New Model for Handling Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel at Law360 reports attorneys on both sides of the
landmark concussion settlement between the National Football
League and former players highlighted the deal on April 20 as a
potentially new model for handling mass-tort claims in federal
courts via class actions.

Speaking at the annual Third Circuit Judicial Conference in
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, New York University law professor Samuel
Issacharoff -- samuel.issacharoff@nyu.edu -- who represented the
players, and Dechert LLP partner Robert Heim --
robert.heim@dechert.com -- who represented the NFL, agreed that
the settlement -- and its ultimate approval by the Third Circuit -
- marked a step forward in multidistrict litigation and class
action law.

Issacharoff noted that the presence of social media allowed for a
growing awareness among potential class members, and reduced the
import of a previous U.S. Supreme Court case -- Amchem v. Windsor
-- that expressed skepticism about using class action settlements
to resolve large numbers of claims.

"We do not need to assume that absent class members are passive or
those who have opted out have done so out of ignorance or because
they don't have anywhere to turn for advice," he said. "The MDL
origins of the modern class action are changing the way that the
district courts are handling it, and I would suggest that the NFL
decision of the Third Circuit is the first step towards
recognizing that as a matter of formal doctrine."

The Third Circuit in April 2016 affirmed both the class
certification for the former players suffering from various
ailments tied to repeated head injuries and concussions and the
uncapped settlement reached between the league and class
representatives Kevin Turner and Shawn Wooden. Objectors had
argued the deal was lacking for those who suffered from the
degenerative brain condition known as CTE.

That deal followed a previous settlement agreement that was
rejected by U.S. District Judge Anita Brody -- who sat in the
audience at the panel -- that was capped at USD765 million

For the NFL, there were substantial reasons for settling,
according to Heim, who called the issue a "public relations
nightmare" for the league.

That also informed the league's decision to use the class action
process, which required Judge Brody's approval, to settle the
matter.

"From the very beginning, the NFL was looking for certainty and
closure," Heim said. "If you're settling an MDL, you don't have
that closure. If more cases come, you settle these, you settle
this tranche of cases, you settle the next tranche of cases, but
you don't have closure."

"The way of putting the MDL together with the class device gave it
the best opportunity," he added.

Heim did caution that the model was not "one-sized fits all,"
noting that pursuing a settlement through the class action process
could increase the costs to defendants.

"I don't think it's going to be the ultimate solution for every
kind of problem out there," he said.

John Beisner, the chair of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP's
mass tort group, who also sat on the panel, was more skeptical of
the wider applicability of the approach.

He noted that for the drug and medical device cases that make up
the vast majority of product liability cases in multidistrict
litigation, a glut of false and poorly researched claims made
class action resolutions less desirable.

"If you're looking at this from the defendant's perspective
dealing with that already, and then setting this case on a class
basis: putting out -- as you often do -- USD100,000, USD250,000,
USD300,000 per claim; as Bob was saying, 'certainty and closure,'
you're going to get the opposite of that," he said.


NEUSTAR INC: "Parshall" Suit Pending in Delaware
------------------------------------------------
NeuStar, Inc. is defending against a class action lawsuit by
Parshall, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "On December 14, 2016, we announced that we
entered into a definitive merger agreement to be acquired by a
private investment group led by Golden Gate Capital. Under the
terms of the merger agreement, our stockholders will be entitled
to receive $33.50 per share following the closing of the proposed
merger. The merger, which is expected to close no later than the
end of the third quarter of 2017, is subject to approval by our
stockholders, regulatory approvals and other customary closing
conditions."

The Company said, "We, along with other parties to the merger
agreement and our Board of Directors, have been named as
defendants in a class action complaint filed on January 20, 2017,
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware,
entitled Parshall v. NeuStar, Inc. et al., Case 1:17-cv-00060-LPS.
We and our Board also have been named as defendants in a class
action complaint filed on February 1, 2017, in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware, entitled Rubin v.
NeuStar, Inc. et al., Case 1:17-cv-00104. The complaints allege
violations of the federal securities laws by the defendants in
connection with the preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14A
filed by us with the SEC with a filing date of January 7, 2017.
The complaints seek, among other things, an injunction preventing
the consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger if it is
consummated or rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
We believe that the respective allegations asserted against us in
the lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend against the
lawsuits vigorously. Similar cases may also be filed in connection
with the proposed merger."


NIAGRA BOTTLING: "Manu" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Manu on behalf of himself, individually and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Niagra Bottling LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:17-cv-01181, (S.D. Tex., April 15, 2017), seeks
equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney's
fees, taxable costs of court and post-judgment interest for
willful failure to pay overtime wages and compensation pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a machine operator, working at
the assembly line, assembling water bottles for various brands and
operating heavy machinery.

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
      Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
      Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


NIBCO INC: Cole Moves for Class Cert.; Hearing Set for June 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled KIMBERLY COLE, ALAN COLE,
JAMES MONICA, LINDA BOYD, MICHAEL MCMAHON, RAY SMINKEY, JAMES
MEDDERS, JUDY MEDDERS, ROBERT PEPERNO, SARAH PEPERNO, and KELLY
MCCOY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. NIBCO, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-07871-FLW-TJB (D.N.J.), ask the
Court for an order granting class certification or, in the
alternative, certifying certain common issues for class treatment.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 19, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QHSGB0sJ

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 877-3820
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 645-4720
          Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
          E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          555 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 200-0580
          Facsimile: (610) 727-4360
          E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jean Paul Bradshaw II, Esq.
          LATHROP & GAGE LLP
          2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 460-5507
          Facsimile: (816) 292-2001
          E-mail: jpbradshaw@lathropgage.com

               - and -

          Franco A. Corrado, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Telephone: (215) 963-4806
          E-mail: fcorrado@morganlewis.com


ONTARIO: Koskie Minsky Commences Solitary Confinement Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP has commenced a class action against the
Province of Ontario alleging human rights violations relating to
the over-use of solitary confinement in Ontario prisons.

The statement of claim issued on April 20, 2017 alleges, among
other things, that the Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services has been negligent, has breached its
fiduciary duties and has breached the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms in placing mentally ill prisoners in solitary
confinement for prolonged periods.

The class includes all mentally ill prisoners who were subjected
to solitary confinement in Ontario prisons between January 1, 1985
and the present. The Plaintiff's lawyers believe that thousands of
people will be included in this class proceeding.
Conrey Francis, a prisoner who has been remanded at the Toronto
South Detention Centre since January 2015 and who was recently
acquitted of all charges, is the proposed representative
plaintiff.

Kirk Baert, a partner at Koskie Minsky LLP, stated "For too long,
the government of Ontario has ignored ongoing human rights
violations in their own institutions. Over-reliance on solitary
confinement must come to an end."

James Sayce, a lawyer at Koskie Minsky, stated "Prisoners are
being locked away in solitary confinement and forgotten. This
practice is shocking and the responsible government actors should
be held accountable."


OREGON: Disability Rights Group Sue over In-Home Services Cuts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Mccann, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
thousands of disabled Oregonians will be hurt by inexplicable cuts
to in-home services, a disability rights group claims in a federal
class action in Eugene, Ore.

Five people with disabilities, using pseudonyms, sued the Oregon
Department of Human Services and the Office of Development
Disabilities Services over the cuts which began last September.
Three plaintiffs have autism spectrum disorders, and two have
cerebral palsy.  They say the cuts violate their due process
rights, and "put some members of the class at serious risk of
segregation and isolation, in violation of the integration mandate
of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation
Act."

"The defendants supplied no individualized explanation for those
cuts, justifying them only by citing to an opaque needs assessment
tool, whose operation is not explained in the notice or anywhere
else," the complaint states.

In-home services provided to the proposed class members are funded
with Medicaid money through the Department of Human Services, and
every year the state reevaluates their needs using "an internal
and undisclosed algorithm," according to the April 10 complaint.
The most recent changes to needs assessment reduce the hours
generated by around 30 percent, which caused major reductions to
people who need the in-home services, the plaintiffs say. They say
it is impossible for a consumer to understand the formula used.

Four plaintiffs are adults, and one is a 9-year-old boy. The boy,
who has autism, has intense emotional outbursts and because of his
large size needs an adult larger than his mother to prevent him
from injuring himself.

Another plaintiff, a 40-year-old woman with cerebral palsy, says
the reduced hours are not enough to meet her needs, and that her
parents were not allowed to participate in the process seeking an
exception.

"This reduction of in-home care hours compromises her safety in
the home, because she will not have adequate resources to ensure
that her behavioral challenges are managed," the complaint states.

Around 8,000 adults and 3,000 children in Oregon have used in-home
care services since 2015, and the reductions eliminate much-needed
care for them, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs say the cuts also violate the Medicaid Act because
Oregon cannot cut benefits in a way that does not meet people's
medical needs.

"By failing to provide a reason for the benefit cuts, DHS has left
countless families, not only puzzled, but completely in the dark,"
Tom Stenson, an attorney with Disability Rights Oregon, said in a
statement. "Without making clear how these hours were calculated,
DHS has essentially created a black box that shields their
decisions from public scrutiny and prevents people with
disabilities from arguing that the calculation does not accurately
reflect their needs."

The plaintiffs seek class certification, declaratory judgment and
an injunction, and damages for violations of due process under the
Fourteenth Amendment, for lack of notice and use of a secret
algorithm, and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the Rehabilitation Act, and the Social Security Act.

They are represented by Kathleen Wilde with Disability Rights
Oregon, in Portland.

The case is captioned, C.S. ex rel. K.C.; K.C. ex rel L.C.; T.B.
ex rel. C.B.; B.B. ex rel C. B.; T.C. ex rel L.C., on their own
behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. CLYDE SAIKI, in his official capacity as Director of Department
of Human Services, State of Oregon; and LILIA TENINTY, in her
official capacity as the Director of the Office of Developmental
Disabilities Services, Oregon Department of Human Services,
Defendants, Civ. No. 6:17-cv-00564 (D. Ore.).

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

     Kathleen L. Wilde, Esq
     Thomas Stenson, Esq.
     Gordon Magella, Esq.
     DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON
     610 SW Broadway, Suite 200
     Portland OR 97205
     Tel: (503) 243 2081
     Fax: (503) 243 1738
     E-mail: kwilde@droregon.org
             tstenson@droregon.org
             gmagella@droregon.org


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: "Douvris" Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, Inc. is defending against a class action
lawsuit by Douvris et al, Ormat said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On August 5, 2016, George Douvris, Stephanie Douvris, Michael
Hale, Cheryl Cacocci, Hillary E. Wilt and Christina Bryan, acting
for themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated
residents of the lower Puna District, filed a complaint in the
Third Circuit Court for the State of Hawaii seeking certification
of a class action for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
consequential and punitive damages, attorney's fees and statutory
interest against PGV and other presently unknown defendants. The
complaint purports that injuries and other damages in an
undisclosed amount were caused to the plaintiffs as a result of an
alleged toxic release by PGV in the wake of Hurricane Iselle in
August 2014. On August 25, 2016, the Company filed to remove the
case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. On
December 12, 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for joinder of HELCO as an additional defendant, to amend the
complaint, and to remand the case back to the Third Circuit Court.
The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law, and
intends to defend itself vigorously.

Ormat is a vertically integrated company that is currently
primarily engaged in the geothermal and recovered energy power
business.


PARAMOUNT GOLD: Former Stockholders' Litigation Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss the case captioned, IN RE PARAMOUNT GOLD AND SILVER CORP.
STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION, Case No. No. 10499-CB (Del. Ch.).

In the action, former stockholders of Paramount Gold and Silver
Corporation (Paramount) sued the members of its board of directors
challenging a transaction Paramount entered with Coeur Mining,
Inc. (Coeur) that closed in April 2015. Shortly after the Merger's
announcement on December 17, 2014, six actions were filed in the
Court challenging the transaction. On February 18, 2015, the Court
consolidated the various actions into this action and appointed
lead counsel.

On August 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint
(as defined above, the Complaint), asserting a single claim for
breach of fiduciary duty against the seven members of Paramount's
board in connection with their approval of the transaction. The
Third Amended Complaint added back allegations challenging certain
disclosures in the Registration Statement, including allegations
that plaintiffs had deleted just four months earlier.

On September 28, 2016, defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint
for failure to state a claim for relief.

In the Memorandum Opinion dated April 13, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/HgvSrc from Leagle.com, the Court of Chancery held
that the Complaint failed to state a claim.

Plaintiffs are represented by Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. -- sdr@rl-
legal.com -- Brian D. Long, Esq. -- bdl@rl-legal.com -- Gina M.
Serra, Esq. -- gms@rl-legal.com -- and -- Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. --
jjr@rl-legal.com -- RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. -- Derrick B. Farrell,
Esq. -- derrick.farrell@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LLP --
Michael Van Gorder, Esq. -- mvangorder@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI &
FARUQI, LLP -- Peter Andrews, Esq. -- ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC --
Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. -- shopkins@zlk.com -- and -- Sebastiano
Tornatore, Esq. -- etripodi@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP --
Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. -- jml@jlclasslaw.com -- LIFSHITZ & MILLER

Christopher Crupi, John Carden, Michel Stinglhamber, Robert
Dinning, Eliseo Gonzalez-Urien, Christopher Reynolds, and Shawn
Kennedy are represented by Albert H. Manwaring, IV, Esq. --
amanwaring@morrisjames.com -- and -- Albert J. Carroll, Esq. --
acarroll@morrisjames.com -- MORRIS JAMES LLP


PATTERN ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff Dismisses Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Pattern Energy Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the lead plaintiff in a
shareholder class action lawsuit has agreed to dismiss the case.

The Company said, "We and certain of our executive officers have
been named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California in November 2016 alleging that defendants
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions relating to disclosures
related to our internal controls. The complaint was filed on
behalf of the putative class of stockholders who purchased shares
of our Class A common stock between May 9, 2016 and November 4,
2016, and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class.
In January 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff of the
putative class. The lead plaintiff has since agreed to voluntarily
dismiss the case with prejudice. The parties have filed a
stipulation with the court to this effect."

Pattern Energy is an independent power company focused on owning
and operating power projects with stable long-term cash flows in
attractive markets with potential for continued growth of our
business.


PRA GROUP: TCPA Case Settlement Subject to Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation
against PRA Group, Inc., remains subject to final court approval,
PRA Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers'
cellular telephones without their prior express consent. On
December 21, 2011, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation entered an order transferring these matters into one
consolidated proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (the "Court"). On November 14,
2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their amended
consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection
Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action"). Following
the ruling of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission on June
10, 2015 on various petitions concerning the TCPA, the Court
lifted the stay of these matters that had been in place since May
20, 2014. In January 2016, the parties reached a settlement
agreement in principle ("the Settlement Agreement") under which
the parties agreed to seek court approval of class certification
and the proposed settlement. As required by the Settlement
Agreement, which remains subject to final court approval, the
parties sought preliminary Court approval of the Settlement
Agreement, and the Company paid $18 million to resolve the MDL
action during the second quarter of 2016. The Company had fully
accrued for the settlement amount as of December 31, 2015.

Headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia and incorporated in Delaware,
PRA Group is a global financial and business services company with
operations in the Americas and Europe.


PREMIUM PACKING: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in "Diaz" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
grants the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action
settlement in the lawsuit captioned MARIO IVAN ESPINOZA DIAZ and
GUILLERMO CRUZ CRUZ, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. PREMIUM PACKING, INC., a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 5:15-cv-01258-EJD
(N.D. Cal.).

The Court certifies for settlement purposes, for treatment as a
class action, a settlement class defined as all persons employed
by Defendant as piece-rate agricultural workers assigned by
Defendant to work for its clients during the period beginning
February 10, 2011 to and including December 31, 2015.

The Court orders the Defendant to make a payment into the
settlement fund, in accordance with the procedures set forth in
the Settlement, of the amount needed to fund all amounts payable
under the Settlement separate from the Safe Harbor Amount
previously paid by the Defendant.  The Court orders that payment
from the settlement fund of settlement administration fees to Dahl
Administration in the amount of $12,111 be made in accordance with
the Settlement.

The Plaintiffs are awarded the amount of $140,000 of which $7,158
is for litigation costs, and $132,821 is for reasonable attorney's
fees, to be paid from the settlement fund.  The Court awards the
Plaintiffs the amount of $4,000 each as a class representative
enhancement payment.

The Court directs that this order be entered as a final judgment
dismissing the action with prejudice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3hUgHe59

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Santos Gomez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SANTOS GOMEZ
          2901 Park Avenue, B16
          Soquel, CA 95073
          Telephone: (831) 471-8780
          Facsimile: (831) 471-8774
          E-mail: santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com

               - and -

          Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
          KARASIK LAW FIRM
          11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1275
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-6800
          Facsimile: (310) 943-2582
          E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: November 2018 Trial in "Hsu" Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Puma Biotechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the court has set a
trial for November 6, 2018, in the case, Hsu vs. Puma
Biotechnology, Inc., et al.

The Company said, "On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class
action lawsuit against us and certain of our executive officers in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Case No. 8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG).  On October 16, 2015,
lead Plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed an amended complaint on
behalf of all persons who purchased our securities between July
22, 2014 and May 29, 2015.  The amended complaint alleges that we
and certain of our executive officers made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about our
business, operations, prospects and performance in violation of
Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief."

"On November 30, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. The plaintiff opposed this motion, and the court heard
oral argument on March 14, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the court
denied our motion to dismiss.  The court set a trial for November
6, 2018. We intend to vigorously defend this matter."

Puma is a biopharmaceutical company with a focus on the
development and commercialization of innovative products to
enhance cancer care.


R1 RCM: Settlement Reached in "Anger" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
R1 RCM Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that the parties in a class action
lawsuit have reached a settlement in principle.

On July 22, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan (Anger v. Accretive Health,
Inc.). The primary allegations are that the Company attempted to
collect debts without providing the notice required by the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act and Michigan Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and failed to abide by the terms of an agreed
payment plan in violation of those same statutes. On August 27,
2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's
motion to dismiss. An amended complaint was filed on November 30,
2015.

Discovery is underway, but on July 15, 2016, the court postponed
all deadlines in the case as the parties attempt to finalize a
confidential agreement in principle to settle the case.

On February 23, 2017, the parties reached a settlement in
principle and are preparing a motion for pre-approval and class
settlement. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses
and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims, if
the settlement in principle is not finalized.

R1 is a provider of revenue cycle management, or RCM, services and
physician advisory services, or PAS, to healthcare providers.  It
helps healthcare providers generate sustainable improvements in
their operating margins and cash flows while also enhancing
patient, physician and staff satisfaction for customers.


REALTY CONSULTING: "Williams" Hits Illegal Provision in Lease
-------------------------------------------------------------
Startrecey Williams, Individually and on behalf all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Realty Consulting Services, Inc.
and Apartment Investors XVIILP, Defendants, Case No. 2017CH05302
(Ill. Cir., April 12, 2017), seeks statutory damages attorney's
fees, litigation expenses and costs as specified in City of
Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.

Apartment Investors owns the property at 7708-18 S. Shore Drive in
Chicago (Sunrise Property) at which Plaintiff leases an apartment.
RCS manages various apartment properties in the City of Chicago.
Realty Consulting Services manages the Sunrise Property.

Defendants attempted to enforce a provision in their rental
agreement insisting that a lessee is liable for the lessor's
attorney's fees incurred to enforce lessee's compliance with the
terms of the lease. Defendant filed a counterclaim in Cook County
Circuit Court Case No. 2014-M1-142448 for breach of lease against
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      JS LAW
      29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone (312) 756-1330
      Email: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com


REALPAGE INC: "Stokes" Class Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------
RealPage, Inc. continues to defend the "Stokes" class action
lawsuit, RealPage said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "In March 2015, we were named in a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, styled Stokes v. RealPage, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01520. The claims in this purported class action
relate to alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") in connection with background screens of prospective
tenants of our clients. On January 25, 2016, the court entered an
order placing the case on hold until the United States Supreme
Court issued its decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which case
addressed issues related to standing to bring claims related to
the FCRA."

"On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in the
Spokeo litigation, vacating the decision of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and remanding the case for
further consideration by the U.S. Court of Appeals. Following the
Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, the judge in the Stokes case
lifted the stay. On June 24, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss
certain claims made in the case based upon the Spokeo decision. On
October 19, 2016, the U.S. District Court denied the motion to
dismiss. We intend to defend this case vigorously."

RealPage, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a technology leader to
the real estate industry, helping owners, managers, and investors
optimize both operational yields and investment returns.


REALPAGE INC: "Jenkins" Class Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------
RealPage, Inc. continues to defend the "Jenkins" class action
lawsuit, RealPage said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "In November 2014, we were named in a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, styled Jenkins v. RealPage, Inc.,
Case No. 3:14cv758. The claims in this purported class action
relate to alleged violations of the FCRA in connection with
background screens of prospective tenants of our clients. This
case has since been transferred to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On January 25,
2016, the court entered an order placing the case on hold until
the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in the Spokeo
case. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, the judge
in the Jenkins case lifted the stay."

"On June 24, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss certain claims
made in the case based upon the Spokeo decision. On October 19,
2016, the U.S. District Court denied the motion to dismiss. We
intend to defend this case vigorously."

RealPage, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a technology leader to
the real estate industry, helping owners, managers, and investors
optimize both operational yields and investment returns.


REHABCARE GROUP: Settlement in TCPA Suit Has Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dale A. Drozd of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted plaintiff's
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement and certification of the settlement class in the case
captioned, DAKOTA MEDICAL, INC., a California corporation doing
business as Glenoaks Convalescent Hospital, Plaintiff, v.
REHABCARE GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, and CANNON &
ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation doing
business as Polaris Group, Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-02081-DAD-
BAM (E.D. Cal.).

The complaint in the action was filed on December 29, 2014,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA). Plaintiff alleges defendants violated the TCPA and various
regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) by sending more than 2.4 million transmissions of junk faxes
to long-term care facilities throughout the country.

The complaint alleges that defendants purchased lists of fax
numbers for more than 12,000 long-term care facilities from a
third party, Billian Publishing, Inc., and had no reason to
believe these health care providers had given their permission to
receive these advertisements. Further, the advertisements
allegedly failed to include opt-out notices mandated by federal
law. Defendants purportedly hired an outside company, WestFax,
Inc., to carry out the fax advertising campaign en masse.

On November 22, 2016 the class action had been settled, and the
then-pending certification.

Plaintiff filed the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement and certification of a settlement class on March
21, 2017. The proposed class for this settlement is defined as
"all persons that were subscribers of facsimile telephone numbers
to which there was a successful transmission of one or more
facsimiles by Defendants (or either of them) between July 17,
2010, and February 4, 2014, in broadcasts by WestFax Inc." The
settlement is structured as a common fund for $25 million, and
seeks appointment of plaintiff as class representative, and
attorneys C. Darryl Cordero of Payne & Fears LLP, Donald R.
Fischbach of Dowling Aaron Inc., and Joel S. Magolnick of Marko &
Magolnick, P.A. as class counsel.

In his Order dated April 19, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/0Kbepp from Leagle.com, Judge Drozd found that the
settlement is preliminarily fair, reasonable, and in the best
interests of the proposed settlement class. The Court appointed
Plaintiff Dakota Medical, Inc. as representative of the settlement
class; C. Darryl Cordero of Payne & Fears LLP as lead settlement
class counsel and Donald R. Fischbach of Dowling Aaron and Joel S.
Magolnick of Marko & Magolnick P.A. as settlement class counsel;
and KCC LLC as the settlement administrator.

Dakota Medical, Inc. is represented by Donald R. Fischbach, Esq. -
- dfischbach@dowlingaaron.com -- and -- Mark D. Kruthers, Esq. --
mkruthers@dowlingaaron.com -- DOWLING AARON INCORPORATED

Dakota Medical, Inc. is represented by Daniel Friedman Lula, Esq.
-- dfl@paynefears.com -- Leilani Elizabeth Livingston, Esq. --
dml@paynefears.com -- Matthew K. Brown, Esq. -- mkb@paynefears.com
-- and -- Scott Olin Luskin, Esq. -- sol@paynefears.com -- PAYNE &
FEARS LLP

RehabCare Group, Inc. is represented by Jon Wilson, Esq. --
jwilson@broadandcassel.com -- Kimberly Freedman, Esq. --
kfreedman@broadandcassel.com -- Melissa Jill Gomberg, Esq. --
mgomberg@broadandcassel.com -- and -- Erin Kristen Kolmansberger,
Esq. -- ekolmansberger@broadandcassel.com -- BROAD AND CASSEL --
Oliver W. Wanger, Esq. -- owanger@wjhattorneys.com -- WANGER JONES
HELSLEY PC


RENEWABLE ENERGY: "Stacy" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Stacy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Renewable Energy Center, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00755 (S.D. Cal., April 14, 2017) seeks damages,
injunctive relief and any other available legal or equitable
remedies under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Ms. Stacy received numerous telephone calls on her cellular
telephone from Defendant, in which Defendant utilized an automatic
telephone dialing system with an artificial or prerecorded voice,
offering a power bill-reduction service from a certain "American
Pro Energy." All calls were placed without Plaintiff's consent.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

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


REPUBLIC SCHOOLS: Tenn. Court Certifies Class in "Skeete" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., granted in part and denied in
part the Representative Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
in the lawsuit captioned IRIKA SKEETE, et al. v. REPUBLIC SCHOOLS
NASHVILLE, Case No. 3:16-cv-00043 (M.D. Tenn.).  The Court
certifies one class (no subclass) defined as:

     All individuals who were sent and received a text to their
     cellular telephones by RePublic Schools Nashville ("RSN")
     from the number (615) 270-4554 during the time period
     August 17, 2015, through January 15, 2016, and whose
     cellular phone number was obtained by RSN from the
     Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools database.

The Court also granted the Defendant's motion for leave to file
notice of supplemental authority.

Judge Crenshaw ordered the parties to participate in alternative
dispute resolution, pursuant to Rules 16.02 - 16.08 of the Local
Rules of Court.  Judge Crenshaw states that the Magistrate Judge
will issue all necessary orders to implement the type of
alternative dispute resolution he selects as appropriate.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lK5fwtPQ


RESOLUTE FOREST: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Resolute Forest Products Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit remains pending, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On March 2, 2016, a proposed class action lawsuit (Reynolds, et al
v. Resolute Forest Products Inc., Resolute FP US Inc., Resolute FP
US Health and Resolute Welfare Benefit Plan) was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
on behalf of certain Medicare-eligible retirees who were
previously unionized employees of our Calhoun, Tennessee; Catawba,
South Carolina; and Coosa Pines, Alabama, mills, and their spouses
and dependents. The plaintiffs allege that the modifications
described above breach the collective bargaining agreements and
plan covering the members of the proposed class in the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs seek reinstatement of the health care benefits as in
effect before January 1, 2015, for the proposed class in the
lawsuit. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and
intends to defend the action.

On May 23, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. The proposed class action lawsuit is at a preliminary
stage and no class has been certified.

Resolute Forest is a global leader in the forest products industry
with a diverse range of products, including market pulp, tissue,
wood products, newsprint and specialty papers.


ROCK FISH: Faces Proposed Wage-and-Overtime Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson at Law360 reports the Southern California hospitality
company behind the luxury Shade Hotels and several popular
restaurants, including one that was jointly founded with members
of rock band Kiss, got smacked on April 18 in county court with a
proposed wage-and-overtime class action by a current employee at
its steak and seafood eatery Rock'n Fish.

Restaurateur and hotelier Michael Zislis' Manhattan Beach-based
Zislis Group, whose eateries include two Rock'n Fish restaurants
and the Rock & Brews comfort food chain that Zislis co-founded
with Kiss' Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley, allegedly violated
California law by failing to provide required meal and rest
periods and to pay overtime and minimum wages, according to
employee David Martinez Oliva.

The suit -- which names the Rock'n Fish restaurants, the Zislis
Group and Zislis Boutique Hotels LLC but not the Rock & Brews
chain -- claims that the potential class of current and former
employees were routinely expected to work off the clock and denied
overtime and required break periods in violation of the California
Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders and the
Business and Professions Code.

"During the class period, as part of defendants' illegal payroll
policies and practices to deprive their non-exempt employees all
wages earned and due, defendants required, permitted or otherwise
suffered plaintiff and class members to take less than the 30-
minute meal period, or to work through them, and have failed to
otherwise provide the required meal periods to plaintiff and class
members pursuant to California Labor Code 226.7, 512 and IWC Order
No 5-2001," Martinez said in his complaint.

Over the past four years, Oliva said, Rock'n Fish illegally
calculated overtime compensation, failed to pay all wages due to
discharged and quitting employees, failed to indemnify employees
for expenditures and losses incurred in discharging their duties
and didn't provide accurate itemized wage statements or maintain
required records.

Oliva and the proposed class seek compensatory damages to be
determined at trial, restitution of unpaid wages and overtime,
disgorged profits from the defendants' allegedly unfair and
unlawful business practices, liquidated damages pursuant to
California Labor Code and statutory and civil penalties.

Zislis Group representatives did not immediately respond to a
request for comment on April 20.

Legal counsel for Oliva did not respond to a request for comment.

Oliva is represented by Matthew J. Matern --
MMatern@maternlawgroup.com --  and Tagore O. Subramaniam --
Tsubramaniam@maternlawgroup.com -- of Matern Law Group PC.

Legal counsel information for Zislis Group was not available.

The case is David Martinez Oliva v. Rock Fish LLC et al., number
BC658207, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles.


SEARS HOME: Wins Bid to Strike Class Claims in "Coleman" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Nannette Jolivette Brown granted the Defendant's motion
to strike class allegations in the lawsuit captioned ANTHONY
COLEMAN AND AVA COLEMAN v. SEARS HOME IMPROVEMENT PRODUCTS INC.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-02537-NJB-MBN (E.D. La.).

Judge Brown also ordered the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint
to eliminate their class allegations.  Judge Brown denied as moot
the Plaintiffs' precautionary motion to certify class and the
Plaintiffs' subsequent motion to withdraw motion to certify class
and all claims related to the proposed class action.

In this litigation, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant
failed to ensure that their roof was properly installed pursuant
to their contract and in accordance with applicable building codes
and manufacturer specifications.  The Plaintiffs bring the action
individually and as a class action on behalf of all customers of
SHIP nationwide, who contracted with SHIP to replace their current
roof with a 3-tab shingle roof between January 2006 and January
2016.

The Court finds that it is facially apparent from the pleadings
that the Plaintiffs' class action allegations are deficient under
Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Plaintiffs' second amended complaint fails to plead the
minimum facts necessary to support a class action under Rule 23,
and the fatal flaws in the complaint cannot be cured by additional
discovery or an evidentiary hearing, Judge Brown opined.

In particular, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs' overbroad
class allegations lack commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation, and that the Plaintiffs failed to allege facts to
support a finding that Rule 23(b)'s requirements for predominance
and superiority are satisfied.  Moreover, the Court finds that the
Plaintiffs failed to comply with Local Rule 23, as their amended
complaint does not refer to the portions of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 "under which it is claimed that the suit is properly
maintainable as a class action."

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


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Securities Action Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. continues to face a securities class
action lawsuit in California, the Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker
v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA
(KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company, the Chairman of the
Company's Board, certain of its executive officers and Blackstone.
On February 27, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs,
Pensionskassen For Borne- Og Ungdomspaedagoger and Arkansas Public
Employees Retirement System, together with additional plaintiffs,
Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke Pines
Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund (collectively,
"Plaintiffs"), filed an amended complaint against the Company, the
Chairman of the Company's Board, certain of its executive
officers, Blackstone, and underwriters of the initial public
offering and secondary public offerings.  The amended complaint
alleges, among other things, that the prospectus and registration
statements filed contained materially false and misleading
information in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.  Plaintiffs
contend that defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that
Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld's business at the time of each
public statement.

On May 29, 2015, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint.  On March 31, 2016, the
Court granted the motions to dismiss the amended complaint, in its
entirety, without prejudice.  On May 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a
second amended consolidated class action complaint ("Second
Amended Complaint"), which, among other things, no longer names
the Company's Board or underwriters as defendants.  On June 29,
2016, the remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint.  On September 30, 2016, the Court denied
the motion to dismiss.

On October 28, 2016, defendants filed their Answer to the Second
Amended Complaint. The Company believes that the class action
lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the
ultimate outcome of this lawsuit.

SeaWorld is a theme park and entertainment company providing
experiences that matter and inspiring guests to protect animals
and the wild wonders of the world.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in "Hall" Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the appeal by
Plaintiffs in the "Hall" consumer class action lawsuit remains
pending.

On March 25, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the Company, captioned Holly Hall v. SeaWorld
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00600-CAB-RBB (the "Hall
Matter").  The complaint identifies three putative classes
consisting of all consumers nationwide who at any time during the
four-year period preceding the filing of the original complaint,
purchased an admission ticket, a membership or a SeaWorld
"experience" that includes an "orca experience" from the SeaWorld
amusement park in San Diego, California, Orlando, Florida or San
Antonio, Texas respectively.  The complaint alleges causes of
action under California Unfair Competition Law, California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California False
Advertising Law, California Deceit statute, Florida Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, as well as claims for Unjust Enrichment.  Plaintiffs' claims
are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the
physical living conditions and care and treatment of its orcas,
resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket
purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its orcas with
intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class
members.  The complaint further alleges that the specific
misrepresentations heard and relied upon by Holly Hall in
purchasing her SeaWorld tickets concerned the circumstances
surrounding the death of a SeaWorld trainer.  The complaint seeks
actual damages, equitable relief, attorney's fees and costs.
Plaintiffs claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $5.0
million, but the liability exposure is speculative until the size
of the class is determined (if certification is granted at all).

In addition, four other purported class actions were filed against
the Company and its affiliates.  The first three actions were
filed on April 9, 2015, April 16, 2015 and April 17, 2015,
respectively, in the following federal courts: (i) the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
captioned Joyce Kuhl v. SeaWorld LLC et al., 6:15-cv-00574-ACC-GJK
(the "Kuhl Matter"), (ii) the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, captioned Jessica Gaab, et. al.
v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15:cv-842-CAB-RBB (the
"Gaab Matter"), and (iii) the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, captioned Elaine Salazar Browne v.
SeaWorld of Texas LLC et al., 5:15-cv-00301-XR (the "Browne
Matter").  On May 1, 2015, the Kuhl Matter and Browne Matter were
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the respective
plaintiffs.  On May 7, 2015, plaintiffs Kuhl and Browne re-filed
their claims, along with a new plaintiff, Valerie Simo, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California in an action captioned Valerie Simo et al. v. SeaWorld
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15:cv-1022-CAB-RBB (the "Simo
Matter"). All four of these cases, in essence, reiterate the
claims made and relief sought in the Hall Matter.

On August 7, 2015, the Gaab Matter and Simo Matter were
consolidated with the Hall Matter, and the plaintiffs filed a
First Consolidated Amended Complaint ("FAC") on August 21, 2015.
The FAC pursued the same seven causes of action as the original
Hall complaint, and added a request for punitive damages pursuant
to the California CLRA.

The Company moved to dismiss the FAC in its entirety, and its
motion was granted on December 24, 2015.  The United States
District Court for the Southern District of California granted
dismissal with prejudice as to the California CLRA claim, the
portion of California Unfair Competition Law claim premised on the
CLRA claim, all claims for injunctive relief, and on all
California claims premised solely on alleged omissions by the
Company.  The United States District Court for the Southern
District of California granted leave to amend as to the remainder
of the complaint.

On January 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint ("SAC").  The SAC pursues the same causes of
action as the FAC, except for the California CLRA, which, as noted
above, was dismissed with prejudice.  The Company filed a motion
to dismiss the entirety of the SAC with prejudice on February 25,
2016.  The United States District Court for the Southern District
of California granted the Company's motion to dismiss the entire
SAC with prejudice and entered judgment for the Company on May 13,
2016.

Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit") on June 10,
2016.  The appeal has been fully briefed and is awaiting an oral
argument date.

SeaWorld is a theme park and entertainment company providing
experiences that matter and inspiring guests to protect animals
and the wild wonders of the world.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Discovery Conference Held in "Anderson"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks &
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-02172 (N.D. Cal.), counsel
to the parties attended a discovery conference on March 16, 2017,
before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.  Parties met and
conferred for two hours.  Parties reached a tentative resolution
of issues raised by a Joint Letter Brief 113 . If the issues are
not fully resolved, the parties will follow the Court's joint
letter procedure.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. continues to face the class action
lawsuit by Marc Anderson, et al., the Company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County
of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc.,
captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks &
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-545292 (the "Anderson
Matter").  The putative class consists of all consumers within
California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to
SeaWorld San Diego.  On May 11, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First
Amended Class Action Complaint (the "First Amended Complaint").
The First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action under the
California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition
Law and California CLRA.  Plaintiffs' claims are based on their
allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living
conditions and care and treatment of its orcas, resulting in
confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted
material facts regarding its orcas with intent to deceive and
mislead the plaintiff and purported class members.  The First
Amended Complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief,
attorneys' fees and costs.  Based on plaintiffs' definition of the
class, the amount in controversy exceeds $5.0 million, but the
liability exposure is speculative until the size of the class is
determined (if certification is granted at all).

On May 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No.
15:cv-2172-SC.  On May 19, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand.

On September 18, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint in its entirety.  The motion was fully
briefed.  On September 24, 2015, the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California denied plaintiffs' motion
to remand.

On October 5, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
motion for reconsideration of this order, and contemporaneously
filed a petition for permission to appeal to the Ninth Circuit,
which the Company opposed.  On October 14, 2015, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
plaintiffs' motion for leave.  Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration was fully briefed.

On January 12, 2016, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part
the motion for reconsideration, and refused to remand the case.
On January 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to
appeal the January 12, 2016 order to the Ninth Circuit, which the
Company opposed.  On April 7, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied both
of plaintiffs' petitions for permission to appeal and the
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint ("Second Amended Complaint"), seeking to add two
additional plaintiffs and make various pleading adjustments.  The
Company opposed the motion.

On August 1, 2016, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an order granting in part
the Company's motion to dismiss and granting plaintiffs leave to
file an amended complaint by August 22, 2016, which they filed.

The Second Amended Complaint likewise asserted causes of action
based on the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair
Competition Law and California CLRA.  Essentially plaintiffs
allege there were fraudulent representations made by the Company
about the health of its orcas that ultimately induced consumers to
purchase admission tickets to SeaWorld parks and in some cases,
plush toys while in the parks.  The Company moved to dismiss this
on various grounds.

On November 7, 2016, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an order granting in part,
and denying in part, the Company's motion to dismiss. The United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
found that one named plaintiff failed to allege reliance on any
specific statements so those claims, in their entirety, have been
dismissed.  In addition, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California determined that plaintiffs did not
allege any misrepresentations made about the plush toy purchases,
which disposes of the CLRA claims based on the toys.  The United
States District Court for the Northern District of California also
found that certain plaintiff's conversation with SeaWorld's
trainers was not "advertising," and dismissed the false
advertising claim and Unfair Competition Law claim premised on it.

Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Class Action Complaint on
November 22, 2016.  The Company moved to dismiss portions of that
pleading, but the motion to dismiss was denied.  What remains at
this point are plaintiff's claims under California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law and the CLRA based on the
purchase of tickets; plaintiff's California Unfair Competition Law
and False Advertising Law claims based on the purchase of plush
toys; and plaintiff's claims under California's Unfair Competition
Law based on the purchase of plush toys.

The Company believes that these consumer class action lawsuits are
without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously;
however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome
of these lawsuits.

SeaWorld is a theme park and entertainment company providing
experiences that matter and inspiring guests to protect animals
and the wild wonders of the world.


SOCIETE DE TRANSPORT: RAPLIQ Asks Court to Launch Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Magder at Montreal Gazette reports if transit agencies had
followed the law, most metro and train stations would be
accessible by now, say the lawyers representing people who rely on
wheelchairs to get around.

"The Quebec charter (of Human Rights and Freedoms) went into
effect in 1975, so all the stations built after that point should
be accessible to everyone," said Gilles Gareau, the lawyer
representing the Regroupement des activistes pour l'inclusion au
Quebec (RAPLIQ). The group was in Quebec Superior Court on April
19 and April 20 requesting permission to launch a class-action
suit against the Societe de transport de Montreal, the Agence
metropolitaine de transport and the city of Montreal.

The group claims the charter guarantees their right to equality,
and to build a transit system without elevators excludes them and
is discriminatory.

The first 26 stations of the metro were built in 1966 , and
the first extension was built in 1976. That means the majority of
the 68 stations should have been accessible from the get-go,
Gareau said.

"They are a public agency; they can't just ignore the charter," he
said. "If you offer a public service, it should be accessible to
everyone."

Gareau argued the transit network is inaccessible because of bus
ramps that routinely break down, only 11 out of 68 metro stations
have elevators, and only one of six commuter train lines in the
region has stations that are accessible.

However, the transit agencies countered they can't be held
accountable for those problems, because they are not the ones
deciding whether to make the network accessible -- that is the
role of the elected officials who oversee the agencies.

"You can't sue the STM for decisions on how it allocates its
budget, saying it should have dedicated more resources to public
transit," said Jean-Philippe Desmarais, the lawyer for the STM.
The STM already provides service for people with reduced mobility,
he said. The adapted transit service -- which uses minibuses and
vans adapted to transport people in wheelchairs -- may not be
perfect, he said, but it does allow people in wheelchairs to get
around the city.

"Yes there are inconveniences with the service, but there are also
benefits -- for example, a door-to-door service that people in the
regular network don't have access to," Desmarais said.


SOLARCITY CORP: Class Certification Motion Underway in "Morris"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for class certification in the case, Morris v.
SolarCity Corporation, remains pending, the Company said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On April 20, 2017, SolarCity filed a Statement regarding the
Opposition/Response to the Company's Statement of Recent Decision
In Support of Opposition to Motion for Class Certification.

On November 6, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit, Morris v.
SolarCity, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company. The complaint
alleges that the Company made unlawful telephone marketing calls
to the plaintiff and others, in violation of the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and
statutory damages, on behalf of himself and a certified class. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the
District Court denied on April 6, 2016.   Following discovery,
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on December 15,
2016.  Briefing on class certification was expected to be complete
in late February 2017, and the certification motion will be heard
in March 2017.

SolarCity continues to believe that the claims are without merit
and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company has accrued a
reserve for its potential liability associated with this matter
and the Gibbs matter, as of December 31, 2016.


SOLARCITY CORP: Files Answer to "Gibbs" Suit
--------------------------------------------
In the case, Gibbs et al v. SolarCity Corporation, Case No. 4:16-
cv-11010 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Timothy S Hillman on March 8, 2017,
entered a Memorandum and Order denying SolarCity's Motion to
Dismiss.

On March 22, SolarCity filed its Answer to the Complaint.

SolarCity said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that on June 1, 2016, a putative class
action lawsuit, Gibbs v. SolarCity, alleging that the Company made
unlawful telephone marketing calls in violation of the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, was filed against the Company
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. The two named plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and
statutory damages, on behalf of themselves and a certified class.

The Company has moved to dismiss the complaint; the hearing on
that motion was held on December 8, 2016. The Company believes
that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself
vigorously.  The Company has accrued a reserve for its potential
liability associated with this matter and the Morris matter, as of
December 31, 2016.


SUNDANCE INC: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Flanagan" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JOLENE FLANAGAN, TRAVIS
PIETRYKOWSKI, MICHELLE WILKINS, and DENISE WOOD v. SUNDANCE, INC.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-13598-GCS-RSW (E.D. Mich.), ask the Court to:

   (1) conditionally certify a proposed collective class under
       the Fair Labor Standards Act:

       All Team Members, Shift Leads, other hourly employees,
       Assistant Managers or General Managers that were employed
       with Defendant at any of its Taco Bell locations at any
       time in the past three years;

   (2) implement a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
       Plaintiffs' FLSA claims are sent to all hourly workers,
       assistant managers and general managers for the past three
       years;

   (3) require the Defendants to identify potential opt-in
       plaintiffs; and

   (4) require the Notice to be posted in the Defendants'
       workplaces (away from view of customers but in a common
       place for its employees to view).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=czG507ba

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer Lossia McManus, Esq.
          FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C.
          25892 Woodward Ave.
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 542-6300
          E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com

               - and -

          Megan A. Bonanni, Esq.
          PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS, P.C.
          117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 398-9800
          E-mail: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scott C. Fanning, Esq.
          Joel W. Rice, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          10 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3450
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 346-8061
          E-mail: sfanning@laborlawyers.com
                  jrice@fisherphillips.com


TESLA INC: Faces Suit Over Software Updates on Cars' Autopilots
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Corefield at The Register reports a class-action lawsuit
has been launched against Tesla on the basis that updates to its
cars' autopilots are "vapourware."

The three sample claimants say that they all paid for a variety of
extra features and updates to their Tesla Model S cars, including
updates to version 2 of the Enhanced Autopilot, AP2.0, at USD5,000
each.

Other paid-for features they say did not work or were not bundled
with their new cars include automatic emergency braking and side
collision warnings.

Over-the-air updates were either not delivered, they claim, or
degraded performance of their cars' autopilots compared to the
original version. It is said that 50,000 Model S cars are affected
by the disputed updates.

"Rather than deliver safe and advanced autopilot features, Tesla
has delivered software that causes vehicles to behave
erratically... The Enhanced Autopilot Features are simply too
dangerous to be used, and are therefore, completely useless
notwithstanding the USD5,000 premium that Dean paid for Enhanced
Autopilot," says their claim, filed in California on April 20.
Tesla's website boasts that its Model S is "designed from the
ground up to be the safest, most exhilarating sedan on the road",
as quoted in the complaint.

The three complainants -- Dean Sheikh of Denver, Colorado; John
Kelner of Davie, Florida; and Tim Milone of Jackson, New Jersey --
allege that Tesla has broken a number of US state laws, including
consumer prosecution laws, "unjust enrichment" laws in Florida,
and fraud by concealment.

They want a court injunction against Tesla stopping it from
"continuing the unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent and unfair
business practices alleged in this complaint" and a mandatory
buyback of affected Model S cars -- plus the inevitable lawyers'
fees and damages on top of that.

Tesla has yet to file a response to the suit, number 5:17-cv-
02193-NC in the US District Court for Northern California.


TESLA INC: Dismissal of Securities Action Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that an appeals court has affirmed the
dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit.

In November 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against Tesla in U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, alleging violations of, and seeking remedies pursuant
to, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint made claims against Tesla and
our CEO, Elon Musk, sought damages and attorney's fees on the
basis of allegations that, among other things, Tesla and Mr. Musk
made false and/or misleading representations and omissions,
including with respect to the safety of Model S. This case was
brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of certain
persons who purchased Tesla's securities between August 19, 2013
and November 17, 2013.

On September 26, 2014, the trial court, upon the motion of Tesla
and Mr. Musk, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and
thereafter issued a formal written order to that effect. The
plaintiffs appealed from the trial court's order, and on December
21, 2016, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision
dismissing the complaint with prejudice.


TESLA INC: Appeal in SolarCity Stockholder Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that plaintiff's appeal from the
dismissal of a stockholder class action lawsuit against SolarCity
remains pending.

On March 28, 2014, a purported stockholder class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against SolarCity and two of its officers. The
complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of SolarCity's securities from March
6, 2013 to March 18, 2014. After a series of amendments to the
original complaint, the District Court dismissed the amended
complaint and entered a judgment in SolarCity's favor on August 9,
2016. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal.

"We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend
against this lawsuit vigorously. We are unable to estimate the
possible loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit," the Company
said.


TESLA INC: Stockholder Suit Pending in California
-------------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. is defending against a class action lawsuit by a
SolarCity stockholder in California, Tesla said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On August 15, 2016, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against SolarCity, two of its officers and
a former officer. The complaint alleges that SolarCity made
projections of future sales and installations that it failed to
achieve and that these projections were fraudulent when made. The
plaintiffs claim violations of federal securities laws and seek
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of SolarCity's securities from May
5, 2015 to February 16, 2016.

"We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend
against them vigorously. We are unable to estimate the possible
loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit," the Company said.


TESLA INC: Plaintiffs to File Amended Complaint in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that plaintiffs intend to file an amended
complaint in the litigation relating to the SolarCity acquisition.

Between September 1, 2016 and October 5, 2016, seven lawsuits were
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by
purported stockholders of Tesla challenging Tesla's acquisition of
SolarCity. On October 10, the Court entered orders consolidating
these lawsuits and appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.
The consolidated lawsuit is captioned as In re Tesla Motors, Inc.,
Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 12711-VCS. It names as
defendants the members of Tesla's board of directors and alleges,
among other things, that the members of Tesla's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the SolarCity
acquisition.  It asserts claims derivatively on behalf of Tesla
and directly on behalf of a putative class of Tesla stockholders.
It seeks, among other relief, damages in an unspecified amount and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 27, 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
operative complaint. After receiving the motion, plaintiffs
indicated that they intend to file an amended complaint rather
than respond to the defendants' motion to dismiss. Tesla believes
that the lawsuit is without merit.


TEXAS FARMERS: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Pro Se Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing of the United States District Court
for the District of New Mexico denied plaintiff Mike Hood's
Request for Relief from Dismissal filed January 9, 2017, in the
case captioned, MIKE HOOD, Plaintiff, v. TEXAS FARMERS INSURANCE
COMPANY, FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE by Fire Underwriters Association,
Attorney-in-Fact; FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE by Farmers
Underwriters Association, Attorney-in-Fact; FIRE INSURANCE
EXCHANGE, FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, KIM GARDETTO, BRUCE LITMAN,
and DOES 1 to 50, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00151-JB-LF
(D.N.M.).

On April 14, 2016, the Court issued an order to show cause that
required Mr. Hood to file a written explanation showing good cause
why his class action complaint should not be dismissed. The order
to show cause explained that as a pro se party, Mr. Hood could not
bring claims on behalf of others. Mr. Hood's response to the order
to show case was initially due no later than May 5, 2016.

The Court issued a Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition
(PF&RD) recommending that the Court dismiss Mr. Hood's class
action complaint without prejudice, and allowing him 21 days after
adoption of the PF&RD to amend his complaint.  The PF & RD was
adopted by Judge Browning on August 31, 2016, and granted Mr. Hood
21 days to amend his complaint. Mr. Hood did not file an amended
complaint. Accordingly, Judge Browning issued a Final Judgment on
October 31, 2016, dismissing Mr. Hood's complaint with prejudice.

More than two months after the case was closed, and six months
from the deadline to respond to the order to show cause, Mr. Hood
filed the instant motion requesting relief from judgment. In the
motion, Mr. Hood asks that the Court reopen the case pursuant to
Rule 60(b)(1) explaining that that he did not intend to file the
case as a class action.

In her Proposed Findings and Recommendation dated April 19, 2017
available at https://is.gd/l8LNTj from Leagle.com, Magistrate
Fashing found that Mr. Hood's request for relief from dismissal is
without merit and recommend that the Court deny his motion to
reopen this case.

Mike Hood, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Fire Insurance Exchange is represented by Ryan M. Walters, Esq. --
rwalters@lrrc.com -- LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP


TOYS 'R' US-DELAWARE: Salvan Seeks to Certify 2 Employee Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MARINA SALVAN, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOYS
'R' US-DELAWARE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-04138-JST (N.D. Cal.), asks the
Court to certify these classes:

   * All current and former California employees who received a
     wage statement from Defendant at any time during the period
     of time from June 17, 2015, through July 27, 2016 (the
     "Employee ID Class"); and

   * All current and former California employees who received an
     off-cycle wage statement from Defendant at any time during
     the period of time from June 17, 2015, through the present
     (the "Off-Cycle Wage Statement Class")

Ms. Salvan also asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative and her counsel as class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 22, 2017, at 2:00 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZI1wtWm2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                  kagnew@diversitylaw.com
                  nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
          E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Strike Class Claims in TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Defendant's
motion for partial summary judgment and its request to strike the
class allegations in the case captioned, RENEE GOGGANS, RONALD
FRENCH, and TIFFANY CAHILL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 16 C 2387 (N.D. Ill.).

Renee Goggans, Ronald French, and Tiffany Cahill filed a class-
action complaint against Transworld Systems, Inc., alleging that
Transworld made debt-collection phone calls using an autodialer in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47
U.S.C. Section 227, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, and the Rosenthal Act, Cal. Civ.
Code Section 1788.

In January 2017, Goggans filed a second amended complaint adding
French and Cahill as named plaintiffs. In count 1, plaintiffs
allege that Transworld negligently violated the TCPA by calling
them using an autodialer or artificial voice without their
consent. Plaintiffs allege in count 2 that Transworld's violations
of the TCPA were knowing or willful. In count 3, Goggans alone
alleges that this same conduct violates the FDCPA and that
Transworld further violated the FDCPA by calling her from a phone
number designed to mimic her geographic location (i.e. with an
area code from her geographic area). The three plaintiffs also
seek to certify two classes, one for the claims brought under the
TCPA and one for the claim brought under the FDCPA. The proposed
TCPA class includes all persons whose cell phone number was called
by Transworld using an autodialer or an artificial voice in the
four years prior to the filing of the action, excluding those who
Transworld called for emergency purposes. The proposed FDCPA class
includes all persons who live in California and received a call
from Transworld, in the year prior to the filing of this action,
in which Transworld used an area code assigned to California.

Transworld has moved for summary judgment on Goggans's claims in
counts 1 and 2 and also asks the Court to strike the class claims
asserted in the second amended complaint. Transworld argues that
Goggans expressly consented to receiving phone calls on her cell
phone and never revoked that consent. Transworld also argues that
the class claims should be stricken because the issue of consent
is an individual issue that defeats the predominance requirement
for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3).

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 12, 2017 available
at https://is.gd/JHsDJw from Leagle.com, Judge Kennelly concluded
that (1) Goggans consented to receiving phone calls regarding
payment for her medical services from Pacific Beach; (2) a
reasonable factfinder could conclude that Goggans revoked her
prior express consent; and (3) as to class allegations, the Curt
denied motion to strike because plaintiffs have not filed a motion
for class certification and therefore ruling on issues such as
predominance would be premature and the second amended complaint
includes two additional plaintiffs -- French and Cahill -- whom
plaintiffs contend will also represent the TCPA class.

Renee Goggans is represented by Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq. -- and -
- Alexander Holmes Burke, Esq. -- ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com -- BURKE
LAW OFFICES, LLC -- David M. Marco, Esq. -- dmarco@smithlaw.us --
and -- Larry Paul Smith, Esq. -- lsmith@smithmarco.com --
SMITHMARCO, P.C.

Tiffany Cahill is represented by Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. --
and -- Jason A. Ibey, Esq. -- KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC -- David M.
Marco, Esq. -- dmarco@smithlaw.us -- and -- Larry Paul Smith, Esq.
-- lsmith@smithmarco.com -- SMITHMARCO, P.C. -- Joshua Branden
Swigart, Esq. -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- and -- Yana A.
Hart, Esq. -- yana@westcoastlitigation.com -- HYDE & SWIGART

Transworld Systems, Inc. is represented by James Kevin Schultz,
Esq. -- jschultz@sessions.legal --  Bryan C. Shartle, Esq. --
bshartle@sessions.legal -- Daniel W. Pisani, Esq. --
dpisani@sessions.legal -- and -- Morgan Ian Marcus, Esq. --
mmarcus@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC


TRUECAR INC: "Rose" Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------
TrueCar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a class action lawsuit
by Gordon Rose remains pending.

In December 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed by Gordon Rose in the
California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. The
complaint asserts claims for unjust enrichment, violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and violation of the
California Business and Professions Code, based in part on
allegations that we are operating in the State of California as an
unlicensed automobile dealer and autobroker. The plaintiff seeks
to represent a class of California consumers defined as "[a]ll
California consumers who purchased an automobile by using TrueCar,
Inc.'s price certificate during the applicable statute of
limitations."

On January 12, 2016, the Court entered an order staying all
proceedings in the case pending an initial status conference,
which was previously scheduled for April 13, 2016. On March 16,
2016, the case was reassigned to a different judge. As a result of
that reassignment, the initial status conference was rescheduled
for and held on May 26, 2016.

By stipulation, the stay of discovery has been continued until a
second status conference, which was scheduled for October 12,
2016.

On July 13, 2016, the plaintiff amended his complaint. The amended
complaint continues to assert claims for unjust enrichment,
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and
violation of the California Business and Professions Code. The
amended complaint retains the same proposed class definition as
the initial complaint. Like the initial complaint, the amended
complaint seeks an award of unspecified damages, interest,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

On September 12, 2016, the Company filed a demurrer to the amended
complaint. On October 12, 2016, the Court heard oral argument on
the demurrer. On October 13, 2016, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the Company's demurrer to the amended complaint,
dismissing the unjust enrichment claim but declining to dismiss
the balance of the claims at the demurrer stage of the litigation.

At a status conference held on January 26, 2017, the Court ruled
that discovery may proceed regarding matters related to class
certification only at this time.

"We believe the amended complaint is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the Company in this matter," the Company said.



UNITED AIRLINES: Court Dismisses California Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Greg Mersol, Esq., at BakerHostetler, in an article for JD Supra,
wrote that it is no secret that California is a desired and
favorable forum for class action litigation. It is therefore not
surprising that plaintiffs might try to take advantage of that
forum even when the connection between employment and California
could be questioned. But how far do California's tentacles reach?

In Vidrio v. United Airlines, Case No. 2:15-CV-0985-PSG-MRW (C.D.
Cal. Mar. 15, 2017), the plaintiffs were United flight attendants
who from time to time worked on flights that took off from or
landed in one of eight airports in California. They asserted
California state law claims based on the airline's alleged failure
to provide California-compliant wage statements. The U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California certified a class
consisting of United employees for whom United had applied
California tax laws.

From the outset, however, there were problems with the class
members' connection to California. For example, the bulk of
United's flights are outside of California and the average class
member spent more than 80 percent of his or her time outside of
California. In addition, United is headquartered in Chicago, and
its largest airports are in Chicago, Houston and Newark, not
California.

United moved for summary judgment as to the entire class on the
grounds that class members spent most of their working time
outside of California. The court noted competing tests as to the
application of California law, but found that the plaintiffs'
claims failed under either standard. In looking at the time
employees actually spent in the state and United's overall
operations, the court observed that "United's ties to California
are minimal relative to its overall business." It therefore
granted summary judgment in United's favor.

The Vidrio case illustrates two things. First, cases can still be
won after class certification. Second, while California is indeed
a hospitable forum for employment class action claims, the
challenged employment must still have a sufficient California
nexus.
The bottom line: Plaintiffs must still demonstrate substantial
California employment in order to take advantage of that state's
wage and hour laws.


UNITED COLLECTION: Directed to Produce Class Data
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge Patricia A. Gaughan of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted Plaintiff's Motion
to Compel Defendant to Produce Class Data in the case captioned,
Deborah Meredith, Plaintiff, v. United Collection Bureau, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16 CV 1102 (N.D. Ohio).

Plaintiff Deborah Meredith filed this putative class action
lawsuit on May 9, 2016, alleging that Defendant United Collection
Bureau violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act(TCPA).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, a debt collection service,
initiated multiple telephone calls to her cellular telephone in an
attempt to collect a debt.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's practice of using autodialed,
prerecorded-voice collection calls using contact information
obtained from its clients or third-party skip-trace services
foreseeably results in Defendant making numerous wrong number
calls to the cell phones of people other than the debtor, in
violation of the TCPA. She seeks to represent individuals who
received autodialed, debt collection robocalls from Defendant to
their cell phones without prior express consent.

Plaintiff asked Defendant to write the program that would produce
the class data of wrong number calls and associated account notes
for the class period. In lieu of that, Plaintiff asked Defendant
to produce the relevant portions of its database to Plaintiff so
that her expert could write the program and conduct the query
himself. She also proposed that Defendant forego production of the
class information until after class certification and stipulate to
numerosity under Rule 23. Defendant declined all of Plaintiff's
proposals. Plaintiff then filed its motion to compel, asking the
Court to compel Defendant "to produce those limited portions of
its database that would permit Plaintiff to determine how many,
and which, calls Defendant made to wrong numbers using its dialer
or a prerecorded voice message." Defendant opposes Plaintiff's
motion and has also filed a motion for protective order because
Rule 34 limits the production of electronically stored information
(ESI) to the manner in which it is "kept in the usual course of
business."

In her Memorandum of Opinion and Order dated April 13, 2017
available at https://is.gd/TIdgWI from Leagle.com, Judge Gaughan
held that Plaintiff has met her burden of showing that the
discovery she seeks is relevant and necessary to her claim and
Defendant has not shown that there is good cause for issuing a
protective order.

Deborah Meredith is represented by David M. Marco, Esq. --
dmarco@smithlaw.us -- and -- Larry P. Smith, Esq. --
lsmith@smithmarco.com -- SMITH MARCO

United Collection Bureau, Inc. is represented by Ethan G. Ostroff,
Esq. -- ethan.ostroff@troutmansanders.com -- Lindsey B. Mann, Esq.
-- amanda.mann@troutmansanders.com -- and -- Keith J. Barnett,
Esq. -- keith.barnett@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS --
Jason P. Ferrante, Esq. -- JPFerrante@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL,
DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN


UNITED CONSUMER: Calif. Court Denies Dismissal of "DeClue"
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California denied Defendant
United Consumer Financial Services Company's motion to dismiss the
first amended class action complaint (FAC) in the case captioned,
TREVER DECLUE and KATHERINE DECLUE, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED CONSUMER FINANCIAL
SERVICES COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 16cv2833 JM (JMA)(S.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiffs filed the FAC on February 2, 2017, alleging two causes
of action: (1) negligent violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA); and (2) knowing and/or willful violation of
the TCPA. In the FAC, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant repeatedly
called Mr. DeClue on his personal cell phone, which was included
as part of Ms. DeClue's subscription with her service provider,
after Mr. DeClue revoked consent to do so. Plaintiffs allege on
information and belief that Defendant used an automatic telephone
dialing system (ATDS) to make the calls. Plaintiffs claim that
these calls invaded their privacy interests, resulted in cellular
telephone charges, and generally "frustrated and distressed" them.

On February 15, 2017, Defendant moved the court, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), to dismiss the FAC for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant argues that
Plaintiffs lack standing because they have not suffered a concrete
injury fairly traceable to the alleged TCPA violation.

In his Order dated April 19, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/p9v07d from Leagle.com, Judge Miller found that
Plaintiffs have demonstrated each element of standing to bring the
action and the causal connection between the injury and the
actions complained of.

Katherine Declue and Trever Declue are represented by Joshua
Swigart, Esq. -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- HYDE & SWIGART

            -- and --

      Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY
      409 Camino del Rio South, Ste 101B
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Tel:(619)222-7429

United Consumer Financial Services Company is represented by
Michael Dominic Meuti, Esq. -- mmeuti@bakerlaw.com -- and --
Teresa Carey Chow, Esq. -- tchow@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER
LLP


UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Hill's De Novo Subclass Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. David O. Carter grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification submitted in
the lawsuit styled JENEE HILL v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 8:15-cv-00526-DOC-RNB (C.D. Cal.).

The lawsuit is brought by Jenee Hill against UHIC alleging injury
as a result of UHIC's policy of denying requests for lumbar
artificial disc replacement surgery because it classifies the
surgery as "unproven."  The Plaintiff seeks certification this
class:

     All persons covered under UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company
     health insurance policies issued to private employers or
     self-funded plans administered by UnitedHealthcare Insurance
     Company whose requests for lumbar artificial disc
     replacement surgery were denied at any time within the
     applicable statute of limitations, or whose requests for
     that surgery will be denied in the future, on the ground
     that lumbar artificial disc replacement is unproven.

If the Court deems it necessary, Ms. Hill also offers two
management subclasses:

  1. All persons covered under UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company
     health insurance policies issued to private employers or
     self-funded plans administered by UnitedHealthcare Insurance
     Company whose requests for lumbar artificial disc
     replacement surgery were denied at any time within the
     applicable statute of limitations, or whose requests for
     that surgery will be denied in the future, on the ground
     that lumbar artificial disc replacement is unproven, and
     whose denials are subject to "de novo" review by the
     district court (the "[de novo subclass]").

  2. All persons covered under UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company
     health insurance policies issued to private employers or
     self-funded plans administered by UnitedHealthcare Insurance
     Company whose requests for lumbar artificial disc
     replacement surgery were denied at any time within the
     applicable statute of limitations, or whose requests for
     that surgery will be denied in the future, on the ground
     that lumbar artificial disc replacement is unproven, and
     whose denials are subject to an "abuse of discretion" review
     by the district court (the "[abuse of discretion
     subclass]").

Judge Carter certifies the de novo subclass as defined and
otherwise denies the Motion.  Judge Carter also denies the
Plaintiff's request for additional discovery.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fysyj5aY


USF REDDAWAY: Motion to Certify in "Moss" Suit Under Submission
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John A. Kronstadt has taken under submission the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit
titled Robert Moss, et al. v. USF Reddaway, Inc., Case No. 5:15-
cv-01541-JAK-FFM (C.D. Cal.).

The civil minutes states that the status conference is held in the
case.  Counsel report that they participated in mediation with a
private neutral about one year ago but have not had discussions
since that time.

The motion hearing is held, and the Court states its tentative
views and is inclined to grant the Plaintiffs' Motion.  Counsel
address the Court.  The Court said it takes the Motion under
submission and a ruling will be issued.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qcnZ9qSl

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig J. Achermann, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277-0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277-0635

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ronald J. Holland, II, Esq.
          Pankit J. Doshi, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
          Telephone: (415) 836-2500
          Facsimile: (415) 836-2501
          E-mail: ron.holland@dlapiper.com
                  pankit.doshi@dlapiper.com


VALERO MKTG: Water Contamination Suit Remanded to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Hilda Tagle of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Plaintiffs'
motion to remand in the case captioned, MD HAYNES, INC.; dba
CICI'S PIZZA #88 (AYERS), et al, Plaintiffs, v. VALERO MARKETING
AND SUPPLY CO., et al, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-6 (S.D. Tex.).

The is a putative class action arising out of a water
contamination event in the City of Corpus Christi, Texas that
resulted in a four-day ban on the use of municipal tap water. On
December 15, 2016, Plaintiffs, a group of Corpus Christi
individuals and businesses, filed suit in Court at Law No. 1 in
Nueces County, Texas against Defendants Ergon Asphalt & Emulsions,
Inc. (Ergon) and a number of affiliated Valero entities (Valero,
and collectively with Ergon, Defendants), alleging that their
negligent conduct caused the Contamination Event, and seeking a
temporary restraining order and damages.

They assert state law claims against Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, negligence per se, strict liability for ultra-
hazardous activity, public and private nuisance, and trespass. And
they seek to file their claims "on behalf of the natural or
artificial persons or entities served or otherwise dependent on
water provided by the Corpus Christi municipal water supply who
were affected by Defendants' actions or omissions which resulted
in the contamination of the water supply and consequent tap water
usage ban, governed by Texas law."

On January 10, 2017, Ergon filed a notice of removal in this Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441, 1446, and 1453, citing 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d), the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
(CAFA), as the basis for removal providing this Court with subject
matter jurisdiction.

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motion to remand;
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery;
Defendant Ergon Asphalt & Emulsions, Inc.'s motion for leave to
file objections to Plaintiffs' remand evidence solely on the basis
of its allegation that Plaintiffs "have failed to allege specific
facts regarding the conduct of any local defendant"; and
Plaintiffs' opposed motion to dismiss their claims pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

In her Order dated April 19, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/U2Qvkj rom Leagle.com, Judge Tagle held that
Plaintiffs have demonstrated with reasonable certainty that it
should prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction over their
claims.

MD Haynes, Inc., et al. are represented by Robert C. Hilliard,
Esq. -- bobh@hmglawfirm.com -- John Brandon Martinez, Esq. --
joe@hmglawfirm.com -- Marion M. Reilly, Esq. --
marion@hmglawfirm.com -- and -- Robert H. George, II, Esq. --
rob@hmglawfirm.com -- HILLIARD MUNOZ GONZALES LLP

Valero Marketing and Supply Co., et al. are represented by James
T. Clancy, Jr., Esq. -- jclancy@branscombpc.com -- BRANSCOMB & PC
-- Mikal C. Watts, Esq. -- mcwatts@wattsguerra.com -- WATTS GUERRA
LLP

Ergon Asphalt & Emulsions, Inc. is represented by Russell Carter
Lewis, Esq. -- russell.lewis@bakerbotts.com -- Jacob Scott Janoe,
Esq. -- jacob.janoe@bakerbotts.com -- and -- Louis E. Layrisson,
III, Esq. -- louis.layrisson@bakerbotts.com -- BAKER BOTTS LLP --
Michael D. Hudlow, Jr., Esq. -- mhudlow@hdr-law.com -- and --
Robin Clay Hoblit, Esq. -- choblit@hdr-law.com -- HOBLIT DARLING
RALLS HERNANDEZ & HUDLOW, LLP


VECTRUS INC: Intends to File Supreme Court Petition
---------------------------------------------------
Vectrus, Inc. said it intends to file a petition for certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court, according to the Company's Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The company said, "Among these proceedings, we are defending a
purported class action employment lawsuit that was initiated in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington in April 2010 against our former parent by individuals
who worked on a particular contract in Kuwait after April 12,
2009. The plaintiffs are alleging a breach of employment contract
by our former parent due to an alleged violation of Kuwait labor
law. On November 3, 2016, following an interlocutory appeal by
Vectrus, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's decision certifying a class of plaintiffs. Vectrus
continues to vigorously defend the case, and plans to file a
petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on the class
certification decision in March 2017."

Vectrus, Inc. offers facility and logistics services and
information technology and network communications services.  Its
primary customer is the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) with a
high concentration in the U.S. Army.


WALT DISNEY PARKS: Perrero Moves to Certify Discrimination Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled LEONARDO PERRERO, et al. v.
WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., Case No. 6:16-cv-02144-
CEM-TBS (M.D. Fla.), ask the Court to certify this proposed Race
Discrimination and National Origin Discrimination Class:

     All American-born or naturalized American citizen former
     employees of Defendant who were issued notices of
     termination in October 214 who were all subsequently
     terminated in January 2015 and replaced by an Indian
     national.

The putative class action is brought for alleged unlawful national
origin discrimination and race discrimination in violation of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

In the Motion, the Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint
Plaintiff Leonardo Perrero as Class Representative, and appoint
the law firm of Wenzel, Fenton, Cabassa, P.A., as class counsel.
The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to allow them to notify the
Class members via a Court-approved notice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=N3tLOfbV

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 379-2565
          Facsimile: 813-229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Sara Blackwell, Esq.
          THE BLACKWELL FIRM
          2243 Palm Terrace
          Sarasota, FL 34321
          Telephone: (941) 961-3046
          E-mail: Sara@theblackwellfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mary Ruth Houston, Esq.
          Glennys Ortega Rubin, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BROWN, LLP
          300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1000
          Orlando, FL 32801
          E-mail: mhouston@shutts.com
                  grubin@shutts.com


WATTS REGULATOR: Settlement in "Klug" Granted Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joseph F. Bataillion of the United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska granted final approval of
settlement agreement and attorneys' fees and costs in the case
captioned, CURTIS KLUG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; LAWRENCE NOVER, and NELS ROE, Plaintiffs, v.
WATTS REGULATOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 8:15CV61 (D. Neb.).

On December 7, 2016, the court entered its Order Granting
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; Certification of
Settlement Class; and Approval of Form and Content of Proposed
Notice (Preliminary Approval Order). The Final Fairness Hearing
was held on April 12, 2017, during which the court heard
plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
(Motion for Final Approval) and plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Costs.

In his Memorandum and Order dated April 13, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/r2Y87D from Leagle.com, Judge Bataillion held that
(1) plaintiffs have shown that the law firms of Berger & Montague,
Greg Coleman Law PC, CaffertyClobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, and
McCuneWright LLP (Class Counsel) represented them as well as the
plaintiffs in the companion class action case; (2) Plaintiffs have
shown Class Counsel achieved an extremely successful recovery that
confers a substantial benefit to the settlement class; (3)
plaintiffs' motion for an award of fees which is within the amount
that courts typically award in similar cases and is awarded
$1,200,000 of attorneys' fees; and (4) Plaintiffs have also shown
that Class Counsel incurred a combined total of approximately
$41,689.58 in costs and expenses are reasonable and should be
reimbursed and service award of $5,000.

Lawrence Nover, et al. are represented by Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. --
bclobes@caffertyclobes.com -- and -- Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. --
dherrera@caffertyclobes.com -- CAFFERTY, CLOBES LAW FIRM -- Edward
A. Wallace, Esq. -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- WEXLER, WALLACE LAW
FIRM -- Glen L. Abramson, Esq. -- gabramson@bm.net -- Jeffrey L.
Osterwise, Esq. -- josterwise@bm.net -- and -- Shanon J. Carson,
Esq. -- scarson@bm.net -- BERGER, MONTAGUE LAW FIRM

Watts Regulator Company is represented by David S. MacCuish, Esq.
-- david.maccuish@alston.com -- and -- Evan W. Sippel-Feldman,
Esq. -- evan.sippel-feldman@alston.com  -- ALSTON, BIRD LAW FIRM -
- Jodi D. Oley, Esq. -- joley@eckertseamans.com -- and -- Keith E.
Smith, Esq. -- ksmith@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT, SEAMANS LAW
FIRM


WATTS REGULATOR: Settlement in "Sharp" Granted Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska granted final approval in the
case captioned, DURWIN SHARP, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated; JOSEPH PONZO, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated; KATHRYN MEYERS, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated; and JOSHUA WHIPP, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. WATTS
REGULATOR CO., Defendant, Case No. 8:16CV200 (D. Neb.).

On December 7, 2016, the court entered its Order Granting
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; Certification of
Settlement Class; and Approval of Form and Content of Proposed
Notice (Preliminary Approval Order). The Final Fairness Hearing
was held on April 12, 2017, during which the court heard
plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
(Motion for Final Approval) and plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Costs.

In his Memorandum and Order dated April 13, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/rEAPsD from Leagle.com, Judge Bataillon held that
(1) plaintiffs have shown that the law firms of Berger & Montague,
Greg Coleman Law PC, CaffertyClobes Meriwether &Sprengel LLP, and
McCuneWright LLP (Class Counsel) represented them as well as the
plaintiffs in the companion class action case; (2) Plaintiffs have
shown Class Counsel achieved an extremely successful recovery that
confers a substantial benefit to the settlement class; (3)
plaintiffs' motion for an award of fees which is within the amount
that courts typically award in similar cases and is awarded
$3,000,000 of attorneys' fees; and (4) Plaintiffs have also shown
that Class Counsel incurred a combined total of approximately
$20,844.95 in costs and expenses are reasonable and should be
reimbursed and service award of $5,000.

Joseph Ponzo, et al. are represented by Adam A. Edwards, Esq. --
adam@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Lisa A. White, Esq. --
lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com -- and -- Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. --
greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- GREG COLEMAN LAW FIRM -- Amy E. Keller,
Esq. -- aek@wexlerwallace.com -- and -- Edward A. Wallace, Esq. --
eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- WEXLER, WALLACE LAW FIRM -- Bryan L.
Clobes, Esq. -- bclobes@caffertyclobes.com -- and -- Daniel O.
Herrera, Esq. -- dherrera@caffertyclobes.com -- CAFFERTY, CLOBES
LAW FIRM -- Joseph B. Kenney Esq. -- jbk@mccunewright.com -- and -
- Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. -- jgs@mccunewright.com -- MCCUNE, WRIGHT
LAW FIRM -- Katrina Carroll, Esq. -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com --
and -- Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. -- kshamberg@litedepalma.com --
LITE, DEPALMA LAW FIRM -- Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. --
psheehan@whatleykallas.com -- WHATLEY, KALLAS LAW FIRM

Watts Regulator Co. is represented by David S. MacCuish, Esq. --
david.maccuish@alston.com -- and -- Todd Benoff, Esq. --
todd.benoff@alston.com -- ALSTON, BIRD LAW FIRM -- Jodi D. Oley,
Esq. -- joley@eckertseamans.com -- and -- Keith E. Smith, Esq. --
ksmith@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT, SEAMANS LAW FIRM


WDE GROUP: "Smith" Action Claims Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------
Robert Smith, Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated current and former employees, Plaintiff, v. WDE Group,
Inc., a Tennessee Corporation, Jamison Kuhn Enterprises, Inc., a
Ohio Corporation and Jamison M. Kuhn, Individually, Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00143, (E.D. Tenn., April 14, 2017), seeks
compensation for unpaid overtime and minimum wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs, expenses
and disbursements, reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

WDE Group, Inc. and Jamison Kuhn Enterprises, Inc. are in the
business of delivering packages and parcels for Federal Express
where Smith worked as a driver covering Knoxville, Tennessee area.

Defendant is represented by:

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 759-1745
      Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
             jholt@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com
             pjackson@jsyc.com


WELLS FARGO: Court OKs $1.4MM Fees to Class Counsel
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
final approval to the class settlement in the case captioned,
LATARA BIAS, ERIC BREAUX, and TROY LYNNE MORRISON, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation, and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a national association,
Defendants, Case No. 4:12-cv-00664-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

On December 17, 2015, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court amended the
class definition on March 7, 2016 of "All residents of the United
States of America who had a residential mortgage serviced by Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., or its subsidiaries or divisions, and who paid
for one or more Broker's Price Opinions charged by Wells Fargo
(through PAS), for an amount greater than the amount Wells Fargo
(through PAS) paid a third party vendor for the corresponding
(BPO), from May 6, 2005 through July 1, 2010."

Plaintiffs Latara Bias, Eric Breaux and Troy Lynne Morrison as
Class Representatives, and appoints the law firms of Baron & Budd,
P.C.; Cossich, Sumich, Parsiola and Taylor; and KingsmillRiess,
LLC as Class Counsel.

The Court entered its Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and
Providing for Notice, setting forth the previously certified Class
for settlement purposes only and preliminarily approved Notice of
Settlement to the Class. The Settlement includes the payment of
$50,000,000 in cash, on which interest has accrued, and that
Settlement Class Members will benefit from the Settlement.

Pending before the Court if the motion for final approval of the
Settlement.

In her Order and Judgment dated April 13, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/oSAS9p from Leagle.com, Judge Rogers found that the
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best
interests of the Settlement Class. The proposed awarded attorneys'
fees of $12.5 million, $1.5 million in reimbursement of expenses
and $10,000 for service award are fair and reasonable. Both shall
be drawn from the Settlement Fund and allocated by Class Counsel
in a manner which in their good faith judgment reflects each
counsel's contribution to the institution, prosecution, and
resolution of the Action.

Troy Lynne Morrison, et al. are represented by Daniel Alberstone,
Esq. -- dalbertstone@baronbudd.com -- Mark Philip Pifko, Esq. --
mpifko@baronbudd.com -- and -- Roland K. Tellis, Esq. -- BARON
BUDD, P.C. -- Charles B. Colvin, Esq. --
ccolvin@kingsmillreiss.com -- and -- Mark Elliot Kaufman, Esq. --
kaufman@kaufmankahn.com -- KAUFMAN AND KAHN LLP -- John Van
Nguyen, Esq. -- jvannguyen@kingsmillriess.com -- and -- Marguerite
K. Kingsmill, Esq. -- mkingsmill@kingsmillriess.com --
KINGSMILLRIESS, LLC

Wells Fargo & Company, et al. are represented by Mark Douglas
Lonergan, Esq. -- mdl@severson.com -- Kalama M. Lui-Kwan, Esq. --
kml@severson.com -- Michael Jan Steiner, Esq. -- mjs@severson.com
-- and -- Rebecca SnavelySaelao, Esq. -- rss@severson.com --
SEVERSON & WERSON, P.C.


WESTERN RANGE: Nevada Court Dismisses Peruvian Workers' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert C. Jones of the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada granted the motions to dismiss
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in the case captioned, ABEL
CANTARO CASTILLO et al., Plaintiffs, v. WESTERN RANGE ASSOCIATION
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00237-RCJ-VPC (D. Nev.).

The case is a putative wage and hour class action arising
primarily from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay their
employees minimum wages under Article 15, Section 16 of the Nevada
Constitution. Plaintiffs Abel Cantaro Castillo (Cantaro) and
Alcides Inga Ramos (Inga) are Peruvian citizens lawfully admitted
to the United States under the Department of Labor's (DOL) H-2A
guestworker visa program and were employed as range sheep herders,
engaged to be on call twenty-four hours a day and seven days a
week.

Cantaro filed the action against El Tejon, Gragirena, and WRA on
May 3, 2016, asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the
MWA, failure to pay wages due upon termination under NRS Chapter
608, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment,
and quantum meruit.

Defendants move to dismiss filed motions to dismiss the FAC. Based
on the absence of any claim expressly arising under federal law,
Defendants seek dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
In the alternative, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed
to state a plausible claim for relief, and request dismissal under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

In his Order dated April 13, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/LoAriS from Leagle.com, Judge Jones held that the
case does not raise a substantial question of federal law, and the
Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. The Court
dismissed the FAC in its entirety with leave to amend.

Plaintiffs shall have thirty days from the date of the order
within which to file a second amended complaint remedying, if
possible, the defects.

Abel Cantaro Castillo is represented by Brian C. Corman, Esq. --
bcorman@cohenmilstein.com -- and -- Christine E. Webber, Esq. --
cwebber@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL

            -- and --

      Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
      Leah Lin Jones, Esq.
      Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
      THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
      7287 Lakeside Dr.
      Reno, NV 89511-76520
      Tel:(775)284-1500

Alcides Inga Ramos is represented by Christine E. Webber, Esq. --
cwebber@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL

Western Range Association is represented by Joshua M. Woodbury,
Esq. -- jwoodbury@woodburnandwedge.com -- and -- Ellen Jean
Winograd, Esq. -- ewinograd@woodburnandwedge.com -- WOODBURN AND
WEDGE

Mountain Plains Agricultural Service is represented by Elizabeth
Kline Dorminey, Esq. -- ekd@wimlaw.com -- and -- James Larry
Stine, Esq. -- jls@wimlaw.com -- WIMBERLY, LAWSON, STECKEL,
SCHNEIDER & STINE, PC -- Enrique Raul Schaerer, Esq. --
eschaerer@mcllawfirm.com -- and -- Paul J. Anderson, Esq. --
panderson@mcllawfirm.com -- MAUPIN, COX &LEGOY


WESTERN REFINING: NTI Merger Litigation in Early Stages
-------------------------------------------------------
Western Refining, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the litigation related
to the merger with Northern Tier Energy LP is in the earliest
stages of litigation.

The Company said, "We own 100% of the limited partner interest in
Northern Tier Energy LP ("NTI") and 100% of its general partner.
We entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of
December 21, 2015 (the "NTI Merger Agreement"), with Western
Acquisition Co, LLC, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Western, NTI and Northern Tier Energy GP LLC, to acquire all of
NTI's outstanding common units not already held by us (the "NTI
Merger"). On June 23, 2016, following the approval of the NTI
Merger Agreement by NTI common unitholders, all closing conditions
to the NTI Merger were satisfied, and the NTI Merger was
successfully completed. We incurred $500 million of additional
secured indebtedness under our amended term loan credit agreement
to partially fund the NTI Merger consideration."

"On August 24, 2016, an alleged NTI unitholder ("Plaintiff") filed
a purported class action lawsuit against Western, NTI, NTI GP,
members of the NTI GP board of directors at the time of the NTI
Merger, Evercore Group, L.L.C. ("Evercore"), and MergerCo
(collectively, "Defendants") (the "NTI Merger Litigation"). The
NTI Merger Litigation appears to challenge the adequacy of
disclosures made in connection with the NTI Merger. Plaintiff
seeks monetary damages and attorneys' fees. The NTI Merger
Litigation is in the earliest stages of litigation. Western
believes the NTI Merger Litigation is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it."


WESTERN REFINING: Seeks Dismissal of Tesoro Merger Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Western Refining, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company and other
defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Tesoro Merger
Litigation.

The Company said, "On November 16, 2016, we entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Tesoro Merger Agreement") with
Tesoro, Tahoe Merger Sub 1, Inc., a Delaware corporation and
wholly-owned subsidiary of Tesoro ("Merger Sub 1"), and Tahoe
Merger Sub 2, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and wholly
owned subsidiary of Tesoro ("Merger Sub 2"), pursuant to which
Merger Sub 1 will merge with and into the Company (the "First
Merger," and, if a second merger election as discussed below is
not made, the "Tesoro Merger"), with the Company surviving the
First Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Tesoro. Subject to
the terms and conditions set forth in the Tesoro Merger Agreement,
upon consummation of the First Merger, each share of our common
stock (each, a "Western Share") issued and outstanding immediately
prior to the effective time of the First Merger (excluding Western
Shares owned by the Company or Tesoro or any of their respective
direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries that are not held on
behalf of third parties) will be converted into and become
exchangeable for, at the election of the holder of such Western
Share, either (a) $37.30 in cash or (b) 0.4350 shares of common
stock in each case without interest. Western stockholders as of
the close of business on February 10, 2017, the record date, have
been invited to attend a special meeting of Western stockholders
on March 24, 2017 at 10:00 am Mountain Standard Time, to consider
and vote upon a proposal to adopt the Tesoro Merger Agreement and
certain other matters related to the Tesoro Merger. On February
16, 2017, Tesoro filed with the SEC, and the SEC declared
effective, a registration statement on Form S-4 (Reg. No. 333-
215080), containing a joint proxy statement/prospectus of Tesoro
and Western, which proxy statement/prospectus was first mailed to
Tesoro and Western stockholders on February 17, 2017."

As of February 8, 2017, Western was named as defendants in five
substantially similar purported stockholder class actions by
Western stockholders (the "Tesoro Merger Litigation"). The suits
challenge the adequacy of the disclosures made in connection with
the Tesoro Merger. Among other remedies, the plaintiffs seek to
enjoin the merger until additional information relating to the
transaction is disclosed. The Tesoro Merger Litigation is in the
earliest stages of litigation. Western believes the Tesoro Merger
Litigation is without merit, intends to vigorously defend against
it and on February 23, 2017, Western and the members of its board
of directors filed a motion to dismiss the operative complaint in
the consolidated proceedings.


WILLIS TOWERS: Still Awaits Court Decision on Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a
hearing to consider final approval of the settlement of lawsuits
related to Stanford Financial Group has been held and the Court
has reserved its decision.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 15 similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group
('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker
of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these
actions generally allege that the defendants actively and
materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford
with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be
used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford
client investors. The complaints further allege that these
letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance
policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained
untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this
manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent
certificates of deposit.

The 15 actions are as follows:

* Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group
Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate,
among others. On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative
Third Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of
a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis
Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory
and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion,
punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint,
arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA').
On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related
actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order
providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the
Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate
Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green,
Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N ('Roland'). On August 31, 2011,
the court issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action
with prejudice under SLUSA.

On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i)
dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set
forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing
without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class
Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011,
the court entered a final judgment in the action.

On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice,
et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N,
which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland
decision discussed above and on appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of
briefing and oral argument. Following the completion of briefing
and oral argument, on March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed
and remanded the actions. On April 2, 2012, the defendants-
appellees filed petitions for rehearing en banc. On April 19,
2012, the petitions for rehearing en banc were denied. On July 18,
2012, defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's
reversal in Troice. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted
our petition. Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013 and the
Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 7, 2013. On February
26, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision.
On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to
Defer Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f)
Conference and For Entry of Scheduling Order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v.
Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action discussed below stipulated
to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes
under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March
28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs'
request to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss,
but granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order;
(b) requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all
parties on the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties
submitted on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting
a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, which schedule, among other things,
provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on April 20, 2015.

On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint.

On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, the defendants filed their opposition to
plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in
further support of the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation
also filed with the court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on
June 4, 2015 filed sur-replies in further opposition to the
motion. The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion.
On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On
November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion.
On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle that is described in more
detail below.
* Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9-22085, was
filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and
Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The complaint was filed on behalf of
a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford
investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida
statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to be
determined at trial. On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred,
for consolidation or coordination with other Stanford-related
actions (including Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML').
The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni.
On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the action without prejudice.
* Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group
Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in
the Northern District of Texas. The complaint was filed
individually and on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan
Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas statutory and
common law and sought damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On December 18, 2009, the
parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated to the consolidation of
those actions (under the Troice civil action number), and, on
December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in Canabal filed a notice of
dismissal, dismissing the action without prejudice.
* Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was
filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and
the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court
(Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities
Act of 1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law
and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than
$300 million, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 20, 2009,
certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i)
removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related
action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination
by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions. On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a
final transfer order for the transfer of Rupert to the Northern
District of Texas. On January 24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert
to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until
further order of the court. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to lift the stay, which motion was denied by the
court on September 16, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs
appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 5,
2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in
the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al. action discussed below,
and the consolidated appeal, was fully briefed as of March 24,
2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on
September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit
affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint
in Rupert.
* Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of seven
Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate,
among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The
complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and
seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs. On February 13, 2015, the parties filed
an Agreed Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they
agreed to the dismissal of certain claims pursuant to the motion
to dismiss decisions in the Troice action discussed above and the
Janvey action discussed below. Also on February 13, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the complaint
in the Casanova action. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings
plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion.
* Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585, was
filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors,
individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million
and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 11, 2011, certain
defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed
Rishmague to the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML
of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the
action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should
be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On August
8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer
of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it is
currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined with
the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift the
court's stay of the Rupert action. On September 9, 2014, the court
remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed
the action until further order of the court and denied the
plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay. On October 10, 2014, the
plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the
stay to the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit
consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rupert action, and
the consolidated appeal was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015.
Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2,
2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rishmague.
* MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed on
February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
actual, special, consequential and treble damages of approximately
$4 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 29, 2013,
Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. (i) removed
MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related
action. On April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of
Texas, Inc. filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to
stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether
it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for
consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related
actions. Also on April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur
in the Southern District of Texas transferred the action to the
Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with
the other Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the
parties stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris
County)) and stay of MacArthur until further order of the court
(in accordance with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in
Rishmague (discussed above)), which stipulation was 'so ordered'
by the court on October 14, 2014. The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint in MacArthur.
* Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were filed
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis of
Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) alleging
violations of Florida common law. The five suits are: (1) Barbar,
et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al.,
Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford investors
seeking compensatory damages in excess of $30 million; (2) de
Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64
Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $83.5
million; (3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public
Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of
two Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of
$3 million; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public
Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of
11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of
$6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings
Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on
behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in
excess of $12.5 million. On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc.
removed all five cases to the Southern District of Florida and, on
June 4, 2013, notified the JPML of the pendency of these related
actions. On June 10, 2013, the court in Tisminesky issued an order
sua sponte staying and administratively closing that action
pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be
transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
and coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On June
11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other four
actions pending the JPML's transfer decision. On June 20, 2013,
the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer of
the five actions to the Northern District of Texas, the
transmittal of which was stayed for seven days to allow for any
opposition to be filed. On June 28, 2013, with no opposition
having been filed, the JPML lifted the stay, enabling the transfer
to go forward.

On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria.
On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively,
remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County)
and stayed both actions until further order of the court. On
January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and
Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3, 2014 and
March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015
and July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the
Barbar and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in Ranni or
Barbar.

On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky
and de Gadala-Maria. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky
and de Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction. On July 15,
2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in its
entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On July 21, 2015,
the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de Gadala-
Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On
August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de
Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among other
things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a
defendant). On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaints. The motions await disposition by
the court.
* Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern
District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and
the same Willis associate. The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S.
Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the
Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors
Committee (the 'OSIC') against all defendants and (ii) on behalf
of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors against
Willis North America Inc. Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege
claims under Texas common law and the court's Amended Order
Appointing Receiver, and the putative class plaintiffs allege
claims under Texas statutory and common law. Plaintiffs seek
actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and
costs. As alleged by the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of
collective losses allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford
certificates of deposit is approximately $4.6 billion.
On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative
First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants
unaffiliated with Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants
filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which
motions, other than with respect to Willis Group Holding plc's
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were granted
in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014. On
December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's
December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth
Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend
and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5
order. On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First
Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's
motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an
interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015,
the court granted Willis's motion to amend and, to the extent
necessary, reconsider the December 5 order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to
the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28,
2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule
for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided
for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on July 20, 2015. By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties
requested that the court consolidate the scheduling orders entered
in Troice and Janvey to provide for a class certification
submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases. On March 6, 2015,
the court entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders in
Troice and Janvey, providing for a class certification submission
date of April 20, 2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20,
2015 class certification submission date in the original Janvey
scheduling order.

On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
* Martin v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 201652115,
was filed on August 5, 2016, on behalf of one Stanford investor
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of
Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate in Texas state court
(Harris County).  The complaint alleges claims under Texas
statutory and common law and seeks actual damages of less than
$100,000, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  On
September 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which added five more Stanford investors as plaintiffs and seeks
damages in excess of $1 million.  The defendants have not yet
responded to the amended complaint in Martin.
* Abel, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:16-
cv-2601, was filed on September 12, 2016, on behalf of more than
300 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate,
also in the Northern District of Texas.  The complaint alleges
claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual
damages in excess of $135 million, exemplary damages, attorneys'
fees and costs. On November 10, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint, which, among other things, added several more
Stanford investors as plaintiffs.  The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint in Abel.

The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions above
seek overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a
portion of the total alleged collective losses incurred by
investors in Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the
fact that Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a
portion of time that Stanford issued certificates of deposit. In
the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a $70 million
litigation provision for loss contingencies relating to the
Stanford matters based on its ongoing review of a variety of
factors as required by accounting standards.

On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle for $120 million relating to this litigation, and the
Company has increased its provisions by $50 million.

The settlement is contingent on a number of conditions, including
court approval of the settlement and a bar order prohibiting any
continued or future litigation against Willis related to Stanford,
which may not be given. Therefore, the ultimate resolution of
these matters may differ from the amount provided for. The Company
continues to dispute the allegations and, to the extent litigation
proceeds, to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

                            Settlement

On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle, as reflected in a Settlement Term Sheet, relating to
the Stanford litigation matter. The Company agreed to the
Settlement Term Sheet to eliminate the distraction, burden,
expense and uncertainty of further litigation. In particular, if
the settlement and the related bar orders described below are
approved by the Court and become effective, the Company (a newly-
combined firm) would be able to conduct itself with the bar
orders' protection from the continued overhang of matters alleged
to have occurred approximately a decade ago. Further, the
Settlement Term Sheet provided that the parties understood and
agreed that there is no admission of liability or wrongdoing by
the Company. The Company expressly denies any liability or
wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the Stanford
litigation. Specifically, the parties to the Settlement Term Sheet
are Ralph S. Janvey (in his capacity as the Court-appointed
receiver (the 'Receiver') for The Stanford Financial Group and its
affiliated entities in receivership (collectively, 'Stanford')),
the Official Stanford Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Martha
Diaz, Paula Gilly-Flores, Punga Punga Financial, Ltd., Manuel
Canabal, Daniel Gomez Ferreiro and Promotora Villa Marina, C.A.
(collectively, 'Plaintiffs'), on the one hand, and Willis Towers
Watson Public Limited Company (formerly Willis Group Holdings
Public Limited Company), Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc.
and Willis of Colorado, Inc. (collectively, 'Defendants'), on the
other hand.

Under the terms of the Settlement Term Sheet, the parties agreed
in principle to settle and dismiss the Janvey and Troice actions
(collectively, the 'Actions') and all current or future claims
arising from or related to Stanford. If the settlement, including
the bar orders described below, is approved by the Court and is
not subject to further appeal, Willis North America Inc. will make
a one-time cash payment of $120 million to the Receiver to be
distributed to all Stanford investors who have claims recognized
by the Receiver pursuant to the distribution plan in place at the
time the payment is made.

The Settlement Term Sheet also provided the parties' agreement to
seek the Court's entry of bar orders prohibiting any continued or
future litigation against the Defendants and their related parties
of claims relating to Stanford, whether asserted to date or not.
The terms of the bar orders therefore would prohibit all Stanford-
related litigation described above, and not just the Actions,
including any pending matters and any actions that may be brought
in the future. Final Court approval of these bar orders is a
condition of the settlement.

On or about August 31, 2016, the parties to the settlement signed
a formal Settlement Agreement memorializing the terms of the
settlement as originally set forth in the Settlement Term Sheet.
On September 7, 2016, the plaintiffs in the Troice and Janvey
actions filed with the Court a motion to approve the settlement.
On October 19, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement. Several of the plaintiffs in the other actions above
have objected to the settlement. A hearing to consider final
approval of the settlement was held on January 20, 2017 and the
Court reserved decision. The Actions are stayed pending final
approval of the settlement. The timing of any final decision is
subject to the discretion of the Court and any appeal, and the
Court may decide not to approve the settlement.


WILLIS TOWERS: Court to Consider Motions to Decertify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the
court in the lawsuit by Elma Sanchez, et al. has agreed to
consider potential motions by Towers Perrin and CalPERS to
decertify or modify the class.

On August 6, 2013, three individual plaintiffs filed a putative
class action suit against the California Public Employees'
Retirement System ('CalPERS') in Los Angeles County Superior
Court. On January 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which added as defendants several members of CalPERS' Board of
Administration and three Legacy Towers Watson entities, Towers
Watson & Co., Towers Perrin, and Tillinghast-Towers Perrin
('Towers Perrin').

Plaintiffs' claims all relate to a self-funded, non-profit Long
Term Care Program that CalPERS established in 1995 (the 'LTC
Program'). Plaintiffs' claims seek unspecified damages allegedly
resulting from CalPERS' 2012 decision to implement in 2015 and
2016 an 85 percent increase in the premium rates of certain of the
long term care policies it issued between 1995 and 2004 (the '85%
Increase').

The amended complaint alleges claims against CalPERS for breach of
contract and breach of fiduciary duty. It also includes a single
cause of action against Towers Perrin for professional negligence
relating to actuarial services Towers Perrin provided to CalPERS
relating to the LTC Program between 1995 and 2004.

Plaintiffs principally allege that CalPERS mismanaged the LTC
Program and its investment assets in multiple respects and
breached its contractual and fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and
other class members by impermissibly imposing the 85% Increase to
make up for investment losses. Plaintiffs also allege that Towers
Perrin recommended inadequate initial premium rates at the outset
of the LTC Program and used unspecified inappropriate assumptions
in its annual valuations for CalPERS. Plaintiffs claim that Towers
Perrin's allegedly negligent acts and omissions, prior to the end
of its retainer in 2004, contributed to the need for the 85%
Increase.

In May 2014, the court denied the motions to dismiss filed by
CalPERS and Towers Perrin addressed to the sufficiency of the
complaint. On January 28, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. The certified class as currently
defined includes those long term care policy holders whose
policies were "subject to" the 85% Increase. The court thereafter
set an October 2, 2017 trial date.

In May 2016, the case was reassigned to a different judge. The
court agreed that Towers Perrin may file a motion for summary
judgment which was initially scheduled to be heard on February 3,
2017. The hearing date was thereafter moved to March 8, 2017, and
the motion at this time has been fully briefed.

In the event summary judgment is denied, the court has also agreed
to consider potential motions by Towers Perrin and CalPERS to
decertify or modify the class.

Based on all of the information to date, and given the stage of
the matter, the Company is currently unable to provide an estimate
of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. The Company
disputes the allegations and intends to continue to defend the
lawsuit vigorously.


WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Class Certification Motion Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Windstream Holdings, Inc. and Windstream Services, LLC said in
their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2016, that Plaintiff's motion for class certification remains
pending.

On February 9, 2015, a putative stockholder filed a Shareholder
Class Action Complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the
"Court"), captioned Doppelt v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 10629-VCN, against the Company and its Board of
Directors.  This complaint was accompanied by a motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the spin-off. The Court,
ruling from the bench on February 19, 2015 - the day before a
special meeting of stockholders was scheduled to vote on a reverse
stock split and amended governing documents (the "Proposals") -
denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, reasoning
that much of the information sought by plaintiff had been
disclosed in public filings available on the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission's website, the Windstream
Holdings' Board of Directors was in no way conflicted, and while
approval of the Proposals would facilitate the spin-off, approval
was not necessary to effect the spin-off.

On March 16, 2015, plaintiff, joined by a second putative
Windstream stockholder, filed an Amended Shareholder Class Action
Complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company and
its Board concerning Windstream's disclosures and seeking to
rescind the spin-off and unspecified monetary damages.

On February 5, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court
dismissed Windstream, and plaintiffs' demand to rescind the spin-
off, but otherwise denied the motion.

On or about January 27, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking class certification, and Windstream has responded to the
motion.

Windstream Holdings, Inc. ("Windstream Holdings") is a publicly
traded holding company incorporated in the state of Delaware on
May 23, 2013, and the parent of Windstream Services, LLC
("Windstream Services"), a Delaware limited liability company
organized on March 1, 2004.


XENCOR INC: Settlement in "DePinto" Suit Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Andre G Bouchard of the Delaware Court of Chancery
entered a final order and judgment on April 4, 2017, approving the
settlement of the case, MICHAEL DEPINTO, On Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHN S. STAFFORD,
III, BASSIL I. DAHIYAT, JONATHAN FLEMING, ATUL SARAN, HAROLD R.
WERNER, BRUCE L.A. CARTER, CHARLES STEWART, and DONALD C. FOSTER,
Defendants, IN RE XENCOR, INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION, Consol.
C.A. No. 10742-CB (Del. Ch.).

Xencor, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that on March  3, 2015, a
verified class action complaint, captioned DePinto v. John S.
Stafford, et al., C.A. No. 10742, was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of the Company's
current and former directors alleging cause of action for Breach
of Fiduciary Duty and Invalidity of Director and Stockholder
Consents.  In general, the complaint alleged that the plaintiff
and the class he seeks to represent were shareholders of the
Company during the recapitalization and certain related
transactions that the Company underwent in 2013 and that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in the course of
approving that series of transactions. It also challenged as
invalid certain corporate acts taken in the 2013 time period. On
June 10, 2015, the Company filed a Verified Petition for Relief
under Del. C. Section 205 (the 205 Petition) related to the
corporate acts challenged in the complaint. The defendants filed
an answer to the class action complaint on June 22, 2015. On July
9, 2015, the Court consolidated the 205 Petition with the class
action, joined the Company as a defendant and ordered it to file
the claims in the 205 Petition as counter-claims in the class
action, which the Company has done.

On August 11, 2015, the Company filed a Motion for Leave to File
an Amended Counter-Claim, along with the proposed Amended Counter-
Claim and related documents. On October 5, 2015, the parties filed
a Stipulation of Partial Settlement and related documents
disclosing a settlement of the invalidity claims addressed in the
complaint, the counter-claim and the proposed amended counter-
claim including a request by plaintiff's counsel for reimbursement
of legal fees up to $950,000. On October 7, 2015, Xencor filed the
Amended Counter-Claim and the related documents. On December 14,
2015, the Court entered an Order and Partial Final Judgement
approving the settlement of the invalidity claims, validating each
corporate act challenged in the complaint, dismissing with
prejudice Count II of the complaint (the invalidity claims) and
granting plaintiff's counsel a fee award of $950,000. We have paid
the plaintiff's legal award cost of $950,000 net of insurance
proceeds which has been reflected as a charge in our 2015
operations.

On September 27, 2016, the parties engaged involuntary mediation
and agreed to settle the complaint's remaining claims for a total
of $2.375 million to the class certified by the Delaware Court of
Chancery. The settlement, which is subject to approval by the
Court, was reached without any party admitting wrongdoing. Under
the terms of the settlement, no payments shall be made to the
plaintiffs by the Company or any of the defendants in the lawsuit
other than payments covered by the Company's insurance. The Court
scheduled a Settlement Hearing for April 4, 2017.

The Company said, "We continue to recognize legal costs related to
the litigation as incurred and offset any insurance proceeds when
approved and issued. For the period ended December 31, 2016 no
amount of loss related to the settlement has been accrued. As of
December 31, 2016, we have reported the outstanding settlement
amount of $2.355 million as a payable and also reflected a
receivable of the same amount for the insurance coverage that will
fund the remaining settlement costs."

Xencor is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
discovering and developing engineered monoclonal antibody
therapeutics to treat severe and life-threatening diseases with
unmet medical needs.


YELP INC: 9th Circuit Appeal Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that Plaintiffs' appeal in the federal
securities class action remains pending in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company said, "In August 2014, two putative class action
lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers.
The lawsuits allege violations of the Exchange Act by us and our
officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements regarding our business and operations between October
29, 2013 and April 3, 2014. These cases were subsequently
consolidated and, in January 2015, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint seeking unspecified monetary damages and
other relief. Following the court's dismissal of the consolidated
complaint on April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint on May 21, 2015."

"On November 24, 2015, the court dismissed the first amended
complaint with prejudice, and entered judgment in our favor on
December 28, 2015. The plaintiffs have appealed this judgment to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit."


YELP INC: $550,000 Settlement Amount Has Been Paid
--------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that the $550,000 settlement amount in a
class action lawsuit by former Eat24 employees has been paid.

According to Yelp, "on April 23, 2015, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed by former Eat24 employees in the Superior Court
of California for San Francisco County, naming as defendants us
and Eat24. The lawsuit asserts that we failed to permit meal and
rest periods for certain current and former employees working as
Eat24 customer support specialists, and alleges violations of the
California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders and the California Business and Professions Code. The
plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount and
injunctive relief."

"On May 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint
asserting an additional cause of action for penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act. In January 2016, we reached a
preliminary agreement to settle this matter, which the court
preliminarily approved on June 27, 2016. The settlement received
final court approval on December 5, 2016 and the $550 thousand
settlement amount was paid on February 10, 2017."


YELP INC: $0.2 Million Settlement Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that the $550 thousand settlement amount
in a class action lawsuit by former Eat24 employees has been paid.

Yelp said, "On June 24, 2015, a former Eat24 sales employee filed
a lawsuit, on behalf of herself and a putative class of current
and former Eat24 sales employees, against Eat24 in the Superior
Court of California for San Francisco County. The lawsuit alleges
that Eat24 failed to pay required wages, including overtime wages,
allow meal and rest periods and maintain proper records, and
asserts causes of action under the California Labor Code,
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the
California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiff seeks
monetary damages and penalties in unspecified amounts, as well as
injunctive relief."

"On August 3, 2015, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
asserting an additional cause of action for penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act.

"In January 2016, we reached a preliminary agreement to settle
this matter for payments in the aggregate amount of up to
approximately $0.2 million, which the court preliminarily approved
on August 29, 2016. The settlement received final court approval
on February 1, 2017."


YZ COMMERCE: "Sloatman" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lala Sloatman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. YZ Commerce LLC, and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02784
(C.D. Cal., April 12, 2017), seeks damages and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related regulations,
specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions as well as
invasion of privacy.

Defendant, representing itself as "CreditFix.com," contacted
Plaintiff on her cellular telephone in an attempt to promote its
services. YZ used an automatic telephone dialing system for such.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ZIMMER BIOMET: Glancy Prongay Appointed as Lead Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Shah v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:16-cv-00815 (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Theresa L Springmann on April
3, 2017, appointed Rajesh Shah, Matt Brierly and Eric Levy as Lead
Plaintiffs.  The Court also appointed Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
as Lead Counsel for the Class and Katz & Korin, PC as Liaison
Counsel.  The Court noted that Defendants have reserved the right
to challenge class certification at an appropriate time.

Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. is defending against the "Shah" class
action lawsuit, Zimmer said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "On December 2, 2016, a complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Shah
v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al.), naming us and three of
our officers as defendants. The complaint relates to a putative
class action on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock
between September 7, 2016 and October 31, 2016. The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
making materially false and/or misleading statements and failing
to disclose that supply chain issues led to a decrease in order
fulfillment rates in the third quarter of 2016 and would cause us
to lower our revenue and earnings guidance for full-year 2016. The
plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, attorneys' fees,
costs and other relief. We believe this lawsuit is without merit,
and we and the individual defendants intend to defend it
vigorously."

Lead counsel may be reached at:

     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: (310) 201-9150
     Fax: (310) 432-1495
     E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

Liaison counsel may be reached at:

     Offer Korin, Esq.
     KATZ & KORIN PC
     334 N Senate Ave
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Tel: 317-464-1100

Defendants are represented by:

     Paul A Wolfla
     FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS
     300 N. Meridian Street, Suite 2700
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Tel: 317 237 1241
     Fax: 317 237 1000
     E-mail: paul.wolfla@FaegreBD.com

          - and -

     Troy S Brown, Esq.
     MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
     1701 Market St.
     Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
     Tel: 215.963.5214
     Fax: 215.963.5001
     E-mail: troy.brown@morganlewis.com

Zimmer Biomet is a global leader in musculoskeletal healthcare.
It designs, manufactures and markets orthopaedic reconstructive
products; sports medicine, biologics, extremities and trauma
products; office based technologies; spine, craniomaxillofacial
and thoracic products; dental implants; and related surgical
products.


* Breaching Glass Ceiling Through Individual & Class Action Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Bachman, Esq., at Zuckerman Law, in an article for The
National Law Review, wrote that you think your employer has a
glass ceiling and discriminated against you when you were
passed over for a recent promotion.  Whether your company
overlooked you because of your gender, race, national origin, or
sexual orientation, an important issue is if the company has also
discriminated against other employees like you (for example
female, African-American, Muslim, LGBT).  Figuring out whether
your potential case should be an individual versus a class action
case is a key first step.

Glass ceiling/promotion discrimination and other types of
employment discrimination cases can be litigated either as an
individual case or as a class action.  Significant differences
between these two options exist.  So if you believe your employer
has discriminated against other employees like you, it's important
to talk with an experienced lawyer who can advise you about the
pros and cons of a class action versus an individual case.
The basic difference between an individual versus a class action
glass ceiling/promotion discrimination case

An individual case involves one employee (Jane Smith) suing her
employer for glass ceiling/promotion discrimination.  The way the
company treats its other employees will be relevant in an
individual case.  But the focus of the case and the available
remedies will remain on what happened to Jane Smith.  Individual
lawsuits are far more common than class action lawsuits.

Class action cases, on the other hand, involve a lead plaintiff(s)
who, along with the lawyer for the class, represent the interests
of a larger group of class members who have been harmed by the
company in some common way.  Class actions can range in size from
20-30 individuals to thousands of people.

Individual glass ceiling discrimination case settles for
USD300,000

Although women and other protected groups have made significant
strides in the workplace over the last few decades, recent
individual and class action cases illustrate the stubborn barriers
to equal promotions that remain for many women.  Title VII of the
1964 Civil Rights Act, as well as other state and federal laws,
make it illegal for companies to discriminate against women and
other protected classes by, for example, refusing to promote,
hire, or pay women equally.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is a federal
agency charged with enforcing various federal anti-discrimination
laws, including Title VII and the Equal Pay Act.  The EEOC
recently settled an individual "glass ceiling" case against Nestle
Waters North America, Inc., in which the company allegedly
cultivated a "boys club" mentality when it came to promoting
women.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff, Dawn Bowers-Ferrara,
worked at Nestle for over twenty years and received good
performance evaluations.  During her career, Bowers-Ferrara's male
manager reportedly excluded her from all-male, company-funded
events, including baseball games and going out for drinks.
Bowers-Ferrara further alleged that she reported her concerns
about this exclusive behavior to management.

Soon after, as the company merged two of its business zones, her
position was eliminated.  And the promotion for which Bowers-
Ferrara applied went instead to an allegedly less-qualified male
manager who did not meet the minimum requirements for the job.
Bowers-Ferrara ended up being the only employee to lose their job
as a result of the consolidation.

The settlement provides Bowers-Ferrara with USD300,000 in back pay
and compensatory damages, as well as career transition services.
Nestle will further establish an anti-sex discrimination company
policy and provide training on it to managers involved in the
selection process.  Nestle did not admit any wrongdoing under the
settlement.

Title VII outlaws promotion discrimination and provides
significant remedies

The EEOC's Nestle settlement highlights some of the remedies that
are available in individual glass ceiling cases.  For example,
Nestle agreed to:

provide back pay (the salary the company would have paid you had
it not fired you; or the difference between what you should have
been paid if promoted and what the company actually paid you);
pay compensatory damages, including emotional distress damages,
and make changes to the company's anti-discrimination policies and
training.

In addition to the relief provided in Bowers-Ferrara's case, Title
VII also allows for:

   -- punitive damages to punish the company in egregious cases;

   -- payment of your attorney's fees and expenses;

   -- reinstatement to the position if you were fired, as well as
other "make whole" relief; and

   -- if reinstatement is not feasible, payment of your lost
earnings until you can be reemployed (front pay)

Class action promotion discrimination cases

The EEOC filed Bowers-Ferrara's case as an individual employment
discrimination lawsuit, but the EEOC has also brought glass
ceiling discrimination cases as class actions  An example of a
class action case is the EEOC's settlement with Outback
Steakhouse.  The settlement resulted in, among other relief, USD19
million in damages to the class members.

And in early 2017, the EEOC also settled a class action case, EEOC
v. Mach Mining, LLC, on behalf of female applicants of various
mining companies?a traditionally male-dominated industry?who
alleged they were excluded from high-paying jobs.  The settlement
included:

   -- USD4.5 million in damages to the class members;

   -- hiring goals for female employees;

   -- training on anti-discrimination policies; and

   -- reporting to the EEOC about compliance with the settlement
terms

Class action procedural requirements

In either an individual or class action case, you will need to
meet certain procedural and jurisdictional requirements.  Class
actions, however, have additional requirements under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 that must be met (different rules apply for
state court cases).

The requirements include, among other things:

   -- showing that the proposed class action involves enough
people, usually at least 20-30 class members (numerosity);

   -- significant factual or legal issues that will affect the
class members in a common way, as well as similar claims or
defenses among the parties (commonality and typicality); and

   -- demonstrating that the lead plaintiff(s) will properly
represent the other class members and that the lawyer is qualified
and experienced in class action cases (adequacy of
representation).

If the above criteria are met, then the proposed class action must
also meet an additional condition:

the employer has acted on grounds generally applicable to the
class members and they are seeking injunctive and/or declaratory
relief (and certain forms of monetary relief) (Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)); or

questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any questions affecting only individual class member and a class
is action is a more fair and efficient way to proceed (Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)).

Finally, the local rules that apply to different federal courts
may also have class action provisions that must be followed.
Key takeaways to see if your promotion discrimination case could
become a class action

There are several important factors to consider in evaluating
whether a potential case should be an individual or class action.
For example, in a gender discrimination/harassment case, you would
want to consider:

Do you know other female employees who have experienced similar
problems (for example, discriminated against by the same
supervisor);

Is the discriminatory treatment the result of a company policy or
other consistent practice, such as a specific promotion process or
compensation formula;

Are there at least 20-30 female employees who may have been
affected by the same type of discriminatory conduct; and
Will it be more efficient to combine all of these claims into one
lawsuit rather than having a host of separate, individual
lawsuits.

A court will ultimately decide whether the case can go forward as
a class action based on a variety of factors, including the
procedural requirement.

Likewise, the information you should include in an EEOC charge of
discrimination will vary depending on whether it is a class action
or individual.


                         *********


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  * * *