CAR_Public/170502.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


               Tuesday, May 2, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 87



                            Headlines

AES DRILLING: "Long" Sues Over Illegal Compensation Practices
AMERICAN ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Murray" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Aug. 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
AMYRIS INC: Faces "Ohren" Suit Alleging Securities Act Violation
ARC OF FAYETTE, PA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime

ARGOS THERAPEUTICS: May 15 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
ASTALDI CONSTRUCTION: "Guerrier" Asserts FLSA Breach, Harassment
BREWSTER CHEESE: "Jeffrey" Suit Assert FLSA Breach
CALIFORNIA: Mentally Ill Inmates' Attorneys Seek Punitive Damages
CANADIAN WHEAT: Manitoba Farmers' Lawyers File Statement of Claim

CENTEGRA HEALTH: Home Health Aides Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CERES, CA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: Faces "Jones" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
CHL INC: "King" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Wages
CITRUS PUBLISHING: "Antonelli" Labor Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.

CORAL HOME: "Ramirez" Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages
DELOITTE: Borden Ladner Attorney Discusses Class Certification
DOLE FOOD: July 18 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
DOLE FOOD: Settles Two Suits Over Listeria Outbreak
DR. REDDY'S: Blue Cross Sues Over Divalproex ER Price-Fixing

FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: Judge Tosses Ex-Disney Workers' ERISA Suit
FRONTIER COMMS: Court Says Class Action Must Go to Arbitration
GENERAL MOTORS: Can't Block Suits Over Faulty Ignition Switches
GOLDEN VALLEY: CFPB Files Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
GUICE ENGINEERING: Faces "Hooter" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

HEALTHCARE CONSULTANTS: Faces "Reichenbach" Suit Under FLSA
HUAWEI DEVICE: Faces "Christensen" Suit Over Defective Nexus 6P
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Loan Agents Seek Damages for Unpaid Overtime Work
JANET ROUSSELL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
JASON TURCHIN: "Baez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay

KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: "Klein" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
METROPOLITAN LIFE: "Newman" Appeals Claims Dismissal to 7th Cir.
MIDLAND CREDIT: "Jordan" Sues Over Illegal Collection Scheme
MIDLAND CREDIT: Judge Certifies Debtors' Class Action
MVCI ENERGY: Breached FLSA, N. Mex. Min. Wage Act, Says "Parra"

NETGEAR INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Cable Modems
NEXTIVA INC: "Hernandez" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
NOBLE ENERGY: Faces "Fritzler" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
NUVASIVE INC: Investors Challenge Class Action Stay Request
OCWEN FINANCIAL: June 20 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

ONTARIO: Faces Class Action Over Disabled Services Wait Lists
PISTICCI RESTAURANT: "Reyes" Asserts NY Labor Law Violation
R.F. FISHER: Faces "Smith" Suit Under FLSA, Kan. Wage Payment Act
RHP PROPERTIES: Settles Chelmsford Commons Rent Hike Class Action
RITE AID: Judge Grants Summary Judgment in TCPA Class Action

RUBY TUESDAY: Aug. 7 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SERVICE EXPERTS: "Donato" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
SILVER'S CRUST: Faces "Hardy" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
SNAPCHAT: Faces Class Action Over Unauthorized Text Messages
SPRING CYPRESS: "Escobar" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA

SWISS HELVETIA FUND: Full Value Sues Over Shareholder Vote
TARGET CORP: Removes "Halley" Labor Lawsuit to C.D. Calif.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: IUOE Local 30 Alleges Baclofen Price-Fixing
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Faces "Chaparro" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
THERANOS: Hagens Berman Seeks Info From Purchasers of Shares

TJC MORTGAGE: "Miller" Alleges Labor Law Breach, Discrimination
TOYOTA MOTOR: NJ Appeals Court Upholds Arbitration Agreement
TRANS UNION: Faces "Matthews" Lawsuit Alleging FCRA Violation
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Law Violation
UNILEVER UNITED: Robinson Files Suit Over False Ad

VISA INC: Victory in ATM Fees Suit Unites Two Solo Litigators
VON TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
WD SERVICES: Johnson-Hendricks Files Suit Under TCPA
WELLS FARGO: Has Not Taken Stand on SB 33 Despite Class Action
WINS FINANCE: "Desta" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation



                            *********


AES DRILLING: "Long" Sues Over Illegal Compensation Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL LONG and JOHN SILVA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AES DRILLING FLUIDS,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00508-LPL (W.D. Pa., April 20,
2017), alleges that Plaintiffs worked for AES as Mud Engineers
were paid a salary, worked in excess of 40 hours a week, and were
not paid overtime compensation.

The complaint says Plaintiffs worked with numerous individuals who
performed similar job duties and were subjected to the same
illegal compensation practices which denied Plaintiffs overtime as
required by the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.  The case
also asserts violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

AES DRILLING FLUIDS, LLC provides products and services for
complex subsurface conditions drilling with techniques such as
horizontal, directional, geologically deep, and offshore drilling.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
     GOODRICH&GEIST, P.C.
     3634 California Ave.
     Pittsburgh, PA 15212
     Tel: (412) 766-1455
     Fax: (412)766-0300
     E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

        - and -

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
     Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77005
     Phone: 713-352-1100
     Fax: 713-352-3300
     E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
             adunlap@mybackwages.com
             litkin@mybackwages.com
             jbresler@mybackwages.com

        - and -

     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     James A. Jones, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     E-mail: mparmet@brucknerburch.com
             jjones@brucknerburch.com


AMERICAN ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Murray" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA MURRAY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00660 (D. Conn., April 20, 2017), alleges that
Defendant routinely violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
by placing nonemergency telephone calls to consumers' cellular
telephone numbers by using an automatic telephone dialing system
or an artificial or prerecorded voice, without the prior express
consent of the consumers, in that Defendant routinely dials wrong
or reassigned telephone numbers that do not belong to the intended
recipients of the calls.
The case also alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Defendant is a debt collection company based in Waterbury,
Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth R. Davison, Esq.
     ACTION ADVOCACY PC
     One Crouch Street
     Groton, CT 06340
     Phone: (860) 449-15 l0
     Fax: (860) 449-8046
     E-mail: mail: office@actionadvocacy.Com

        - and -

     Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
     GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
     5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
     Boca Raton, FL 33431
     Phone: (561) 826-5477
     Fax: (561) 961-5684
     E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Aug. 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Central District of California Western
Division has approved the following announcement of a proposed
class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of common
stock of Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AMPE).

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
AND FAIRNESS HEARING

TO: ALL PURCHASERS OF COMMON STOCK OF AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
('AMPIO') DURING THE PERIOD JANUARY 13, 2014 THROUGH AND INCLUDING
AUGUST 21, 2014, INCLUDING THOSE WHO PURCHASED AMPIO COMMON STOCK
PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO AMPIO'S SECONDARY PUBLIC OFFERING ON
OR ABOUT FEBRUARY 28, 2014.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, that a
hearing will be held before the Honorable Terry J. Hatter, Jr.,
United States District Judge, on August 28, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in
Courtroom 9B of the First Street Courthouse, 350 W. 1st Street,
9th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012, for the purpose of determining,
among other things, (i) whether the proposed Settlement of this
Action for $3,400,000 is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should
be approved; (ii) whether this Action should be dismissed with
prejudice as against the Defendants as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement dated as of January 31, 2017; (iii)
whether the Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair
and reasonable and should be approved; and (iv) the reasonableness
of an application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys'
fees and expenses, with interest, incurred in connection with this
Action.  Lead Counsel intends to seek attorneys' fees of $850,000
(25% of the Settlement Amount), reimbursement of expenses not to
exceed $100,000, and awards to Lead Plaintiffs Eric and Bryan Harr
and Plaintiff Thomas DiLorenzo of no greater than $15,000 ($5,000
each).

The Court has reserved the right to reschedule the hearing from
time to time without further notice.

If, between January 13, 2014 and August 21, 2014 (the 'Settlement
Class Period') you purchased Ampio common stock, your rights may
be affected by this Action and the settlement thereof.  If you
have not received the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action and Fairness Hearing (the 'Notice') and
Proof of Claim form, you may obtain them free of charge at
www.strategicclaims.net; by sending an e-mail to
info@strategicclaims.net; by calling the Claims Administrator
toll-free at 866-274-4004; or by writing to Ampio Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600
N. Jackson St., Ste. 3, Media, PA 19063. You may also contact Lead
Counsel directly: Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq., The
Rosen Firm, P.A., 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, New
York 10016, (212) 686-1060.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to share in
the Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked
no later than July 5, 2017 to the Claims Administrator
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  As further
described in the Notice, you will be bound by any judgment entered
in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a Proof of Claim,
unless you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, postmarked
no later than August 7, 2017 to Lead Counsel and Defense Counsel.
Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation or attorneys'
fees and expenses must be filed and served, in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Notice, received no later than August
7, 2017 to each of the following:

         Clerk of the Court U.S. District Court
         Central District of California
         First Street Federal Courthouse 350 W. 1st Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90012

         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Lead Counsel

         Deborah S. Birnbach, Esq.
         Goodwin Procter LLP
         100 Northern Avenue
         Boston, MA 02210
         Counsel for Defendants


AMYRIS INC: Faces "Ohren" Suit Alleging Securities Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN OHREN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AMYRIS, INC., JOHN G. MELO, and KATHLEEN
VALIASEK, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02210 (N.D. Cal., April 20,
2017), alleges that Defendants violated the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act by issuing financial statements that were materially
false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business, operational and financial results, which were known to
Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically,
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 Phyto Tech Corp.'s
(D/B/A "Blue California") 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 $10 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.

Defendant Amyris provides various alternatives to a range of
petroleum-sourced products worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARC OF FAYETTE, PA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Pennsylvania Record, reports that two
former employees have filed a class action lawsuit against Arc of
Fayette County, a home care service for seniors and disabled
clients, citing alleged unpaid wages, violation of applicable
minimum wage law and violation of Workers' Compensation acts.

Jesse Lynn and Belinda Darnell, both of Vanderbilt in Fayette
County and both employed by the company from 2004 to March 2017,
filed a complaint on behalf of all similarly situated employees on
April 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania alleging that the employer failed to provide proper
compensation to the plaintiffs for their work.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they
sustained damages from not being paid overtime wages. The
plaintiffs hold Arc of Fayette County responsible because it
allegedly failed to overall pay minimum wage to the plaintiffs
including premium pay for hours worked exceeding 40 hours per
week.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek unpaid wages,
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, court costs
and any further relief this court grants.  They are represented by
John R. Linkosky of John Linkosky & Associates in Carnegie.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Case
number 2:17-cv-00474-LPL


ARGOS THERAPEUTICS: May 15 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP reminds investors
that a class action complaint was filed against Argos
Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQGM: ARGS) in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint is brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Argos securities between February 7,
2014 and February 21, 2017, for alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Argos's officers and directors.
Argos focuses on the development and commercialization of
individualized immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer and
infectious diseases in North America. Argos's most advanced
product candidate, known as AGS-003, is designed to treat
metastatic renal cell carcinoma ("mRCC") and other cancers.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/argos-therapeutics-
inc-apr-17

Argos Accused of Hiding Problems Related to its Drug Trial

According to the complaint, in January 2013, Argos initiated its
ADAPT Phase 3 clinical trial to evaluate AGS-003 for the treatment
of mRCC.  Argos stated that it established an Independent Data
Monitoring Committee ("IDMC") that will conduct interim analyses
of the trial data for safety and futility.  Argos subsequently
issued a press release stating that its Phase 2 trial for AGS-003
showed a statistically significant correlation between the
magnitude of the immune response and overall survival.  The
company further stated that AGS-003 was the only drug the company
was aware of to show this effect with statistical significance.
Argos continued to portray a positive outlook for AGS-003, stating
that it was pleased with the progress of the Phase 3 trial and
that Argos was well positioned to continue to develop the drug.

However, the complaint alleges that Argos officials failed to
disclose that its Arcentis technology platform was not viable and
that the ADAPT trial was likely to be discontinued.  On
February 22, 2017, in its Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, Argos revealed that the IDMC for ADAPT
recommended that the study be discontinued for futility, finding
that the study was "unlikely to show a statistically significant
improvement in overall survival in the combination treatment arm,
utilizing the intent-to-treat population, the primary endpoint of
the study."  Argos further revealed that it would discuss the data
with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and based on those
discussions will make a determination as to the next steps for the
clinical program. On this news, Argos's stock fell by
approximately 66% to close at $1.48 per share on February 22,
2017.

Argos Shareholders Have Legal Options

If you suffered a loss in Argos, you have until May 15, 2017, to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Concerned
shareholders who would like more information about their rights
and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov at
(800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law.  The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which
they have invested.


ASTALDI CONSTRUCTION: "Guerrier" Asserts FLSA Breach, Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------
ILKIJA GUERRIER, JEAN PIERRE DOLMA, and OUDY SAJILUS, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ASTALDI
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 0:17-cv-60808-BB (S.D. Fla., April 25, 2017), alleges that
during numerous work weeks within the three (3) year statute of
limitations period, Plaintiffs and other non-exempt employees of
Defendant were required to work during purported break periods
each day, and travel to project sites without being compensated
for all of their actual hours worked as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  Plaintiffs also alleged harassment,
discrimination, and retaliation.

Defendant provided general construction services of large
infrastructure projects in the sectors of transportation, water
and energy, buildings and concessions projects nationwide and/or
internationally.  Plaintiff is a concrete finisher and carpenter.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Keith M. Stern, Esq.
     Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
     One Flagler
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: (305) 901-1379
     Fax: (561) 288-9031
     E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
             hsolis@workingforyou.com


BREWSTER CHEESE: "Jeffrey" Suit Assert FLSA Breach
--------------------------------------------------
TERRY JEFFREY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, 10 East Street, P.O. Box 125, Dellroy, Ohio 44620,
Plaintiff, vs. BREWSTER CHEESE COMPANY, c/o statutory agent
Emil Alecusan, 800 Wabash Avenue, Brewster, Ohio 44613, Defendant,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00861-BYP (N.D. Ohio, April 21, 2017), arises out
of Defendant's alleged practice and policy of failing to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees for all time
worked and overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all of the hours they worked
over 40 in a workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant is an Ohio corporation that operates cheese facilities
that manufacture cheese at various locations in Ohio, Illinois,
and Idaho.  Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-
exempt line operator and heavy laborer at Defendant's Brewster,
Ohio location. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
     Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
     Michaela M. Calhoun, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER, LLC
     7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
     Massillon, OH 44646
     Phone: (330) 470-4428
     Fax: (330) 754-1430
     Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
            hans@ohlaborlaw.com
            mcalhoun@ohlaborlaw.com


CALIFORNIA: Mentally Ill Inmates' Attorneys Seek Punitive Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Furillo, writing for The Sacramento Bee, reports that for 22
years, the federal court in Sacramento has pounded the California
Department of Corrections with orders and injunctions and slapped
it with sanctions to get the state prison system to clean up its
mental health treatment mess.

Now, attorneys for mentally ill inmates are trying for another
attention getter: punitive damages.

In a trial underway in front of U.S. District Court Judge Kimberly
J. Mueller, plaintiffs want a jury to find nine corrections
department employees liable for malice and oppression to rectify
abuses they say their client suffered during a brutal 2012 cell
extraction.

Along with general damages, the attorneys say a punitive award
would send a message to the prison system and its staff on how to
carry out the best practices -- and avoid the worst -- when
inmates have full-blown psychotic breakdowns.

"Since at least 1995, CDCR officials, medical providers, and
custody officers have been on notice that the Constitution
requires prisons to provide incarcerated persons with necessary
mental health care and to treat prisoners in a humane manner that
does not punish them for mental illness," plaintiffs lawyer
Lori Rifkin wrote in her trial brief.

Ms. Rifkin said the videotaped 2012 cell extraction of her client,
Jermaine Padilla, who was seen being pepper sprayed and dragged
out screaming and strapped naked to a gurney for 72 hours,
demonstrated that "almost two decades later, CDCR had still failed
to correct these constitutional deprivations."

"As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff's ability to
recover from mental health crises and actively participate in
mental health treatment has been severely damaged," Ms. Rifkin
wrote.  "Defendants compromised his ability to trust medical help,
exacerbated and confirmed his worst fears as well as his paranoia
and anxiety about others being out to hurt him, and left him in a
state of decompensation for weeks and months such that it caused
long-term damage to his brain."

Mr. Padilla's lawyers say prison doctors waited too long to
involuntarily medicate him and that he should have been moved to a
state mental hospital long before his eventual transfer.

Corrections lawyers confirmed in their court papers that in the
weeks before his cell extraction from the Mental Health Crisis Bed
unit at Corcoran State Prison, Mr. Padilla had stopped taking his
medications.  They also acknowledged that on the day of his July
24, 2012, removal, Mr. Padilla had flooded his cell with water and
had smeared himself with and eaten his own feces. They also
admitted that officers blasted Padilla with pepper spray from a
46-ounce container through the food port of his cell and hit him
with the contents of three more 12-ounce canisters.

Then, after subduing Mr. Padilla, officers tied him down on a
gurney for 72 hours, as ordered by his psychiatrist, Dr. Ernest
Wagner, state attorneys said.

The prison lawyers disputed, however, whether Padilla was "gravely
disabled" throughout his stay in the unit.  They also contested
whether officers used excessive force and whether
Mr. Padilla was too impaired psychiatrically to meet conditions
Dr. Wagner required for him to get out of the restraints.

They also disagreed that prison staff "acted with malice,
oppressions, evil intent, or in reckless disregard for Plaintiff's
rights," the requirements for punitive damages.

"Defendants deny these allegations and contend that Plaintiff
received appropriate treatment and supervision while in the Mental
Health Crisis Bed unit," Deputy Attorney General Diana Esquivel
wrote in her statement of the case.

Mr. Padilla's lawyers filed the case in 2014, nearly two decades
after the late U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence K. Karlton in
the long-running Coleman v. Brown class-action lawsuit found the
state's treatment of mentally ill prisoners in violation of Eighth
Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

The Padilla lawsuit came a year after the class-action lawyers
obtained videos of six cell extractions, including his, in which
psychiatrically impaired prisoners were pepper sprayed in their
cells.  One of them at Mule Creek State Prison, Joseph Duran,
later died, and his family and won a $750,000 settlement.

Judge Karlton, after a series of hearings in 2013, found the
prison system's use of force procedures on mentally ill inmates
unconstitutional and ordered that they be changed.

Michael Bien, the lead counsel on the Coleman case, said
individual lawsuits like Padilla's -- beyond the class-action
rulings that have restricted use of force, reduced solitary
confinement and required acute-patient care for mentally ill
prisoners -- represent another way of achieving those goals.

"Nothing really strikes home like having a jury of your peers look
at your conduct and say that you as an individual violated the
Constitution, and we're going to award damages," Mr. Bien said.
"It's easier to go along day by day and say, 'Well, yeah, we're
violating this order in Coleman, but it's a systemic problem.

"With the possibility of punitive damages, these kind of cases
send a message that there is individual responsibility."

At the time of his cell extraction, Mr. Padilla, 35, was
imprisoned on a two-year, eight-month term for a weapons
violation, according to CDCR records.  He also had a prior
conviction for second-degree robbery.

He was transferred to Corcoran in May 2012 and placed in the
prison's Enhanced Outpatient Program for inmates with serious
mental disorders.  On July 1, his condition further deteriorated
and officials moved him into Corcoran's Mental Health Crisis Bed
unit.

Testimony featured a pair of psychiatrists who figured prominently
in the 2013 hearings.

Dr. Edward Kaufman, an expert witness for Padilla, said that his
review of the records showed that the inmate's progress during his
24 days in the unit was "steadily downhill."

Dr. Kaufman said Dr. Padilla "was experiencing a great deal of
paranoid fears" and "was incapable of adhering to any commands"
the day of the cell extraction.  Still, prison staff ordered him
to back up to the food port of his cell and to hold his hands
there to be handcuffed.  When he didn't respond to their liking,
they cut loose with the pepper spray, while the inmate howled in
misery.

The doctor was highly critical of Dr. Wagner, the prison
psychiatrist, for failing to release Padilla from the restraints
for such a prolonged period of time after the prisoner had been
medicated and calmed down and asked what he had to do to get off
the gurney.

"The criteria that he set was that Mr. Padilla had to understand
the reasons he was there, and he had to specify what the reasons
were," Dr. Kaufman told the jury, adding: "Mr. Padilla had no idea
why he was there.

"He provoked him into anger," Dr. Kaufman said of Dr. Wagner, "and
used the reaction to justify keeping him in restraints."

Ms. Rifkin, the plaintiff's lawyer, pressed Dr. Wagner on why he
kept Mr. Padilla in restraints for 72 hours.  In his notes shown
to the jury, Dr. Wagner wrote that he wanted to keep Padilla tied
to the gurney until he could show "a demonstrated ability to state
the reason that he is restrained."

Dr. Wagner said he believed that Mr. Padilla was "ignoring" the
treatment team.

"That was my judgment, that at that point he was being defiant
rather than incapable," Dr. Wagner said.

Ms. Rifkin also questioned Dr. Wagner on why he kept Mr. Padilla
in the crisis unit for 45 days when the prison system's Program
Guide calls for 10-day maximum stays before the inmate is to be
transported to what is now the Department of State Hospitals.

Dr. Wagner in a previous examination in the case said that making
the outside referral "required a bunch of paperwork."  Asked about
it on cross-examination by Esquivel, the state's lawyer, Dr.
Wagner said, "We had the capacity to treat him. I didn't see a
need for it."


CANADIAN WHEAT: Manitoba Farmers' Lawyers File Statement of Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Cross, writing for The Western Producer, reports that
lawyers representing Manitoba farmer Andrew Dennis have filed a
statement of claim with the Court of Queen's Bench in Winnipeg,
seeking certification for a class action lawsuit on behalf of all
western Canadian farmers who delivered wheat and barley to the
Canadian Wheat Board during the 2010-11 and 2011-12 crop years.

The statement of claim, which lists the Government of Canada, G3
Global Grain Group and G3 Limited as defendants, contends that
$145 million that should have been paid to farmers, was withheld
and transferred to a contingency fund controlled by the Canadian
Wheat Board.

A statement of claim contains unproven allegations upon which the
plaintiff plans to base the lawsuit.  A statement of defence
normally follows with the defendants' response to the allegations.

The statement of claim also seeks compensation for about $6
million, which it claims was wrongfully used to cover transition
costs when the CWB was eliminated and its assets were
"commercialized."

G3 acquired the assets of the CWB as part of a government
sanctioned sale process.

"When we were reviewing the CWB's Annual Reports for 2010-11 and
2011-12, it appeared that $145 million, which should have been
paid to farmers as part of their final payment, had been withheld
and transferred to the CWB's Contingency Fund" stated Dennis in an
April 24 news release.

Winnipeg lawyer Anders Bruun is one of the lead lawyers
representing Dennis in the action.

"Some restructuring expenses were paid from the pooling accounts,
but the contingency fund appears to be the largest single source
of apparently misappropriated funds," Mr. Bruun said.

Dennis, who farms near Brookdale, Man., had previously asserted a
claim against the Government of Canada and the Canadian Wheat
Board in Federal Court.

On May 15, Dennis is expected to ask to discontinue the Federal
Court proceedings in favour of the Manitoba class action.

Stewart Wells, a farmer from Swift Current, Sask., and chairperson
of the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board said the claim
initiated by Dennis is about accountability and ensuring that
farmers receive what rightfully belongs to them.

"This claim is about establishing accountability for the
disposition of the Canadian Wheat Board, allocating financial
responsibility to the appropriate parties, and ultimately getting
any funds recovered back to prairie farmers."


CENTEGRA HEALTH: Home Health Aides Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Regan, writing for Home Health Care News, reports that a band
of home health aides in Illinois is seeking to add more people to
a lawsuit claiming their employer wrongly denied them overtime
pay.

Home health clinician Laura Byrne and three other plaintiffs in
April sought class certification in a case against Centegra Health
System, a network of four hospitals, physician care locations and
specialty services providers, including home health, based in
Crystal Lake, Illinois.  The workers seek to be paid time-and-a-
half for work outside of their normal 40-hour week, as first
reported by Law360.

The employees, who include registered nurses, physical therapists,
occupational therapists and speech therapists, are currently paid
on a "per visit" and "hourly" structure, meaning they're only
compensated for home visits or on an hourly basis.

But the workers claim they were wrongfully classified as exempt
from the overtime compensation requirements of The Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) -- the federal statue that governs the
minimum wage, overtime pay, and other standards for workers --
and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL).

"This hybrid 'per visit' and 'hourly basis' pay scheme does not
comport with either the salaried basis or the fee basis
requirements of the FLSA or the IMWL," reads a Jan. 3 complaint
obtained by Home Health Care News.  "Accordingly, Defendant cannot
meet its burden of establishing Plaintiffs are exempt and have
wrongly deprived Plaintiffs of earned overtime compensation in
violation of the FLSA and IMWL."

In February, Centegra answered the complaint by denying the
workers' claims.

An Illinois federal court must now weigh in on the class
certification.

At odds over overtime

The lawsuit comes amid a long fight over overtime pay for home
care workers in Illinois.  In January, the state's governor, Bruce
Rauner, vetoed a bill that would have prohibited Illinois from
limiting the number of weekly hours worked by individual
providers.

And this isn't the first time home health workers have sought
class action cases against their employers, either.

Employees at Humana in February sought class certification in
Connecticut federal court on a claim that they were wrongfully
shorted overtime pay while working for one of the company's
subsidiaries.  Humana opposed the certification, saying the
employees' arguments were built in part with flawed factual
assumptions.  A New York magistrate judge shut down a similar
lawsuit's request for class action certification last August.

Earlier in April, home health industry organizations made a
renewed push to overturn the overtime and minimum wage coverage
protections granted to home care workers in 2015.  Those
protections impacted roughly two million home care workers and
rocked many home health providers.


CERES, CA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that thirty-four individuals have filed a class-action suit
against the city of Ceres over allegations that it failed to pay
all overtime pay owed to them.

Julio Amador, Ross Bays, Steve Carvalho, et al. filed a complaint
on April 19 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California, Fresno Division against the city of Ceres and Does 1
through 10 citing the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs are current or former
employees of the defendants.

The plaintiffs hold city of Ceres and Does 1 through 10
responsible because the defendants allegedly failed to calculate
their overtime pay at the correct rate. They allege the defendants
failed to include premium compensation items, such as cash in lieu
of health benefits, in their regular hourly rate.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek overtime pay,
liquidated damages, all legal fees, interest and any other relief
as this court deems just.  They are represented by Gary Goyette
-- goyetteg@goyette-assoc.com -- of Goyette & Associates Inc. in
Gold River.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno
Division Case number 1:17-cv-00552-LJO-SAB


CERTIFIEDSAFETY INC: Faces "Jones" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
HAROLD JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. CERTIFIEDSAFETY, INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-
02229-DMR (N.D. Cal., April 21, 2017), challenges Defendant's
policies and practices of: (1) failing to compensate Plaintiff and
putative Class and Collective members for all hours worked; (2)
failing to pay Plaintiff and putative Class and Collective members
minimum wage for all hours worked; (3) failing to pay Plaintiff
and putative Class and Collective members overtime and double time
wages; (4) failing to authorize and permit Plaintiff and the
putative Class members to take meal and rest breaks to which they
are entitled by law and pay premium compensation for missed
breaks; (5) failing to reimburse Plaintiff and putative Class and
Collective members for necessary business expenditures; (6)
failing to provide Plaintiff and putative Class members accurate
itemized wage statements; and (7) failing to timely pay Plaintiff
and putative Class members wages upon the termination of
employment.  The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Certifiedsafety, Inc. is an American company that provides skilled
safety personnel to clients operating oil drilling platforms.
Plaintiff and the putative Class and Collective members are
current and former hourly, non-exempt employees who work for
CertifiedSafety as Safety Attendants, among other positions,
throughout the United States including in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
     Nicole N. Coon, Esq.
     Keenan L. Klein, Esq.
     David C. Leimbach, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Phone: (415) 421-7100
     Fax: (415) 421-7105


CHL INC: "King" Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Kevin King, Plaintiff, v. CHL, Inc. and Hoa Kevin Tran,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03691 (E.D. La., April 19, 2017), is
a collective action filed on behalf of all other current and
former similarly situated employees who worked for Defendants
seeking an award of all unpaid wages and overtime, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs of suit, injunctive and
equitable relief, pre and post-judgment interest and such other
and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

CHL Inc. is a business listed in the categories Party Favors
Supplies & Services, and Party Planning Service and Party
Supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
      STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
      6557 West End Blvd.
      New Orleans, LA 70124
      Tel: (504) 267-0777
      Fax: (504) 513-3084
      Email: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com


CITRUS PUBLISHING: "Antonelli" Labor Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Elizabeth Antonelli, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Citrus Publishing,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 52892453, (Fla. Cir., March 17, 2017),
was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on April 12, 2017, under Case No. 5:17-cv-00156.

Antonelli worked for the Defendant as an Inside Sales
Representative at their 1624 North Meadowcrest Boulevard location
in Crystal River, Florida. She seeks all legal and equitable
relief to obtain overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs incurred, and equitable relief declaring and mandating the
cessation of Defendant's unlawful pay policy in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
      Lindsey C. Kofoed, Esq.
      Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
      777 Alderman Rd.
      Palm Harbor, FL 34683-2604
      Tel: (727) 786-5000
      Fax: (727) 772-9833
      Email: lck@florinroebig.com
             fgo@florinroebig.com
             cdg@FlorinRoebig.com

Defendant is represented by:

      Caren Skversky Marlowe, Esq.
      Edmund J. McKenna, Esq.
      Vanessa Arun Patel, Esq.
      OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. - TAMPA
      100 N Tampa St Suite 3600
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel: (813) 289-1247


CORAL HOME: "Ramirez" Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Nosleidy Ramirez, other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), vs. Coral Home Care, Inc., and Teresa Avellaneda,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21428-RNS (S.D. Fla., April 17,
2017), alleges among other things, that Defendants failed to pay
the Plaintiff a total of $7,600 in wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Coral Home Care Inc is a staffing and recruiting company.
Nosleidy Ramirez is an Occupational Therapist Assistant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Franklin Antonio Jara, Esq.
     JARA & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
     19 West Flagler Street, Suite 504
     Miami, FL 33130
     Phone: (305) 372-0290
     Fax: (305) 675-0383
     E-mail: info@jaralaw.com


DELOITTE: Borden Ladner Attorney Discusses Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Splawski, Esq., of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, in an article
for Mondaq, wrote that in Sondhi v. Deloitte, Justice Belobaba of
the Ontario Superior Court certified a class proceeding alleging
that contract lawyers hired to review documents were employees,
rather than independent contractors, and were therefore entitled
to the benefits provided under the Employment Standards Act,
including overtime, vacation, and holiday pay.  However,
certification was granted on the condition that the class
definition was to be amended and the proposed representative
plaintiff was to be replaced within 60 days.

Justice Belobaba found that it was sufficient for the plaintiff to
establish that there was some basis in fact for the central
question in "independent contractor versus employee" cases: Whose
business is it? Applying this central question, Justice Belobaba
found the plaintiff had established there was some evidence that
the Deloitte document reviewers were not carrying on a document
review business for themselves, but were being compensated to
carry on Deloitte's document review business, the latter being
consistent with an employer/employee relationship.

This case is notable in that Justice Belobaba observed that the
"factors-focused approach" that often guides the analysis in
"independent contractor versus employee" cases is not the only way
to establish 'some basis in fact" for proposed common issues,
particularly given the changing landscape of employment
relationships in Canada and the historic utility of some of the
"so-called" key factors being called into question.

It is also notable because it illustrates the Court's willingness
to allow plaintiffs to reformulate their case in a significant way
in order for it to be certified, which reinforces that defendants
face a "moving target" on certification and often are required to
respond to proposed class definitions that were not put before the
Court by the plaintiffs.

The decision may have broader implications with respect to the
document review services that outside providers will offer in the
future, and the pricing of such services.  If that happens,
financial institutions, which are frequent users of such services,
may be affected.


DOLE FOOD: July 18 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

SAN ANTONIO FIRE AND POLICE
PENSION FUND, FIRE AND POLICE
HEALTH CARE FUND, SAN ANTONIO,
PROXIMA CAPITAL MASTER FUND LTD.,
and THE ARBITRAGE FUND,
Plaintiffs,
                        v.
DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., DAVID H.
MURDOCK and C. MICHAEL CARTER,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-1140-SLR
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:  All persons and entities who sold the common stock of Dole
Food Company, Inc. ("Dole") (i) during the period from January 2,
2013 through October 31, 2013, or (ii) on November 1, 2013 where
those shares were sold on the open market and were not held as of
the closing of the Take-Private Transaction on that date, and who
were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"):

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

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

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $74,000,000 in
cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all
claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on July 18, 2017 at 11:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Sue L. Robinson at the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware, J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building, 844 N.
King Street, Courtroom 4B, Wilmington, Delaware 19801-3568, to
determine whether (i) the proposed Settlement should be approved
as fair, reasonable and adequate; (ii) the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Amended Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement dated March 29, 2017 (and in the Notice) should be
granted; (iii) the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved
as fair and reasonable; and (iv) Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be
approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at San Antonio
Fire & Police Pension Fund v. Dole Food Company, Inc., c/o JND
Class Action Administration, P.O. Box 6428, Broomfield, CO 80021,
1-844-730-4155.  Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be
downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator, www.DoleSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than August 9, 2017.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be
bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than June 27, 2017, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of
the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than June 27, 2017, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

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

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

Katherine M. Sinderson, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
(800) 380-8496
blbg@blbglaw.com

Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.
ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10171
(212) 894-7200

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

San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund v. Dole Food Company, Inc.,
c/o JND Class Action Administration
P.O. Box 6428
Broomfield, CO 80021
844-730-4155
info@DoleSecuritiesLitigation.com
www.DoleSecuritiesLitigation.com

By Order of the Court


DOLE FOOD: Settles Two Suits Over Listeria Outbreak
---------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that court documents show that Dole
Fresh Foods has recently settled two lawsuits filed by families of
people stricken by a listeria outbreak after eating salads
packaged in Ohio.

The Springfield News-Sun reports settlement terms weren't
disclosed by the company or the attorneys who filed the federal
lawsuits.

One lawsuit said 79-year-old Ohio resident Ellen DiStefano died
last year after eating salad packaged at Dole's Springfield plant
about 45 miles (72 kilometers) west of Columbus.  The other
settled lawsuit says resident Kiki Georgostathis fell into a coma
after eating listeria-laden salad.

Dole has denied responsibility and has argued the salads were fine
when they left the plant.

Federal data shows at least 19 people nationwide were sickened in
the outbreak, including a Michigan man who died.


DR. REDDY'S: Blue Cross Sues Over Divalproex ER Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE INDEMNITY COMPANY d/b/a BLUE CROSS AND
BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA and HMO LOUISIANA, INC., Plaintiff
VERSUS DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, INC.; IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC.;
MYLAN INC.; MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.;
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL HOLDINGS,
INC and ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS (USA) INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-01880-CMR (E.D. Pa., April 25, 2017), alleges that
Defendants engaged in conspiracies to allocate customers, rig bids
and fix, maintain and/or stabilize the prices of generic
Divalproex ER.

The Defendants manufacture, market and/or distribute drugs in the
United States.

The case is part of IN RE: GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL NO. 2724. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
     David S. Scalia, Esq.
     Douglas R. Plymale, Esq.
     Lanson Bordelon, Esq.
     Mekel Smith-Alvarez, Esq.
     THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC
     One Canal Place
     365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: 504 648 0180
     Fax: 504 648 0181
     E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
             dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com
             dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com
             lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com
             mekel@dugan-lawfirm.com


FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: Judge Tosses Ex-Disney Workers' ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Suevon Lee and Fola Akinnibi, writing for Law360, report that a
California federal judge on April 21 dismissed a putative class
action by former employees of The Walt Disney Co. who alleged that
an investment plan violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act by including a fund that invested in now-embattled
Valeant, saying the suit fell short in establishing a breach of
fiduciary duty.

U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson tossed the second amended
complaint by the former Disney workers on grounds that they
couldn't state a claim that trustee Fidelity Management Trust
Company breached its fiduciary duty under ERISA to prudently
manage the plan by offering up the mutual fund at issue.

The so-called Sequoia Fund held shares in Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International Inc., steadily increasing its position in the
company so that by June 2015, more than one-quarter of its assets
were invested in Valeant, according to the complaint.  When
Valeant's stock tumbled over concerns with its accounting
practices, the value of the fund by November 2015 had shrunk by 25
percent.

The proposed class action alleged that the plan should have been
more vigilant in monitoring the fund and its investment in
Valeant, hooking its amended complaint to the argument that the
fund improperly invested in a "growth" stock when it represented
itself as a "value" investor, a theory that didn't gain traction
with the court.

"In purchasing Valeant, a high-risk, high-reward stock that
performed very well right up until the point that it did not, the
Sequoia Fund acted entirely consistently with disclosures made to
plan participants," Judge Anderson wrote.

The order, which didn't allow for further amendment of the claims,
marked the second dismissal in the case.  The judge previously
tossed an initial complaint by plaintiffs Jack Wilson and William
Gaudette that alleged the plan imprudently offered the Sequoia
Fund as an investment vehicle after Valeant's riskiness was widely
reported in the public.

Neither representatives of the plaintiffs nor the defendants could
be immediately reached for comment on April 24.

The lawsuit kicked off in April 2016 when Wilson and Gaudette
filed the proposed ERISA class action against Fidelity Management
and a committee of individual Disney officers appointed under the
plan. They claimed that Fidelity's alleged breaches in properly
monitoring the Sequoia Fund caused millions of dollars in losses
to retirement savings under the plan.

They said the fund's continuing investment in Valeant at a time
that the company was facing public criticism for its drug pricing
and accounting practices was reckless, and that its "enormous
stake in Valeant was a highly speculative long-shot bet which
represented a complete departure from the fund's value-oriented
investment strategy and sound investment principles."

The proposed class consisted of plan beneficiaries at any time
from January 1, 2015, to date of judgment in the action.

Valeant has faced both regulatory and congressional scrutiny over
its business practices since late 2015. As of last March, it had
made changes to its board and executive suite after facing
multiple crises, including an SEC investigation over its
accounting practices, along with several investigations by the
U.S. attorney's offices for Massachusetts and the Southern
District of New York, as well as Congress, for drug price hikes.

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend in November,
and the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in December.

This time, they posited a theory that tried to distinguish between
the fund's purported position as a "value" investor and Valeant's
characterization as a so-called growth stock. They claimed that
the plan breached its duty by failing to abide by the investment
strategy described to investors.

The two sides had disagreed on whether the Sequoia Fund was a
growth or value investor. The court said the plaintiffs failed to
come up with a single instance in which the plan classified the
fund as one or the other, and that regardless, there was no
deviation from disclosures made to participants.

The court said the new theory of liability offered nothing new
from the former one and that the plaintiffs still could not state
a claim for relief.

"Plaintiffs continue to fault the plan for failing to divine that
the market had misvalued Valeant and for being too heavily
concentrated in a stock (that had performed extremely well for the
fund, and by extension plan participants, in the past)," Judge
Anderson said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Peter K. Stris --
peter.stris@strismaher.com -- Victor O'Connell --
victor.oconnell@strismaher.com -- and Thomas E. Logan of Stris &
Maher LLP.

The defendant plan is represented by Brian David Boyle and
Catalina J. Vergara of O'Melveny and Myers LLP.

The case is Jack Wilson et al. v. Fidelity Management Trust
Company et al., case number 2:16-cv-02251, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.


FRONTIER COMMS: Court Says Class Action Must Go to Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that the
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has ruled that a 2014
Frontier class action lawsuit needs to be remanded back to state
court to go through arbitration.

Citizens Telecommunications Company of West Virginia, which is
doing business as Frontier Communications of West Virginia,
appealed the Nov. 30, 2015, order of Lincoln Circuit Court denying
its motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action filed
by Michael Sheridan, April Morgan, Trisha Cooke and Richard
Bennis, according to the April 20 opinion.

Frontier contends that the circuit court erred in refusing to
enforce an arbitration provision in the parties' agreement.

"Upon consideration of the parties' briefs and arguments, the
submitted record and pertinent authorities, we agree with
Frontier, reverse the circuit court's order and remand with
instructions to enter an order compelling arbitration on an
individual basis," the opinion states.

Justice Beth Walker authored the majority opinion.

The respondents are West Virginia residents who subscribed to
Frontier's "high-speed Internet service" between August 2007 and
June 2010.  The respondents sued Frontier in October 2014 alleging
that the service was much slower than advertised and that Frontier
had intentionally reduced the speed at which the respondents could
connect to the Internet.

On Oct. 14, 2014, the respondents filed a putative class action
complaint alleging that Frontier never provided Internet service
at the advertised speeds and purposefully "throttled" the speed of
its customers' Internet service.

In the complaint, the respondents sought declaratory relief that
they had not agreed to arbitrate any claims arising from
Frontier's service and that their putative class action was not
subject to arbitration.

On Jan. 30, 2015, Frontier filed a motion to compel arbitration
and to dismiss the action. The circuit court denied the motion to
compel on Nov. 30, 2015, and Frontier then appealed to the Supreme
Court.

The arbitration provision clearly and explicitly provides that it
applies to pre-existing disputes, according to the opinion.

"Because there is no contravening authority that would preclude
enforcement of the provision as written, we conclude that the
agreement to arbitrate may be applied to pre-existing claims,"
Walker wrote.

Assuming that the circuit court found the arbitration provision
unenforceable due to its prohibition of class-wide injunctive
relief, such ruling is prohibited by the Supreme Court's precedent
and by the FAA.

"It is permissible for parties to an arbitration provision to
agree to waive class-wide injunctive relief," Walker wrote. "The
circuit court erred in holding otherwise."

The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the state court with
instructions to enter an order compelling arbitration on an
individual basis.

Frontier is represented by Thomas R. Goodwin and J. David Fenwick
of Goodwin & Goodwin; Archis A. Parasharami of Mayer Brown; and
Joseph J. Starsick Jr. of Frontier Communications.

The respondents are represented by Benjamin Sheridan --
ben@kswvlaw.com -- and Mitchel Lee Klein --
mitch@kswvlaw.com -- of Klein Sheridan & Glazer; and Jonathan J.
Marshall of Bailey Glasser.

W.Va. Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 16-0005


GENERAL MOTORS: Can't Block Suits Over Faulty Ignition Switches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Krisher and Sam Hananel, writing for The Associated Press,
report that the Supreme Court on April 24 turned away an appeal
from General Motors Co. seeking to block dozens of lawsuits over
faulty ignition switches that one plaintiffs' attorney said could
expose the company to billions of dollars in additional claims.

The justices without comment left in place a lower court ruling
that said the automaker's 2009 bankruptcy did not shield it from
liability in the cases.

An attorney representing hundreds of plaintiffs who are suing the
company said it exposes GM to around 1,000 additional lawsuits and
$5 billion to $10 billion in liabilities.  GM said the cases will
have to be tried on individual merits.

A federal appeals court ruled last year that GM remains
responsible for ignition-switch injuries and deaths that occurred
pre-bankruptcy because the company knew about the problem for more
than a decade but kept it secret from the bankruptcy court and
owners of cars with the faulty switches.  The decision also opens
GM to claims that any of those cars sold by the company prior to
bankruptcy lost value because of the ignition-switch scandal.

The company had argued that well-established bankruptcy law
allowed the newly reorganized GM to obtain the old company's
assets "free and clear" of liabilities.

GM recalled 2.6 million small cars worldwide in 2014 to replace
defective switches that played a role in at least 124 deaths and
275 injuries, according to a victims' fund set up by GM and
administered by attorney Kenneth Feinberg.  The switches could
unexpectedly switch from the "run" position to "off" or
"accessory," shutting off the engine and knocking out air bags and
the power-assisted steering and power brakes.

The automaker has paid nearly $875 million to settle death and
injury claims related to the switches.  That includes $600 million
from Mr. Feinberg's fund and $275 million to settle 1,385 separate
claims.  It also has paid $300 million to settle shareholder
lawsuits.

After it emerged from the government-funded bankruptcy, the
company referred to as New GM was indemnified against most claims
made against the pre-bankruptcy company, known as Old GM.  A
bankruptcy court sided with the company in 2015, ruling that most
claims against Old GM could not be pursued against the new
company.

But the appeals court in Manhattan overturned most of that
decision and said hundreds of pre-bankruptcy claims could go
forward.

Robert Hilliard, a Corpus Christi, Texas, lawyer who has about 300
pre-bankruptcy cases pending against GM, said the decision wrecks
GM's strategy to settle the strongest post-bankruptcy cases and
refuse to negotiate with pre-bankruptcy plaintiffs.

"This takes GM back to the starting line after four years,"
Mr. Hilliard said.  "They are now back to being responsible for
terrible deaths."

Mr. Hilliard said pretrial discovery and depositions on broader
factual issues have been completed, so he would expect cases to go
to trial shortly.

But GM said in a statement the decision does not change the legal
landscape much for the company.  The high court did not make a
decision on the merits of GM's legal arguments.  Instead, those
decisions will be made by lower courts, the company said.  GM has
a motion pending in federal court seeking to dismiss many of the
pre-bankruptcy claims based on state liability laws governing
liabilities against successor companies, spokesman Jim Cain said.

"The plaintiffs must still establish their right to assert
successor liability claims," GM said.  "From there, they still
have to prove those claims have merit."

The company said the appeals court "departed substantially from
well-settled bankruptcy law."

Plaintiffs have yet to win any so-called bellwether cases that
have gone to trial, Mr. Cain said.

The Supreme Court decision not to hear the appeal exposes GM to
additional liability from the pre-bankruptcy cases, said
University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias.

He expects many of those cases to be settled soon under pressure
from a federal judge overseeing pretrial discovery in the cases.


GOLDEN VALLEY: CFPB Files Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that federal regulators sued four
online lenders for collecting consumer debts they weren't legally
owed, an area that is a prime source of consumer complaints.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed the suit on
April 25 against the lenders, saying they illegally took money
from consumers' bank accounts for debts that weren't valid.  It
says the high-cost online loans violated licensing requirements or
interest-rate caps, or both, making them void in at least 17
states.

The four lenders, Golden Valley Lending, Silver Cloud Financial,
Mountain Summit Financial and Majestic Lake Financial, are owned
by the Habematolel Pomo Tribe, an American Indian tribe in
northern California.  The tribe disputed the allegations and said
it would fight the suit.


GUICE ENGINEERING: Faces "Hooter" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSH HOOTER INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED VS. GUICE ENGINEERING, INC. D/B/A GEI WELDING, Case No.
2:17-cv-00350 (E.D. Tex., April 25, 2017), alleges that GEI
Welding suffered or permitted workers to work more than 40 hours
in a work week, but did not pay them overtime wages in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Instead, Defendant paid these
workers a straight hourly rate with no federal withholding, social
security or Medicare taxes withheld.

GEI provides welding gases in addition to service and selling
welders, torches, and regulators.

Plaintiff was a welder employed at GEI Welding.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
     HOMMEL LAW FIRM
     1404 Rice Road, Suite 200
     Tyler, TX 75703
     Phone: 903-596-7100
     Fax: 469-533-1618


HEALTHCARE CONSULTANTS: Faces "Reichenbach" Suit Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Reichenbach, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Healthcare Consultants Alliance LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company and Larry Beuer, Individually,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00212-JES-MRM (M.D. Fla., April 20,
2017), alleges that Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of
forty (40) hours within a workweek but Defendants failed to
compensate Plaintiff and others similarly situated for all hours
worked as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Healthcare Consultants Alliance LLC is a business consulting
service located in North Fort Myers, Florida.

Plaintiff was employed as account manager. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bill B. Berke, Esq.
     BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A.
     4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
     Cape Coral, FL 33904
     Phone: 239 549 6689
     E-mail: berkelaw@yahoo.com


HUAWEI DEVICE: Faces "Christensen" Suit Over Defective Nexus 6P
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN CHRISTENSEN on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HUAWEI DEVICE U.S.A. INC. and GOOGLE
INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-02336-NC (N.D. Cal., April 25,
2017), is a consumer protection case on behalf of individuals who
purchased Nexus 6P cell phones. An alleged defect in the Nexus 6P
gives the phone a propensity to crash and then reboot
interminably, rendering the phone useless.  According to the case,
instead of fixing the defects in the Nexus 6P or providing injured
consumers with refunds, effective repairs, or working replacement
devices, Defendants have blamed each other for the defects and
left consumers without a means for redressing their injuries.

Plaintiff's claims were filed under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act.

Huawei Device USA Inc. provides information and communications
technology solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
     Jordan Elias, Esq.
     Simon S. Grille, Esq.
     GIRARD GIBBS LLP
     601 California Street, Suite 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Phone: (415) 981-4800
     E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
             je@girardgibbs.com
             sg@girardgibbs.com


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Loan Agents Seek Damages for Unpaid Overtime Work
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON N. NGUYEN and TAM NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, vs. IMPAC
MORTGAGE, CORP. dba CASHCALL MORTGAGE and CASHCALL, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00723 (C.D. Cal., April 20, 2017), is
a complaint for damages, declaratory and injunctive relief,
rescission and restitution for unpaid overtime wages, inadequate
meal periods, unlawful deductions from wages earned, unfair
competition, violations of California Labor Code, California
Business and Professional Code and Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case was filed on behalf of Plaintiff and all other loan
agents who are or have been employed by Defendants, and each of
them, at their call centers located in Orange County and elsewhere
in the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Dale M. Fiola, Esq.
     200 North Harbor Boulevard, Suite 217
     Anaheim, California 92805
     Phone: (714) 635-7888
     Fax: (714) 635-3323
     E-mail: Fiolaw1@aol.com

        - and -

     Mark Boling, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MARK BOLING
     21986 Cayuga Lane
     Lake Forest, CA 92630
     Phone: (949) 588-9222
     E-mail: maboling@earthlink.net


JANET ROUSSELL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a
field service technician has filed a class-action lawsuit against
three individuals over allegations of unpaid wages.

Tyler Legros filed a complaint on behalf of individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated filed a complaint on April
7 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana, Lafayette Division against Janet Roussell, Shelby
Roussell and Rocky Roussell alleging that they violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he
regularly worked more than 84 hours per week without receiving
overtime compensation.  Instead, he claims he was paid a flat
amount for each day worked.  The plaintiff holds Janet Roussell,
Shelby Roussell and Rocky Roussell responsible because the
defendants allegedly failed to keep accurate time records and
failed to pay overtime at the rate of one-and-one-half times his
regular rate for those hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The plaintiff seeks an order allowing this action to proceed as a
collective action, award for all unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and such other relief
to which he may be justly entitled.  He is represented by Matthew
S. Parmet -- mparmet@brucknerburch.com -- and David I. Moulton of
Bruckner Burch PLLC in Houston, Texas and Kenneth W. DeJean of Law
Offices of Kenneth W. DeJean in Lafayette.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
Lafayette Division Case number 6:17-cv-00506


JASON TURCHIN: "Baez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Gabriella Baez, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. Jason Turchin, Esq., LLC d/b/a Law Offices of Jason
Turchin and Jason Turchin, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60774
(S.D. Fla., April 19, 2017), seeks to recover money damages for
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Legal Assistant for
their law firm. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: "Klein" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GERALD W. KLEIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. KANDI TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.,
HU XIAOMING, WANG CHENG, and ZHU XIAOYING, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-02932 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2017), alleges that Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies in
violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) certain areas in the Company's previously
issued financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2015
and 2014, and the first three quarters for the year ended December
31, 2016 required adjustment; (ii) in turn, the Company lacked
effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (iii) as
a result of the foregoing, Kandi's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant time.

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, designs,
produces, manufactures, and distributes electric vehicles (EVs)
products, EV parts, and off-road vehicles in the People's Republic
of China and internationally. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
     Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
     GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
     440 Park Avenue South
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212 983 1300
     Fax: 212 983 0380
     E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
             gegleston@gme-law.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: "Newman" Appeals Claims Dismissal to 7th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff, Margery Newman, in the case captioned MARGERY NEWMAN,
and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 17-1844 (N.D. Ill., March
23, 2016) appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit from the Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing
Plaintiff's claims asserted in her First Amended Complaint at Law
entered in this action on March 9, 2017, the District Court's oral
ruling denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Complaint at Law announced on April 12, 2017, and the
Entry of Civil Judgment entered in this action on April 12, 2017.

This case arises from a long-term care insurance policy that
Plaintiff Margery Newman purchased from Defendant Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company. In connection with the policy, Plaintiff
purchased a premium-payment option titled the "Reduced-Pay at 65
Option." The option allegedly didn't function as Ms. Newman
anticipated it would. She therefore sues on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated for breach of contract, common law fraud
and fraudulent concealment, and unfair and deceptive practices
under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides life insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management services in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Frank H. Tomlinson, Esq.
     15 North 21st Street, Suite 302
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: 205-326-6626
     Email: hilton@tomlawllc.com

        - and -

     Robert R. Duncan, Esq.
     DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC
     161 N. Clark, Suite 2550
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: (312)262-5841
     Email: rrd@duncanlawgroup.com

        - and -

     Thomas Cusack Cronin, Esq.
     CRONIN & CO., LTD.,
     161 N. Clark Street, Suite 2550
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: 312 201 7100
     Email: tcc@cronincoltd.com

Defendant(s) is represented by:

     Sheldon Eisenberg, Esq.
     DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
     1800 Century Park East, Suite 1500
     Angeles, CA 90028
     Phone: (310) 203-4000
     Email: sheldon.eisenberg@dbr.com

        - and -

     Stephen A. Serfass, Esq.
     DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
     One Logan Square, Ste. 2000
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 988-3313

        - and -

     Daniel J. Delaney, Esq.
     DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
     191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
     Chicago, IL 60606-1698
     Phone: (312) 569-1175
     Email: daniel.delaney@dbr.com

        - and -

     Michael D. Rafalko, Esq.
     DRINKER BIDDLE AND REATH LLP
     One Logan Square, Suite 2000
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 988-2750
     Email: michael.rafalko@dbr.com

        - and -

     Terri L. Ahrens, Esq.
     DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
     191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
     Chicago, IL 60606-1698
     Phone: (312) 569-1000
     Email: terri.ahrens@dbr.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: "Jordan" Sues Over Illegal Collection Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy Jordan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland
Funding, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-01231 (S.D. Ind., April 19, 2017),
seeks actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and such further relief under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. and Midland Funding, LLC operate a
nationwide debt collection business and attempts to collect debts
from consumers in virtually every state, including consumers in
the State of Indiana.

Defendants threatened Mr. Jordan with negative consequences if he
did not pay the debt, which rendered ineffective all its previous
communications to sue for non-payment thereby lacking a proper
disclosure that would leave the consumer without enough
information to make a decision as to what to do about the
collection of the debt at issue and cause them to believe
Defendants that the debt needed to be paid. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


MIDLAND CREDIT: Judge Certifies Debtors' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Barbara Grzincic, writing for Reuters, reports that an Illinois
woman can pursue a class action that accuses debt-collector
Midland Credit Management of withholding information from nearly
69,000 debtors about their rights under U.S. law, a federal judge
in Chicago ruled on April 21.

U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber granted Renetrice Pierre's
motion to certify her case as a class action, rejecting claims by
the San Diego-based subsidiary of Encore Capital Group that she
lacked standing to sue because she had suffered no monetary
damages.


MVCI ENERGY: Breached FLSA, N. Mex. Min. Wage Act, Says "Parra"
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO PARRA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. MVCI ENERGY SERVICES, INC.; KELLY McCLELLAN; GREG
VICK; and CHUCK BANKS, Case No. 1:17-cv-00474 (D.N. Mex., April
20, 2017), alleges that MVCI violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay Parra and
the Class Members overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek.

Based in New Mexico, MVCI Energy Services, Inc. is an oil and gas
service company providing flowback and well testing services to
clients throughout the United States.  Parra and his coworkers
were employed by MVCI in the oil field performing manual labor job
duties surrounding the rigging up, operation, and rigging down of
oil and gas equipment such as manifolds, separators, flow iron,
and other equipment used in well testing and flow back related
jobs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew S. Parme, Esq.
     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
             mparmet@brucknerburch.com

        - and -

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 352-1100
     Fax: (713) 352-3300
     E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
             adunlap@mybackwages.com


NETGEAR INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Cable Modems
-----------------------------------------------------------
Consumers on April 24 announced the filing of a class action
lawsuit against NETGEAR, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTGR), claiming that the
global networking company sells cable modems containing a serious
defect that results in high spikes in network latency, degrading
users' Internet connections, according to Schubert Jonckheer &
Kolbe, which represents the consumers.

The lawsuit, filed on April 14, 2017 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, alleges that consumers
who purchased Netgear's CM700 modem -- which Netgear claimed was
"ideal for the fastest Internet speed services plan" -- suffers
from severe network latency spikes.  Hundreds of users have
complained in online forums, and Netgear itself has acknowledged
the issue.  Netgear, however, has failed to fix the problem for
SB6190 purchasers.

"Consumers paid top dollar for a high-end cable modem, but the
Netgear CM700 suffers from a serious flaw that affects network
connections," said Noah Schubert, a partner at Schubert Jonckheer
& Kolbe, "Netgear and other cable modem manufacturers shipping
modems with the defect should recall the affected models and issue
refunds."

According to the lawsuit, the root of the problem is Netgear's
decision to swap out the Broadcom chipset in this modem with the
Puma 6 chipset from Intel Corporation.  Intel has acknowledged
that the problem stems from its Puma 6's chipset, which causes
cable modems to suffer from significant jitter and latency on
their network connections.

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP is actively investigating whether
other cable modems containing the Puma 6 chipset, including modems
from Linksys, Cisco, Hitron, and Arris, also suffer from the same
severe network latency defect. To see if your cable modem may be
affected by this defect, please visit our website at
http://classactionlawyers.com/netgear.

If you purchased a Netgear CM700 or other cable modem containing
the Puma 6 chipset, you may be entitled to a refund of the
purchase price.  If you think you may be affected by this cable
modem defect, please contact us today to learn more.

                 About Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe represents shareholders, employees, and
consumers in class actions against corporate defendants, as well
as shareholders in derivative actions against their officers and
directors.  The firm is based in San Francisco, and with the help
of co-counsel, litigates cases nationwide


NEXTIVA INC: "Hernandez" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nextiva, Inc. and Does 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00757
(C.D. Cal., April 19, 2017), seeks damages and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related regulations,
specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, and invasion of
Plaintiff's privacy.

Nextiva, Inc. is telecommunications company who contacted
Plaintiff on her cellular telephone number using an automatic
telephone dialing system, seeking to solicit its services. Such
calls were not for emergency purposes for which Plaintiff incurred
a charge for incoming calls. [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


NOBLE ENERGY: Faces "Fritzler" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN FRITZLER, et al. Plaintiffs, v. NOBLE ENERGY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-1278 (S.D. Tex., April 25, 2017),
alleges that instead of paying overtime as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Noble improperly classified Plaintiff and
those similarly situated as independent contractors, paying a
straight hourly rate with no overtime compensation.

Noble Energy, Inc. is a global oil and gas exploration and
production company operating worldwide and throughout the United
States, including in Texas.  The Plaintiff is a welder.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
     Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77005
     Phone: 713-352-1100
     Fax: 713-352-3300
     E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
             adunlap@mybackwages.com
             litkin@mybackwages.com
             jbresler@mybackwages.com

        - and -

     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


NUVASIVE INC: Investors Challenge Class Action Stay Request
-----------------------------------------------------------
Martin O'Sullivan, Kat Greene and Jeff Overley, writing for
Law360, report that NuVasive Inc. investors urged a California
federal judge on April 21 to refuse the surgical device developer
a pause to class claims that it damaged shareholders by concealing
a kickback scheme, saying NuVasive's challenge to the class's
certification is likely doomed.

NuVasive earlier in April urged U.S. District Judge Jeffrey T.
Miller for a stay while it appealed the judge's March
certification of a class of NuVasive investors alleging the
company falsely claimed compliance with federal laws on Medicare
and Medicaid reimbursements.  The investors on April 21 urged
Judge Miller not to pause the suit, saying that the Ninth Circuit
has not yet accepted the appeal and that it would likely fail.

"Defendants dispute this court's application of well-settled law
in this circuit to the facts of this case, which is neither an
appropriate basis for granting a . . . petition nor for
overturning this court's well-reasoned class certification
decision," the investors said.

NuVasive had argued that the Ninth Circuit would not issue its
ruling and potentially decertify the investor class until after
discovery ended in district court, posing a possible waste of time
and money.  But the investors said on April 21 that the costs of
discovery in the case were "neither atypical nor severe" and thus
missed the bar necessary to freeze the suit.

The complaint, originally filed in August 2013, accuses NuVasive,
former CEO and Chairman Alexis V. Lukianov and former Chief
Financial Officer Michael J. Lambert of violating the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making deceptive statements to investors
and the public.

The suit claims the company repeatedly assured investors it was
complying with federal laws about Medicare and Medicaid
reimbursements.  But the company revealed in a quarterly report
that it had been subpoenaed by the U.S. Department of Justice for
alleged fraud on its Medicare and Medicaid claims.

The news of the investigation spurred a 12 percent drop in
NuVasive's stock price, dropping it $3.28 to $22.84 by the
market's close on July 31, 2013.  Investors allegedly bought the
stock at prices that were artificially inflated by the company's
repeated assurances that NuVasive was complying with federal
reimbursement laws.

NuVasive in July 2015 revealed it would pay nearly $14 million to
the DOJ to settle claims that the company had violated the False
Claims Act by promoting off-label uses of spinal fusion products
for Medicare patients and dispensing kickbacks through a
supposedly independent medical society.

Judge Miller's certification order covers a class of investors who
bought NuVasive securities between Oct. 22, 2008, and
July 30, 2013.

NuVasive did not immediately respond to a comment request on April
24.

The investors are represented by Michele S. Carino, Jeremy A.
Lieberman, Jennifer Pafiti, Cheryl D. Hamer and Emma Gilmore of
Pomerantz LLP and Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

NuVasive and Lambert are represented by Robert W. Brownlie --
robert.brownlie@dlapiper.com -- Noah A. Katsell --
noah.katsell@dlapiper.com -- and Kellin M. Chatfield --
kellin.chatfield@dlapiper.com -- of DLA Piper. Lukianov is
represented by Christopher H. McGrath --
chrismcgrath@paulhastings.com -- and Raymond W. Stockstill --
beaustockstill@paulhastings.com -- of Paul Hastings LLP.

The case is Mauss et al. v. NuVasive Inc. et al., case number
3:13-cv-02005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California, and case number 17-80055 in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: June 20 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, on April 24 announced
the filing of a class action lawsuit against Ocwen Financial
Corporation ("Ocwen" or the "Company") (NYSE: OCN) concerning
possible violations of federal securities laws between May 11,
2015 and April 19, 2017 inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period
should contact the firm in advance of the June 20, 2017 lead
plaintiff motion deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, call Brian Lundin,
Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at
brian@lundinlawpc.com.

No class has been certified in the above action yet.  Until a
class is certified, you are not considered represented by an
attorney.  You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent
class member.

According to the Complaint, Ocwen made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: that the Company engaged in
significant and systemic misconduct at nearly every stage of the
mortgage servicing process; that this conduct would subject Ocwen
to heightened regulatory scrutiny and potential criminal
sanctions; and that as a result of the above, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.  On April 20, 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau announced that it was suing Ocwen, and several states
issued cease-and-desist orders against the Company.  When this
information was released to the public, shares of Ocwen dropped in
value significantly.

Lundin Law PC -- http://lundinlawpc.com/-- was established by
Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles
dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights.


ONTARIO: Faces Class Action Over Disabled Services Wait Lists
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paola Loriggio, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a
northeastern Ontario family has filed a proposed class-action
lawsuit against the Ontario government over what it alleges are
unreasonable wait lists that effectively deny people with
developmental disabilities the care they need.

Marc Leroux of Timmins, Ont., launched the suit earlier in April
on behalf of his 19-year-old daughter Briana Leroux, who court
documents say is non-verbal and requires support services 24/7.

The statement of claim alleges the teen had access to necessary
support through one government department as a child but that was
"arbitrarily and unreasonably" discontinued after her 18th
birthday.

It further alleges that she applied for support as an adult
through a different department and was placed on a wait list,
where she remains more than a year later.

The suit, which is seeking $110 million in damages, alleges the
province breached its duties to Mr. Leroux and other adults with
developmental disabilities by failing to properly manage the wait
lists, forcing her relatives to assume her care.

The allegations have not been proven in court and no statement of
defence has been filed at this time.

"The (Developmental Services Ontario) wait lists are indeterminate
and administered in an ad-hoc, inconsistent and unreasonable
manner, denying eligible recipients statutory benefits which are
necessary for their basic daily human needs and safety," the claim
alleges.

"Adults may spend years on the DSO wait lists, requiring family
members or other caregivers to provide necessary services or
supports, or going without such services.  This practice damages
the persons directly in need of such services, as well as their
family and caregivers."

2014 report recommended eliminating wait lists

The lawsuit argues the province was or should have been aware of
alleged "administrative deficiencies" that result in unwieldy wait
lists, noting at least three reports have highlighted the issue in
recent years.

It cites a 2014 report by a legislative committee that recommended
eliminating the lists within 12 months, a recommendation it says
was rejected by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

It also points to a report that same year by the Ontario Auditor
General, which estimated it would take 22 years to clear a waiting
list for adults with developmental disabilities needing
residential services, assuming no one else signed up.

Mother calls on province to tackle disability support wait list
Placing young disabled people in nursing homes, not right, say
families

The latest report, produced by the province's ombudsman last year,
found that while the government has poured more money into the
care system in recent years, demand for services continues to
outstrip supply and thousands still languish on waiting lists.

The lawsuit alleges that the province's negligence has caused
adults such as Leroux to endure pain, anxiety, impairment to their
dignity and physical integrity, and other negative effects.

If certified as a class action, the lawsuit would encompass those
who were approved for services under the 2008 Disabilities Act and
placed on a wait list for services after July 1, 2011.


PISTICCI RESTAURANT: "Reyes" Asserts NY Labor Law Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rodolfo Reyes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against PISTICCI Restaurant Corp., Michael
Forte and Vivian Forte, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02869
(S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek, but were not paid overtime in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants are engaged in the restaurant business.
Plaintiff's primary job duty involved cooking and/or preparing
food. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter A. Romero, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
     103 Cooper Street
     Babylon, NY 11702
     Phone: 631 257 5588
     E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com


R.F. FISHER: Faces "Smith" Suit Under FLSA, Kan. Wage Payment Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE C. SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. R.F. FISHER ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC,
Registered Agent: K & E Services, 111 S. Kansas Ave., Olathe, KS
66061, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00293-DW (W.D. Mo., April 20,
2017), alleges that Plaintiff was not paid for all hours she
worked and was not paid at the proper rate of pay in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.   Ms. Smith was also allegedly
terminated for complaining to superiors about wage and hour
violations.  This Complaint is also brought pursuant to the Kansas
Wage Payment Act.

R.F. Fisher Electric Company, LLC is a Kansas electrical
contractor with a principle place of business in Kansas City,
Kansas.  The Plaintiff is a former receptionist/administrative
assistant for R.F. Fisher Electric Company, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
     Michael A. Williams, Esq.
     1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
     Kansas City, MO 64105
     Phone: 816-945-7175
     Fax: 816-945-7118
     E-mail: mwilliams@williamsdirks.com


RHP PROPERTIES: Settles Chelmsford Commons Rent Hike Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Feathers, writing for Lowell Sun, reports that residents of
the Chelmsford Commons mobile home community have reached a six-
figure settlement agreement in a class-action lawsuit alleging
that the park owner improperly raised rents over the last five
years.

The settlement has already resulted in small rent reductions for
residents, many of whom are elderly and live on fixed incomes. The
park owner, Michigan-based RHP Properties, which bills itself as
the largest owner and operator of manufactured home communities in
the country and has a history of rent complaints in New England,
has also agreed to pay out more than $100,000 to the approximately
350 current and former residents impacted.

"I'm hoping that we can get something to bring us all back down
again," resident Sally Walters said of rent in the park.

Ms. Walters received a notice earlier in April that RHP Properties
was reducing her rent by $9 as a result of the settlement.  The
$626 she will have to pay is still almost half of her fixed
income.

If a Middlesex Superior Court Judge approves the class-action
settlement agreement, letters will be sent out to residents like
Ms. Walters to notify them that they are eligible for further
compensation due to improper rent increases in prior years.

Three residents of Chelmsford Commons initiated the lawsuit
earlier in April.  They declined to comment through their
attorney, Ethan Horowitz, of the Northeast Justice Center.
Horowitz also declined to comment on the case.

The residents alleged that RHP had violated a 1990 Master Lease
agreement that stated rent increases in Chelmsford Common were to
be based, in part, on changes in the Boston Consumer Price Index.
Residents of the park own their homes but pay rent on their lots.

Instead, RHP based the increases on the national CPI, which rose
faster than the Boston index and resulted in inflated rents,
according to the settlement.  RHP, which did not admit to guilt as
part of the agreement, did not respond to a request for comment.

"The new owners, if the cost of living doesn't go up they're still
going to charge you," said one Chelmsford Commons resident, who
declined to give her name. "They know lots of the residents are on
social security and disability."

The lawsuit also alleged that RHP improperly tacked on the cost of
repairing a water main break. As part of the settlement, RHP has
agreed to set aside an additional $10,000 to compensate residents
for those charges.

In recent years, residents of RHP communities in New Hampshire,
Connecticut, and New York have publicly voiced complaints about
the company's rent increases and maintenance issues.

In 2015, a couple living in Chelmsford Commons sued RHP, claiming
that the company illegally forced them to pay for repairs to their
external heating oil unit.  That case is ongoing.

a Middlesex Superior Court judge must still approve the settlement
in the most recent rent lawsuit.  Once that happens, notices
should begin going out to residents.

Even though the recompense may not be large, some residents said
they will have significant impacts.  In the past, residents been
forced to move from the park due to changes of $20 or $30 in rent.

"Anything helps," said Jerry Robinson, whose rent has already been
reduced by $16.  "There's no doubt about it."


RITE AID: Judge Grants Summary Judgment in TCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley J. Andreozzi, Esq. -- bradley.andreozzi@dbr.com --
Justin O. Kay, Esq. -- justin.kay@dbr.com -- Melanie M. Barnes,
Esq. -- melanie.barnes@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP,
in an article for The National Law Review, report that a New York
U.S. District Court Judge granted summary judgment in favor of
defendant Rite Aid Headquarters Corp. in a putative TCPA class
action involving flu vaccine reminder calls.  The opinion in Zani
v. Rite Aid Headquarters Corp., 14-cv-9701, was recently unsealed
after originally being filed under seal on March 30, 2017.  In
Zani, the court found that Rite Aid's call to the plaintiff's
cellphone that used a pre-recorded voice to remind him to get his
flu shot fell under what the Court referred to as the "Health Care
Rule," which exempted the call from the prior written consent
requirement for telemarketing calls under the TCPA.

Plaintiff Zani received a single flu shot reminder call in 2014.
The record showed that Rite Aid made these calls only to
individuals who had received a flu shot from Rite Aid the previous
year, and Zani was one of those individuals.  It was undisputed
that in connection with his previous shot, Zani signed a flu shot
form and provided Rite Aid with his cellphone number. It was also
undisputed that, in connection with previous prescription refills,
Zani signed several written notices agreeing to be contacted by
Rite Aid "about refill reminders . . . or health related benefits
and services."

Armed with these facts, Rite Aid sought summary judgment, arguing
(among other things) that the flu shot reminder call fell under
the Health Care Rule, which the FCC adopted under the TCPA in
October 2013.  That rule exempts calls that deliver a "health care
message" made by health care providers regulated by the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA")
from any consent requirement where the calls are made to
residential land lines and from the requirement for prior express
written consent when the calls are made to cellphones. 47 C.F.R.
Sec. 64.1200(a)(2).  Rite Aid argued that the rule applied and
exempted the call from the requirement for written consent and
that Zani had supplied the requisite consent when he provided Rite
Aid with his cellphone number.  Zani countered that Rite Aid's own
documents characterized flu shot communications as "marketing,"
which showed that the call Zani received had a marketing purpose
(to sell flu shots) and that the forms Zani signed did not meet
the heightened written consent requirements for telemarketing
calls.

In agreeing with Rite Aid, the court concluded that the call at
issue delivered a "health care message" because it (1) concerned
the availability of a prescription medication; (2) was made within
an established health care treatment relationship; and (3)
concerned the individual healthcare needs of Zani.  The court was
careful to emphasize that although the presence of those three
conditions was sufficient to show that the call delivered a health
care message, the court was not holding that all three conditions
were necessary for a call to fall within the Health Care Rule.

The court easily dispatched Plaintiff's argument that the
underlying marketing purpose of the call prevented it from falling
under the Health Care Rule by pointing out that the plain text of
the regulation enacting the rule denotes that it is an exception
to the consent requirements imposed on telemarketing calls;
meaning if a call relays a health care message, it does not
require written consent despite its marketing purpose. Otherwise,
the court reasoned, the Rule would be superfluous because it would
only exempt calls from the written consent requirement that are
already exempt.

This ruling is a victory for pharmacies and other health care
providers -- and for their patients who rely on timely
notifications regarding their treatment options -- in that it
reinforces the understanding that health care messages are exempt
from the heightened consent requirements that attach to
telemarketing calls, even if the calls concern medicines available
for purchase and thus might be alleged by a plaintiff to have an
underlying marketing purpose.


RUBY TUESDAY: Aug. 7 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the Ruby Tuesday Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

DENNIS KRYSTEK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,

Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01119

                                             Plaintiff,



                    vs.

RUBY TUESDAY, INC., et al.,

                                             Defendants.

Judge Bernard A. Friedman
Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley
CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED RUBY TUESDAY, INC.
("RUBY TUESDAY") COMMON STOCK BETWEEN APRIL 10, 2013 AND OCTOBER
9, 2013, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville
Division, that a hearing will be held on August 7, 2017, at 10:30
a.m., before the Honorable Bernard A. Friedman at the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
Nashville Division, Estes Kefauver Federal Building and United
States Courthouse, 801 Broadway, Nashville, Tennessee 37203, for
the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of
the Litigation for $5 million should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and
Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the Court
dismissing the Litigation with prejudice and releasing the
Released Claims; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation for the Net
Settlement Fund is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the
payment of attorneys' fees and expenses and any Lead Plaintiff
award pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 78u-4(a)(4) should be
approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED RUBY TUESDAY COMMON STOCK BETWEEN
APRIL 10, 2013 AND OCTOBER 9, 2013, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS
PERIOD"), YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS
LITIGATION, INCLUDING THE RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS YOU
MAY POSSESS RELATING TO YOUR PURCHASE OR ACQUISITION OF RUBY
TUESDAY COMMON STOCK DURING THE CLASS PERIOD.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you
may obtain copies by writing to Ruby Tuesday Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box
30224, College Station, TX 77842-3224, or on the Internet at
www.rubytuesdaysecuritieslitigation.com.  If you are a Class
Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by
mail (postmarked no later than July 17, 2017), or online at
www.rubytuesdaysecuritieslitigation.com no later than July 17,
2017, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you purchased or acquired Ruby Tuesday common stock during the
Class Period and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you
must submit a request for exclusion so that it is received no
later than July 17, 2017, in the manner and form explained in the
detailed Notice referred to above.  All Members of the Class who
do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the
Stipulation of Settlement.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Lead
Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses, and Lead
Plaintiff's request for time and expenses must be received by each
of the following recipients no later than July 17, 2017:

Lead Counsel:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
DARREN J. ROBBINS
LAURIE L. LARGENT
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA  92101

Counsel for Defendants:

BRIAN H. POLOVOY
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022-6069

Any objection must also be filed with the Court no later than July
31, 2017:

CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

Estes Kefauver Federal Building and United States Courthouse
801 Broadway, Room 800
Nashville, TN  37203

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

DATED:  March 31, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION


SERVICE EXPERTS: "Donato" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Joseph Donato, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Service Experts, LLC, d/b/a
Service Experts Heating And Air Conditioning, Service Experts
Heating & Air Conditioning New York, LLC, Roland J. Down Service
Experts Heating and Air Conditioning, Roland J. Down,
individually, and any other related entities, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00436, (N.D.N.Y., April 19, 2017), seeks to recover
federal and state mandated wages and overtime pay owed, liquidated
damages, penalties available under applicable laws, reasonable
attorney's fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such
other and further legal and equitable relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York State Labor Law.

Service Experts, LLC, operates as Service Experts Heating and Air
Conditioning. It provides residential and commercial HVAC service
and replacement, ancillary residential home services, including
plumbing, indoor air quality and energy audits, commercial HVAC
service, maintenance and replacement and HVAC installation in
commercial and residential new constructions throughout the United
States, including the State of New York. Donato worked as a
plumbing technician.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlo A. C. de Oliveira, Esq.
      Phillip G. Steck, Esq.
      COOPER, ERVING & SAVAGE, LLP
      39 North Pearl Street, Fourth Floor
      Albany, NY 12207
      Telephone: (518) 449-3900
      Facsimile: (518) 432-3111
      Email: CdeOliveira@coopererving.com

             - and -

      Benjamin Light, Esq.
      CALLAGY LAW, P.C.
      Mack-Cali Centre II
      650 From Road, Suite 565
      Paramus, NJ 07652
      Telephone: (201) 261-1700
      Facsimile: (201) 549-8408
      E-mail: Blight@callagylaw.com


SILVER'S CRUST: Faces "Hardy" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Hardy, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Silver's Crust West Indian Restaurant &
Grill Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02415 (E.D.N.Y., April 21,
2017), alleges that Plaintiff and other similarly situated current
and former hourly employees who worked for the Defendant are: (i)
entitled to unpaid overtime wages from Defendant for working more
than 40 hours in a week and not being paid an overtime rate of at
least 1.5 times his regular rate; and (ii) entitled to maximum
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant was engaged in the business of operating and managing
restaurants within the State of New York.  Defendant employed
Plaintiff to perform a variety of functions in its restaurant
including porter and dishwasher duties. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SNAPCHAT: Faces Class Action Over Unauthorized Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that a Los Angeles County man alleges Snapchat sent him a
text message without his permission.

Dave Vaccaro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated filed a complaint on April 14 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against Snapchat Inc. and
Does 1 through 10 alleging that the defendants violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in January,
he received an unsolicited text message from defendant on his
cellular telephone for the purpose of sending spam advertisements
and promotional offers. Plaintiff claims the text message was
placed via SMS Blasting Platform or an automatic telephone dialing
system and was not for emergency purposes.

The plaintiffs holds Snapchat Inc. and Does 1 through 10
responsible because the defendants allegedly failed to receive any
prior express consent to plaintiff and others to send unsolicited
text messages.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek statutory damages
of $1,500, injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in the
future and other relief the court may deem just and proper.  He is
represented by Todd M. Friedman of The Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman, PC in Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:17-cv-02870


SPRING CYPRESS: "Escobar" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Esmeralda Escobar on behalf of herself individually, and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Spring Cypress Fino,
Inc. and Croatia Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01231,
(S.D. Tex., April 19, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wage, unpaid
overtime wages, equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated
damages, attorney's fees and post-judgment interest pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Spring Cypress Fino, Inc. and Croatia Group, LLC jointly operate a
pizza restaurant located at 16206 Spring Cypress Road, Cypress,
Texas, where Plaintiff has worked as a server, cook and delivery
driver. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe Williams, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JOE M. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      8866 Gulf Freeway, Suite 384
      Houston, TX 77017
      Tel: (713) 980-8900
      Fax: (713) 400-1104
      Email: jwilliams10050@gmail.com


SWISS HELVETIA FUND: Full Value Sues Over Shareholder Vote
----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case captioned Full Value Partners, L.P.
Plaintiff, v. The Swiss Helvetia Fund, Inc., Brian A. Berris,
David R. Bock, Jean-Marc Boillat, Richard A. Brealey, Claus
Helbig, Samuel B. Witt III, Jay S. Calhoun and Fred J. Ricciardi,
Defendants, Case No. 2017-0303, (Del. Ch., April 19, 2017), brings
this action for relief, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, asserting breach of fiduciary duties.

The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, to enforce the
franchise rights of the Fund's shareholders, to remedy the
improper appointment of a director, which deprived shareholders of
the right to a free and fully informed election, and certain
mandatory relief to permit a vote at the 2017 annual meeting on a
shareholder proposal to terminate, under certain conditions, the
Fund's investment advisory agreement with Schroder Investment
Management North America Inc.

The Swiss Helvetia Fund is a closed-end investment company
registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 that invests
primarily in publicly traded equity securities of Swiss companies.
Full Value, a Delaware limited partnership, is and has been a
shareholder of Swiss Helvetia common stock. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carol S. Shahmoon, Esq.
      Gregory E. Keller, Esq.
      CSS LEGAL GROUP PLLC
      One Great Neck Road, Suite 7
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Tel: (646) 517-4399

             - and -

      Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
      P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
      ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
      919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
      Citizens Bank Center
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 656-4433


TARGET CORP: Removes "Halley" Labor Lawsuit to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
Target Corporation removes the case captioned CORBIN HALLEY, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. TARGET CORPORATION, a Corporation, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC653367, originally
filed in the Superior Court of California in and for the County of
Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on April 13, 2017.  The District Court
clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-00692 to the proceeding.

The case asserts four causes of action for (1) failure to provide
meal periods; (2) failure to provide rest periods; (3) failure to
maintain required payroll records; and (4) unfair business
practices under California unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Section 17200.

Target Corporation is an upscale discount retailer. [BN]

The Defendant(s) is represented by:

     Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
     Jullie Z. Lal, Esq.
     Lin Zhu, Esq.
     PAUL HASTINGS LLP
     101 California Street, 48th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 856-7000
     Fax: (415) 856-7100
     E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
             jullielal@paulhastings.com
             linzhu@paulhastings.com


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: IUOE Local 30 Alleges Baclofen Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 30 BENEFITS FUND,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; UPSHER-SMITH LABORATORIES,
INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; AND LANNETT COMPANY, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01901-CMR (E.D. Pa., April 25, 2017),
alleges that Defendants have for years unlawfully conspired,
combined and contracted to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize
Baclofen prices, allocate customers and rig bids, all with the
intent and effect of restraining competition in the Baclofen
market in the United States.

Baclofen is a muscle relaxer and an antispastic agent.

Defendants are pharmaceutical companies. [BN]

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
     Daniel B. Rehns, Esq.
     HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
     185 Madison Avenue, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212 213 8311
     Fax: 212 779 0028
     E-mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
             drehns@hrsclaw.com

        - and -

     Katie R. Beran, Esq.
     Brent W. Landau, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Phone: 215 985 3270
     Fax: 215 985 2371
     E-mail: kberan@hausfeld.com
             blandau@hausfeld.com

        - and -

     Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
     Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
     Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
     Stephanie Y. Cho, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: 415 633 1908
     Fax: 415 358 4980
     E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
             bsweeney@hausfeld.com
             clebsock@hausfeld.com
             scho@hausfeld.com

        - and -

     Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
     Sathya S. Gosselin, Esq.
     Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: 202 540 7200
     Fax: 202 540 7201
     E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
             sgosselin@hausfeld.com
             jkenney@hausfeld.com

        - and -

     Lee Albert, Esq.
     Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920
     New York, NY 10168
     Phone: 212 682 5340
     Fax: 212 884 0988
     E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com
             glinkh@glancylaw.com

        - and -

     Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
     Paul Costa, Esq.
     FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
     One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Phone: 215-567 6565
     Fax: 215 568 5872
     E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
             pcosta@finekaplan.com


TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Faces "Chaparro" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA CHAPARRO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. TEXAS ROADHOUSE, INC., and ROADHOUSE
ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-73 (N.D. Tex.,
April 25, 2017), alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act with respect to employees earning a direct cash wage
of less than the minimum wage by (a) requiring them to purchase
and pay to clean uniforms, aprons, and other work-related items;
(b) requiring them to surrender a portion of their tips in excess
of those contributed to a mandatory tip pool; (c) altering
timekeeping records in order to reflect fewer hours, including
overtime hours, than were actually worked; (d) requiring and/or
permitting them to perform work off-the-clock; and (e) requiring
them to spend more than twenty percent (20%) of their time engaged
in non-tip producing activities without paying minimum wage for
such time.

Defendants own, operate, or manage 517 casual dining restaurants
in 49 states and six foreign countries.  Ms. Chaparro was employed
as a server. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
     Collin Wynne, Esq.
     YOUNG & NEWSOM, PC
     1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
     Amarillo, TX 79101
     Phone: (806) 331-1800
     Fax: (806) 398-9095
     E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com
             collin@youngfirm.com


THERANOS: Hagens Berman Seeks Info From Purchasers of Shares
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman, an investor-rights law firm leading the current
class-action lawsuit against Theranos, is seeking information from
purchasers of interests in Theranos and is urging investors to
find out their rights.

If you purchased Theranos securities or an interest in Theranos
through a third-party fund between July 29, 2013 and Oct. 5, 2016,
contact Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.  For more information
visit https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/Theranos or contact Reed
Kathrein, the firm's partner leading the investigation, by calling
510-725-3000 or emailing Theranos@hbsslaw.com.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins sided with Hagens
Berman in the pending class action against Theranos, upholding the
complaint brought against Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes and Ramesh
"Sunny" Balwan in an order filed Apr. 18, 2017 on behalf of both
direct and indirect purchasers, and allowing the case to move
forward.

"The court has allowed the case for Theranos investors to
continue, and we are now entering a critical juncture in our fight
for investors' rights," said Steve Berman, managing partner of
Hagens Berman.  "We're urging indirect purchasers of Theranos
securities to step forward and aid the scores of those affected."

The complaint filed Nov. 28, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, states that Theranos and its
officers set in motion a publicity campaign to raise billions of
dollars for Theranos and themselves, and to induce investors to
invest in Theranos, all the while knowing that its "revolutionary"
blood test technology was not yet viable.

On Friday, Apr. 21, 2017, the Wall Street Journal reported on
papers filed in one of the court proceedings against Theranos,
detailing how even Theranos directors were deceived, including
that Theranos set up a secret company to purchase the commercial
equipment it used instead of its "revolutionary technology" to
hide the purchases.
                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities.
The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs'
Hot List eight times.


TJC MORTGAGE: "Miller" Alleges Labor Law Breach, Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL MILLER, vs. TJC MORTGAGE INC., d/b/a HOMERATE MORTGAGE,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00109 (E.D. Tenn., April 21, 2017),
alleges, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current
and former employees of TJC who elect to opt into this action
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, that they: (i) have been
misclassified as exempt employees or have otherwise been paid
improperly; (ii) are entitled to unpaid wages for work performed
for which they did not receive any compensation, as well as
overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay
as required by law; and (iii) are entitled to liquidated damages
pursuant to the FLSA.

Plaintiff also alleges discharge violations of the Americans with
Disability Act, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
(GINA), as well as any other relevant law that may apply.  The
Plaintiff asserts that shortly after Plaintiff's disclosure of her
ongoing health issues and new testing to Defendant, Defendant
terminated her employment on July 19, 2016.  When she was
terminated, Plaintiff was told that it was due to the company's
need to make financial cutbacks. However, that was untrue and was
a pretext for discrimination, says the complaint.

TJC MORTGAGE INC. is a mortgage lender.  Plaintiff first held the
position of application taker, followed by set up, then loan
officer assistant, and then loan officer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Donna J. Mikel, Esq.
     Robert W. Wheeler, Esq.
     BURNETTE, DOBSON & PINCHAK
     711 Cherry Street
     Chattanooga, TN 37402
     Phone: (423) 266-2121
     Fax: (423) 266-3324
     Email: dmikel@bdplawfirm.com
            rwheeler@bdplawfirm.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: NJ Appeals Court Upholds Arbitration Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a
New Jersey appeals court has upheld an arbitration agreement and
rejected a putative class-action suit against Toyota.

The two-judge panel, in a decision released on April 24 in Foti v.
Toyota Motor Sales, upheld a trial judge's decision to dismiss the
lawsuit and said the lead plaintiff, Regina Foti, clearly
understood the language of the contract when she leased the car
and agreed to arbitrate any dispute.

Appellate Division Judges Carmen Messano and Marianne Espinosa
said the language in the sales contract was clear and conformed
with state and federal rulings that have said arbitration -- if
agreed to by all parties -- is the preferable way to resolve
disputes.

Ms. Foti leased a 2014 Toyota Corolla. In 2015, she filed a class-
action lawsuit alleging violations of New Jersey's Truth-In-
Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act.  She alleged the
contract violated the state's Lemon Law, as well.

The ruling did not address the allegations behind Ms. Foti's
claims.  Calls to the office of her attorney, Lewis Adler, of the
Woodbury office of Paul DePetris, were unanswered.

"[P]laintiff waived her right to participate in class action," the
judges said.  "There is nothing in the arbitration agreement that
exempts plaintiff's individual claims."


TRANS UNION: Faces "Matthews" Lawsuit Alleging FCRA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MATTHEWS and BRENDA MATTHEWS, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRANS UNION, LLC
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01825-JS (E.D. Pa., April 21, 2017),
asserts that Trans Union violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA) by preparing and furnishing consumer reports that include
tax liens that have been withdrawn and by failing to report that
withdrawn tax liens have been withdrawn. Trans Union also violates
the FCRA by failing to remove a withdrawn tax lien from a
consumer's credit report, and failing to report a withdrawn tax
lien as withdrawn, after receiving notice of a dispute from a
consumer regarding Trans Union's reporting of the withdrawn tax
lien.

Trans Union, LLC is a national consumer reporting agency.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James A. Francis, Esq.
     John Soumilas, Esq.
     FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
     Land Title Building, Suite 1902
     100 South Broad Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19110
     Phone: 215.735.8600
     Fax: 215.940.8000
     E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
             jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

        - and -

     James M. Feagle, Esq.
     SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
     2374 Main Street Suite B
     Tucker, GA 30084
     Phone: (404) 373-1970
     Fax: (404) 601-1855
     E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com

        - and -

     Robert Sola, Esq.
     ROBERT S. SOLA, P.C.
     1500 SW First Avenue Suite 800
     Portland, OR 97201
     Phone: (503) 295-6880
     Fax: (503) 243-4546
     E-mail: rssola@msn.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Law Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Carrie Wong, writing for The Guardian, reports that Uber
faced yet another challenge on April 24 when a former Lyft driver
filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that a secret program
created by the ride-hailing giant to spy on its rival's drivers
violated federal and state privacy laws.

The program, known internally as Hell, was revealed on April 12 by
the tech news site the Information.  Uber allegedly used the
program to track and identify Lyft drivers, building up profiles
of individuals and figuring out who was driving for Uber and Lyft.
Uber then prioritized sending rides to drivers who used both apps,
hoping to persuade drivers to abandon Lyft, according to the
report.

Uber disputed the charge of giving preference to drivers using
both services in a comment to the Information but has not
commented further on the program.

The lawsuit, filed by Michael Gonzalez, who drove for Lyft from
2012 until November 2014, asserts that in using Hell, Uber engaged
in "unlawful invasion of privacy and interception of electronic
communications and images".

The program damaged Lyft drivers, the suit argues, by reducing the
total number of drivers on the platform, thereby inhibiting Lyft
from offering cheap and quick rides.

The complaint cites the 2012 supreme court case United States v
Jones, which found that Americans have constitutional protections
against GPS tracking by law enforcement.

Uber did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the
lawsuit.

The April 24 lawsuit is the latest in a slew of bad news for Uber.
In recent weeks, the New York Times has revealed two other
questionable features of the Uber app.

After the Times reported on Greyball, a secret program to evade
law enforcement, the company discontinued the feature. On Sunday,
the Times reported that Uber had violated Apple's privacy rules
for iOS apps, resulting in a private rebuke from Tim Cook.

Uber has also been rocked by a viral #DeleteUber campaign,
allegations of widespread sexual harassment and gender
discrimination, the departure of a number of top executives, and a
major legal battle with the Google spin-off Waymo.


UNILEVER UNITED: Robinson Files Suit Over False Ad
--------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE ROBINSON; JESSICA BERCOW; individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, PLAINTIFFS v.
UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Case No. 2:17-cv-03010-DMG-AJW (C.D. Cal., April 21, 2017),
alleges that Defendants' advertising, and labeling of its Products
as "natural" are false and misleading.

The case asserts violations of California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, California False Advertising Law, breach of express warranty,
unjust enrichment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and
California Unfair Competition Law.

DEFENDANT manufactures, produces, and markets various skin care
products.  It sells products that are marketed and sold in retail
stores throughout the United States under the brand name "ST.
IVES".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
     NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
     600 W. Broadway, Suite 700
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 272-7014
     Fax: (619) 330-1819
     E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com


VISA INC: Victory in ATM Fees Suit Unites Two Solo Litigators
-------------------------------------------------------------
Katelyn Polantz, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that a U.S.
Supreme Court victory against Visa and Mastercard over ATM fees
has helped unite two solo antitrust litigators to form a bicoastal
firm.

Jonathan Rubin of Rubin PLLC in Washington, D.C., and Daniel Mogin
of the Mogin Law Firm in San Diego announced the formation of
eight-lawyer MoginRubin.

In National ATM Council v. Visa, the pair represents a class of
independent ATM operators who accuse the credit card companies of
price-fixing.  The Supreme Court rejected efforts by Visa Inc.,
Mastercard and financial institutions to stop the litigation late
last year.

Messrs. Rubin and Mogin's partnership dates back to about a year
ago.  They knew of one another through the American Antitrust
Institute, but for much of their careers worked on different types
of appellate cases.  Mr. Mogin focused on California-based
disputes, especially at the state court level, in antitrust and
investment law. Rubin appeared in court primarily in Washington in
antitrust disputes.

"I was sitting in my office in San Diego and the telephone rang,
and Jon was on the other end of the phone.  He began to tell me
about the case he had against Visa and Mastercard," Mr. Mogin
said.

Mr. Rubin described how another firm, Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez &
Sachs, had stopped working on the case, and he needed back-office
support.  "You either have to be a masochist or have some help,"
he said.  "Maybe some of my ex-wives would call me a masochist,
but I went for the help."

Mr. Rubin said he had to talk Mr. Mogin into saying yes to the ATM
case.  "It taught me something about Dan.  He's got very good
judgment.  He's not emotional.  He's very smart," Mr. Rubin said.
"Dan and I are able to talk about things on a very sophisticated
level and move onto the next thing," Mr. Rubin said.  "We don't
have to sweat over understanding complicated stuff, because we've
been through it."  In addition to his law degree, Mr. Rubin has a
Ph.D. in economics from the University of Copenhagen. Prior to his
sole firm venture, he was a partner at Patton Boggs in Washington.

Mr. Mogin described a "nerdy and nice" affinity that developed
between the two lawyers while they worked on the case.

"They were already a great team when we worked together at the
Supreme Court, so this makes a ton of sense," appellate litigator
Tom Goldstein, who worked with Messrs. Mogin and Rubin on the ATM
case, said about the pair's new partnership.  "I found them
incredibly knowledgeable and great colleagues to work with."

The combination will allow Mr. Rubin to contribute to Mr. Mogin's
major cases, while Mr. Mogin can increase his East Coast
visibility as more of his types of cases materialize outside of
California and focus on antitrust law. Recently, the Supreme Court
declined to hear an appeal that could have prevented Mr. Mogin's
clients from certifying a 12 billion antitrust class action.

The deal also allows Messrs. Mogin and Rubin, who are 61 and 62,
respectively, to start thinking about transitions -- although
neither lawyer wants to get ahead of himself.

"Oh hell no.  They can carry me out with my boots on," Mr. Mogin
said about the prospect of retirement.

"My mother's 100 years old," Mr. Rubin said, separately.  "We're
looking for a good 10 years or more of a successful practice
here."


VON TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Cook County Record, reports that an IT
professional has filed a class action lawsuit against Von
Technologies LLC, a network services company, citing alleged
unpaid wages and violation of Workers' Compensation acts.

Milos Vukovic filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on March 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleging the employer failed to properly
compensate the plaintiff.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges he sustained
damages from not being paid overtime wages. The plaintiff holds
Von Technologies responsible because it allegedly failed to pay
the plaintiff overtime wages for working more than 40 hours per
week.

The plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, court costs and any further relief this court grants.  He
is represented by Douglas M. Werman -- dwerman@flsalaw.com --
Maureen A. Salas -- msalas@flsalaw.com -- Sarah J. Arendt --
sarendt@flsalaw.com -- and Zachary C. Flowerree --
zflowerree@flsalaw.com -- of Werman Salas P.C. in Chicago.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Case
number 1:17-cv-02305


WD SERVICES: Johnson-Hendricks Files Suit Under TCPA
----------------------------------------------------
TWONESHA JOHNSON-HENDRICKS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. WD SERVICES LLC, DBA
SEARCHFORFUNDS.COM; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant(s),
Case No. 2:17-cv-00846-WBS-AC (E.D. Cal., April 22, 2017), alleges
that Defendant continued to contact Plaintiff on her cellular
telephone in an effort to sell or solicit its services and
continued to do so despite repeated efforts to get Defendant to
cease the conduct.  The case alleges violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant, WD SERVICES LLC, DBA SEARCHFORFUNDS.COM is in payday
loan business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WELLS FARGO: Has Not Taken Stand on SB 33 Despite Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Sacramento Bee reports that after getting nailed for opening
bogus accounts without customers' knowledge, you might think -- if
only as penance -- that Wells Fargo would bless legislation aimed
at ensuring that financial institutions never again engage in such
predatory practices.  Think again.

One of the ways the big San Francisco-based bank has sought to
avoid full responsibility for its now-infamous ripoff has been to
try to prevent its victims from suing.  Many of those Wells Fargo
had targeted were customers with legitimate accounts, whom the
bank signed up for new credit cards and accounts without
authorization or, in some cases, their knowledge.

Like many corporations, Wells Fargo had tucked broad arbitration
clauses into the fine print of those legitimate accounts, and
after the scandal, the bank invoked them to claim that disputes
over the unauthorized accounts also must be resolved in secret
arbitration proceedings, not taken to court.

Incredibly, some courts have sided with Wells Fargo; that's how
far the law now leans in favor of corporations. California
Treasurer John Chiang and Sen. Bill Dodd, D-Napa, are responding
with Senate Bill 33.

As drafted, SB 33 would open the way for victims to sue in
California state courts by restricting arbitration agreements from
applying when financial institutions pick their customers'
pockets.  One of the bill's backers, Consumer Attorneys of
California, has been in discussions with one of its rivals in the
lobby corps, the Personal Insurance Federation, on amendments that
would make clear the bill is narrow in scope.

Wells Fargo has not taken a stand on SB 33.  But the California
Bankers Association, the California Chamber of Commerce and
several other major business groups labeled the bill a "job
killer" and urged lawmakers to reject when it comes up for a vote
early in May.

The bill "will negatively impact 'financial institutions' with
unnecessary and costly class action litigation that does not
ultimately benefit the consumer," the letter from the bankers and
chamber says.

The Sacramento Bee's editorial board does not often support
legislation that would expand the use of lawsuits to resolve
disputes.  But as it's written, SB 33 is narrow and would apply to
financial institutions that go out of their way to violate
consumers' rights.

Wells Fargo did indeed set itself apart by engaging in a pattern
of fraud against folks who simply were trying to operate checking
and savings so they could cash their paychecks, pay their bills
and maybe save a few bucks.  Wells Fargo employees, under pressure
from executives, opened 2 million fraudulent accounts and issued
565,000 credit cards in customers' names without their consent.

The bankers targeted people who spoke little English, lacked
Social Security numbers, were elderly and had memory problems, or
were opening their first accounts.  The bankers were, in short,
preying on the vulnerable.

SB 33 became even more important when President Donald Trump
signed an order that stepped toward dismantling the federal Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, approved
during the Obama administration to curb the kind of banking
excesses that led to the housing meltdown.

Trump already has targeted one product of Dodd-Frank, the U.S.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which proved its worth by,
among other things, levying a $100 million fine against Wells
Fargo Bank for its illegal practices.

As Trump tries roll back consumer protections, California
lawmakers should step in.  And California corporations, such as
Wells Fargo, should set an example.  Joining to restore public
trust and to prevent future financial predation serves all parties
and is an excellent place to start.


WINS FINANCE: "Desta" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHEL DESTA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. WINS FINANCE HOLDINGS INC., JIANMING HAO,
RENHUI MU, PEILING (AMY) HE, AND JUNFENG ZHAO, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-02983 (C.D. Cal., April 20, 2017), alleges that the
Defendants violated the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act by
issuing financial statements containing materially false and/or
misleading information and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Wins
did not maintain its principal executive offices in the United
States; (2) Defendants intentionally misrepresented that its
principal executive offices were located in the U.S. in order to
be included in Russell 2000 index to inflate its stock price; (3)
Wins was not in compliance with SEC regulations; (4) Wins had
inadequate internal controls; and (5) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements about its business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Wins Finance Holdings Inc. is a company that provides financing
solutions to small and medium enterprises in China. [BN]

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



                         *********


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 Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *