CAR_Public/170504.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Thursday, May 4, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 89



                            Headlines

12 HOLLYWOOD: "Knight" Suit Alleges Cal. Labor Law Violations
24 HOUR: "Abella" Alleges Wage, Hour Violations Under Cal. Laws
1-800 CONTACTS: "Henry" Suit Removed to D. Utah
1-800 CONTACTS: "Bartolucci" Suit Removed to D. Utah
6D GLOBAL: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Castillo" Class Suit

ALL NEW: "Ruiz" Alleges Labor Law Violations, Unfair Competition
AMERICAN PRO: May 1 Hearing on Class Certification Bid Vacated
APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Workers' Compensation Class Action Pending
BAJA SERVICES: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed
BES INDUSTRIES: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Gorss Suit Claims

BOB'S DISCOUNT: "Espinal" Alleges Violation of N.J. Wage Laws
EVERALBUM INC: Faces "Figueroa" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Judge Granted Class Certification in "Dover"
CALIFORNIA: $3.2-Million Settlement Reached in HASC Class Action
CAMPBELL SOUP: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Brower" Class Suit

CANADIAN FUNDING: Seeks 10th Circuit Review of Ruling in CGC Suit
CARBONITE INC: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Automatic Renewal Policy
CAREGIVERS HOME: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Haggard" Suit Says
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: McCabe Appeals Ruling in "Aranda" Class Suit
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Bid to Certify Class Stricken as Premature

CHICAGO, IL: Seventh Circuit Appeal Initiated in KCL Class Suit
CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Class Action
COMCAST: Judge Dismisses Leave to Amend Bogus Fee Class Action
COMPUTER SCIENCES: "Strauch" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes
CONSOLIDATED WORLD: May 16 Status Hearing on Bid to Certify Class

CORRECTIONS CORP: Faces "Nieto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CREST PUMPING: Appeals Ruling in "Carley" Suit to Fifth Circuit
DEMOCRATIC NAT'L: Class Action Over Primary Mishandling Ongoing
DEVON ENERGY: Appeals Seeligson Class Cert. Ruling to 5th Cir.
DISNEY: Animators Launch Fresh Suit Over Non-Poaching Settlement

DITECH FINANCIAL: Cohen Appeals E.D.N.Y. Judgment to 2nd Circuit
DNA CONTRACTING: "Parra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces "Hubbard" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Labor Laws
EHEALTH INC: Faces "Adam" Suit Over Personal Information Leak
FLINT, MI: Attorney Says Water Crisis Class Actions Face Delay

FOX NEWS: Kelly Wright Joins Racial Discrimination Class Action
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: "Cruckshank" Fairness Hearing on July 10
GALLUP INC: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hartley" Suit Claims
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Appeals Order in "Harkey" Suit to 2nd Circuit
GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Stuart" Suit

HONEYWELL INT'L: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Kelly" Suit
HYUNDAI: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Paint Defect
ILLINOIS: Certification of Medical-Enrolled Children Class Sought
IREMEDY HEALTHCARE: Faces "Thomas" TCPA Violations Suit in Fla.
IRWIN D. SIMON: "Barnes" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation

J&B MECHANICAL: Faces "Johnston" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
JIMMY JOHN'S: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Lucas" Class Suit
KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Senne Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
KB HOME: Court Approves $2MM in Class Action Attorneys' Fees
LINDSAY ENTERTAINMENT: Seeks Review of Decision in "Tassy" Suit

SEAWORLD PARKS: Appeals Ruling in "Herman" Suit to 11th Circuit
LONG BEACH, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Patel" Class Suit
LVNV FUNDING: Final Settlement Approval Pending in "Sandoval"
LYFT INC: Page Appeals Ruling in "Cotter" Suit to 9th Cir.
MDL 2179: MRM and Tobatex Appeal Ruling in Deepwater Horizon Case

MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Brinkley" Suit
MONTROSE RESTAURANT: Montano Appeals S.D. Tex. Ruling to 5th Cir.
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Tosses Ex-USC Players' Wage Class Action
NATALE BAKERY: "Reyes" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA, NY Law Violations
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Appeals Ruling in "Hayford" Suit to 9th Cir.

NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL: Settlement in "Cohn" Suit Underway
NEW YORK: Disabled Riders File Class Action Against MTA
NEW YORK: American Bus Assoc. Appeals Order in Suit vs. NYSTA
NEW YORK: DoTF Ordered to Pay $44.4-Mil. to Truckers
NEXTIVA INC: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Marketing Calls

NORTHSTAR LOTTERY: Seeks Dismissal of Illinois Fraud Class Action
NOVA HARDBANDING: Faces "Deschamps" Suit Under FLSA, N.Mex. Law
NUVASIVE INC: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Popov" Suit
PERCEPTA, LLC: Faces "Cortes" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
PROCARE AUTOMOTIVE: Faces "Guereca" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

REGRESO FINANCIAL: Certification of Class Sought in "Karcauskas"
REPUBLIC SCHOOLS: Appeals Ruling in "Skeete" Suit to 6th Circuit
SARATOGA DIAGNOSTICS: Class Certification Bid Under Advisement
SCOTTY'S HOLDINGS: Faces "Brady" Suit Over W-2 Tax Form Info Leak
SLICE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Cooper" Suit Over Data Collection

SMG HOLDINGS: Urbano Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
SOLARCITY FINANCIAL: Faces "Thomas" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
SOUTH AFRICA: Pomona Residents to Sue Ekurhuleni Municipality
SOUTH CAROLINA, USA: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Kenny" Suit
SAINT LUKE'S: Faces "Houston" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

STP JJ: Faces "Gibbs" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
THERAPEUTICSMD: Falsely Inflates Company's stock price, Suit Says
TOMORROW PCS: Conditional Class Certification Sought in "Blank"
TRANSGUARD INSURANCE: "Leitzbach" Alleges Misclassification
TRIDENT ASSET: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed

UNITED SERVICES: Settles Sales Tax Class Action for $39 Million
UNITED STUDENT: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Henderson" Suit
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Basile" Suit
VERIZON: Aliksanyan Seeks to Certify Telephone Customer Class
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Judge Tosses Plaintiffs' Lawyers Fee Request

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Canadian Vehicle Owners Covered by Class Action
VOLVO CARS: Renewed Class Certification Bid Terminated
WAFFLE HOUSE: Illegally Procures Background Reports, Suit Claims
WELLS FARGO: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Collins" Class Suit
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Baouch Appeals Judgment to Eighth Circuit

WINTERS LANDSCAPE: Initial Approval of "Magana" Settlement Sought
YADKIN VALLEY: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
YES ONLINE: June 26 Hearing on Renewed Class Cert. Motion

* Accounting-Related Class-Actions Up 33% in 2016, Research Shows
* State House Passes Colorado Construction Defects Bill




                            *********


12 HOLLYWOOD: "Knight" Suit Alleges Cal. Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE KNIGHT an individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 12 HOLLYWOOD PARK CASINO
COMPANY, INC., a corporation; and 13 DOES 1 through 10 inclusive,
Defendants, Case BC 658768 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles,
April 24, 2017), alleges that between approximately April of 2014
through approximately September of 2016, Defendant refused to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees through normal
payroll checks. Instead, Defendant insisted on paying Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees "under the table" through
credits placed on Defendant's "Player Club Card."

The case asserts violation of the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code.

Defendant operates Hollywood Park Casino.  The Plaintiff worked as
a "House Player" also sometimes referred to as "Poker Prop." A
House Player or Poker Prop is an employee of a casino whose job is
to play in poker games, usually in order to keep poker games going
as they begin to get shorthanded.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     George S. Azadian, Esq.
     Edrik Mehrabi, Esq.
     AZADIAN LAW GROUP, PC
     790 E. Colorado Blvd., 9th Floor
     Pasadena, CA 91101
     Phone: (626)449-4944
     Fax: (626) 628-1722
     Email: George@azadieinlawgroup.com


24 HOUR: "Abella" Alleges Wage, Hour Violations Under Cal. Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
LITA ABELLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, vs. 24 HOUR FITNESS USA, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC 658905 (Cal. Super., County of Los
Angeles, April 24, 2017), alleges that Defendants have engaged in
a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the
California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage
Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair
competition.

Defendants maintain and operate numerous health and fitness
facilities throughout California, and make various fitness-related
equipment and activities available to the public on a membership
basis.  The purported class is composed of class instructors or
group fitness instructors within California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kashif Haque Esq.
     Samuel A. Wong Esq.
     Jessica L. Campbell Esq.
     Ali S. Carlsen, Esq.
     AEGIS LAW FIRM, P.C.
     9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Phone: 949-379-6250
     Fax: 949-379-6251


1-800 CONTACTS: "Henry" Suit Removed to D. Utah
-----------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Henry, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, originally filed in the District of Columbia on
January 18, 2017, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah on April 10, 2017, and assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-
00274-BCW.

1-800 Contacts, Inc. sells contact lenses and related products
over the internet throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Matthew E. Miller, Esq.
   Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
   Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
   Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP
   4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
   Washington, DC 20016
   Tel: (202) 789-3960
   Fax: (202) 789-1813

        - and -

   Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
   Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
   Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP
   100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
   Minneapolis, MN 55401
   Tel: (612) 339-6900


1-800 CONTACTS: "Bartolucci" Suit Removed to D. Utah
----------------------------------------------------
Daniel J. Bartolucci and Edward Ungvarsky, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 1-800 Contacts,
Inc., Defendant, originally filed in the District of Columbia on
January 13, 2017, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah on April 10, 2017, and assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-
00273-JNP.

1-800 Contacts, Inc. sells contact lenses and related products
over the internet throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   William A. Isaacson, Esq.
   Scott E. Gant, Esq.
   Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
   1401 New York Ave. NW
   Washington, DC 20005
   Tel: (202) 237-2727
   Fax: (202) 237-6131

        - and -

   Carl E. Goldfarb, Esq.
   Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
   401 East Los Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 356-0011
   Fax: (954) 356-0022


6D GLOBAL: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Castillo" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Joseph Puddu, Mark Ghitis, Valery Burlak and Adam
Butter filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled
Castillo, IV v. 6D Global Techologies, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-5061,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(New York City).

The lawsuit alleges violations of securities laws.

The appellate case is captioned as Castillo, IV v. 6D Global
Techologies, Inc., Case No. 17-938, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Joseph Puddu, Mark Ghitis, Valery Burlak and
Adam Butter are represented by:

          Jonathan Richard Horne, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-2603
          Facsimile: (212) 836-6407
          E-mail: jhorne@rosenlegal.com

Defendants-Appellees 6D Global Techologies, Inc., Tejune Kang,
Mark Szynkowski and Terry Mcewen are represented by:

          Peter Nicholas Flocos, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 536-4025
          Facsimile: (212) 536-3901
          E-mail: peter.flocos@klgates.com


ALL NEW: "Ruiz" Alleges Labor Law Violations, Unfair Competition
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN RUIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ALL NEW STAMPING CO., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
BC 658908 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, April 24, 2017),
alleges failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest
periods, failure to pay all wages upon termination, failure to
provide accurate wage statements and unfair competition.

Defendant is in the metal stamping business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Nourmand, Esq.
     James A. De Sario, Esq
     THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
     8822 West Olympic Boulevard
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Phone: (310) 553-3600
     Fax: (310)553-3603


AMERICAN PRO: May 1 Hearing on Class Certification Bid Vacated
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Lori Golden, the Plaintiff v. American Pro
Energy, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00891-MWF-DTB (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald vacated the hearing
set for May l, 2017, to consider Plaintiffs' Amended Unopposed
Motion for Class Certification and took the matter off the
Calendar.

Early in April, the court deferred ruling on Plaintiff's original
Motion for Class Certification.  At the Court's directive, the
Plaintiff filed an amended Motion for class certification.

On the Court's own motion, the hearing on the Amended Unopposed
Motion for Class Certification is advanced to 8:30 a.m. on May 1.

In deferring the ruling on the original Class Certification
Motion, the Court held that the Motion, as currently drafted,
fails to comply with the Local Rules. Local Rule 7-6 provides that
"[f]actual contentions involved in any motion shall be presented,
heard, and determined upon declarations and other written
evidence" only. The Plaintiff included a number of factual
contentions in her Motion that are not supported by any
declaration or included in her Complaint, and that are necessary
to ruling on the Motion. Those factual contentions include:

   - American Pro Energy sells and/or refers leads for
     residential and commercial solar paneling to other
     companies, primarily A1 Solar Power, Inc.

   - American Pro Energy purchased the demographic information at
     issue in this action, including the names, addresses,
     telephone numbers, and other information of potential
     customers from a company called Red Sky, which is apparently
     located in the Philippines.

   - American Pro Energy loaded the information it purchased from
     Red Sky and other vendors and loaded it into its ViciDial
     predictive dialers.

   - American Pro Energy proceeded to make solicitation calls to
     thousands of consumers via the ViciDial predictive dialers.

   - American Pro Energy continued this practice even after
     Plaintiff filed her lawsuit.

According to the Court, Plaintiff shall file a supplemental
declaration setting forth the foregoing facts, as well as any
other facts necessary to certify the class that are not already
alleged in the Complaint or in the declarations accompanying the
Motion, on or before April 10, 2017. At that time, Plaintiff shall
additionally file an amended Motion for Class Certification that
includes citations to the appropriate evidence in the record. The
Court will then decide whether to set a hearing date on the
renewed Motion or to take the matter under submission.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rAuMb8HQ


APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Workers' Compensation Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wogin, Esq. -- mwolgin@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton
Fields, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that the case is pending
in a federal district court in New York, and involves three
allegedly interconnected contracts purportedly "designed to
circumvent [state] insurance laws," including the laws of New
York.  The three contracts include: (1) a workers' compensation
insurance contract between a licensed insurer and an insured; (2)
a reinsurance contract between the licensed insurer and an
affiliated reinsurer; and (3) a "reinsurance and profit sharing"
contract between the reinsurer and the insured. The plaintiffs
(insured employers) allege that the "reinsurance and profit
sharing" contract was an illegal contract of insurance that
modified the workers' compensation insurance contract issued by
the licensed insurer.  The plaintiffs also claim that the
"reinsurance and profit sharing" contract was materially
misleading, and misled insureds to assume liability for a portion
of the losses they believed they had insured.  Additional claims
asserted by the plaintiffs include breach of contract, rescission,
violation of New York law prohibiting deceptive trade practices,
and unjust enrichment.  The defendants (various alleged members of
the Berkshire Hathaway Group) moved to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim.

In a lengthy opinion, the court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss.  Regarding claims for rescission based on
alleged violations of the New York Insurance Laws governing
workers' compensation insurance, the court granted dismissal,
reasoning that enforcement of those laws rests with the
Superintendent of Insurance and that no private right of action
exists.  The court permitted claims for rescissory damages to
proceed however, as reimbursement of amounts charged and paid over
and above the filed rates of the policies is contemplated by New
York law and "promotes the legislative purpose of the NYIL to
ensure that parties adhere to filed rates."  The court also held
that the claims for breach of contract (based on plaintiffs'
contention that the reinsurance and profit sharing contract
modified the workers' compensation insurance policies) and unjust
enrichment, should survive dismissal. As to the claims for
deceptive trade practices, the court held that for certain named
plaintiffs, the claims were time-barred, but for other plaintiffs,
the claims could proceed.

National Convention Services, L.L.C. et al. v. Applied
Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., Inc., et al., Case No.
15-cv-07063 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2017).


BAJA SERVICES: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ABLE HOME HEALTH, LLC, on behalf of
plaintiff and the class members, the Plaintiff, v. BAJA SERVICES,
INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02627
(N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
determining that this action may proceed as a class action against
the Defendant, on behalf of the following classes:

For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act:

   "(a) all persons with fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date
   four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C.
   section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of
   defendant Baja Services, Inc., promoting its goods or services
   for sale (d) with respect to which defendant Baja Services,
   Inc. does not have evidence of consent or an established
   business relationship prior to sending the fax".

For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act:

   "(a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or
   after a date three years prior to the filing of this action,
   (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Baja
   Services, Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale (d)
   with respect to which defendant Baja Services, Inc. does not
   have evidence of consent or an established business
   relationship prior to sending the fax".

For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, and Count IV,
alleging trespass to chattels:

   "(a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or
   after a date five years prior to the filing of this action,
   (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Baja
   Services, Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale (d)
   with respect to which defendant Baja Services, Inc. does not
   have evidence of consent or an established business
   relationship prior to sending the fax".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that it be appointed class
representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
be appointed counsel for the class.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kh6LibRH

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Heather Kolbus, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, Illinois 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


BES INDUSTRIES: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Gorss Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gorss Motels, Inc., individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons v. BES Industries, Inc. and
John Does 1-5, Case No. 3:17-cv-00447-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla., April
17, 2017), seeks to put an end to the Defendant's practice of
sending unsolicited facsimiles.

BES Industries, Inc. operates a picture frame shop in
Jacksonville, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOB'S DISCOUNT: "Espinal" Alleges Violation of N.J. Wage Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
OMAR A. ESPINAL, On behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, LLC,
XPO LOGISTICS, INC., ABC CORPS. and JANE & JOHN DOES, Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02854 (D.N.J., April 26, 2017), alleges that
Plaintiff and Class Members routinely worked far in excess of
forty (40) hours per week for Defendants and were not paid 1.5
times their hourly rate or 1.5 times the minimum wage rate when
they worked over forty (40) hours per week.

Allegedly, Defendants' ongoing illegal policies of failing to pay
Class Members for time worked has resulted in Class Members being
denied substantial legally required compensation and/or overtime
payments given that Class Members routinely worked in excess of
forty hours per week.

The case was filed under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the
New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

Defendant Bob's is in the business of selling furniture to
customers and operates stores and locations in the Northeastem and
Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States.  Delendant XPO is a
third-party provider of end-to-end goods management and logistics
services for companies such as Bob's.  The purported plaintiffs
are individuals who performed truck driving and/or helper
functions for the Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
     Anthony S. Almeida, Esq.
     THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C.
     I 16 Village Boulevard, Suite 200
     Princeton, NJ 085400
     Phone: (609) 799-1266
     Fax: (609) 228-5649
     Email: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com


EVERALBUM INC: Faces "Figueroa" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIELLE FIGUEROA, on behalf of Herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. EVERALBUM, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Serve: Registered Agent National Registered Agents, Inc., 160
Greentree Drive, Suite 101, Dover, DE 19904, Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-01393 (E.D. Mo., April 26, 2017), is a Telephone Consumer
Protection Act case against Everalbum, Inc. which seeks to secure
redress for improper telemarketing to Plaintiff's cell phone,
including text messages.  Plaintiff seeks damages for herself and
a class and an order enjoining future illegal telemarketing
activity.

Defendant offers consumers the ability to free up space on their
Apple or Android devices by uploading their photos and videos to
its cloud storage service and allows users to edit and share their
photos and videos through its application called "Everalbum" or
"Ever".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan E. Fortman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN E. FORTMAN, LLC
     250 St. Catherine Street
     Florissant, MO 63031
     Phone: (314) 522-2312
     Fax: (314) 524-1519
     Email: jef@fortmanlaw.com


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Judge Granted Class Certification in "Dover"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RUSSELL DOVER, JONATHAN STONE, CODY RANK,
and SUZETTE PERRY, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BRITISH AIRWAYS, PLC (UK),
the Defendant, Case No. 1:12-cv-05567-RJD-CLP (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Raymond J. Dearie entered an order in grating class
certification of:

   "all United States resident members of British Airways'
   Executive Club who redeemed frequent flier miles for an award
   ticket from November 9, 2006 through April 17, 2013 and who
   paid a BA-imposed 'fuel surcharge,' so long as that United
   States resident member provided British Airways with a valid
   United States address at the time of booking".

This class excludes: (1) members who redeemed frequent flier miles
exclusively using what British Airways terminated its "Cash +
Avios" option; (2) any judge to whom this case is assigned, along
with his or her staff; (3) British Airways Officers, directors,
employees, as well as outside counsel in this
litigation, and; (4) immediate family of any individual excluded
by 2 or 3.

The Court appointed Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP to
serve as class counsel.

The Court said, "Setting aside arguments the Court has already
rejected in addressing the other requirements of Rule 23, British
Airways argues that Plaintiffs' proposed class is not
ascertainable for two reasons: (1) it is "is impossible to
ascertain the size, scope and geographic reach of this class"
given the class definition's inclusion of all individuals who
provided British Airways with "'a valid United States address at
the time of booking'" see Opp'n at 29 (quoting the class
definition); and (2) the class as currently defined may include
foreign residents, which would raise burdensome choice of law
issues. British Airways' first argument, that it is impossible to
ascertain the size and scope of Plaintiffs' proposed class, is
belied by British Airways' own database, which tracks not only the
names of all members of its frequent flyer program but also their
addresses, and other relevant information. Thus, there would be no
need for mini-hearings or other information to determine whether
or not that individual falls within the class definition. British
Airways' second argument, that the class as currently defined may
include foreign residents who may simply have given a business or
vacation address in the United States at the time of booking, is
well taken, but easily addressed. As Plaintiffs' state in their
reply, they have no objection to modifying the class definition to
define the class as including only United States resident members
of British Airways' frequent flyer program. With this minor
modification, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs' proposed class
is readily ascertainable".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5Qm8QoK9


CALIFORNIA: $3.2-Million Settlement Reached in HASC Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fish & Richardson disclosed that together with the Law Foundation
of Silicon Valley, it has helped win a $3.2 million award in a
housing discrimination class action lawsuit filed on behalf of 180
disabled individuals against the Housing Authority of the County
of Santa Clara (HACSC).  The case set an important legal precedent
stating that housing authorities cannot adopt a blanket policy
considering a living room as a bedroom when reviewing a reasonable
accommodation request for an extra bedroom for a disabled
household member.

The Court also awarded $712,500 in attorney's fees and costs. Fish
handled the case pro bono and is donating its share of the fee
award to the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley.

The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley filed the case in April 2014
and Fish joined as co-counsel in September 2015.  The lawsuit
alleged that HACSC had adopted a blanket policy whereby anyone who
asked for a reasonable accommodation for an extra room for a
disabled household member was told to use the living room as a
sleeping area.  The Court held that if the HACSC had adopted such
a blanket policy, it would violate several federal and state anti-
discrimination statutes, including the Fair Housing Amendments
Act, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the California Disabled
Persons Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

However, the question of whether or not the HACSC had in fact
adopted such a blanket policy was left unresolved.  A settlement
was reached on the eve of trial, requiring the HACSC to change its
policies regarding reasonable accommodation requests for persons
with disabilities through an amended "Administrative Plan."  Under
this plan, when considering a request for reasonable accommodation
for an additional bedroom that results in an adjustment to a
household's subsidy size, HACSC will not consider the living room
as a bedroom.  HACSC also agreed to review the files of all class
members to determine whether each member's file reflected a
current, disability-related need for an additional bedroom, and
take appropriate action.

"We are thrilled with the outcome of this case and hope that the
financial settlement and amended Administrative Plan will help
these individuals and their families feel more stable and secure
in their homes, and in their futures," said Jon Lamberson, Esq.
-- lamberson@fr.com -- a principal at Fish & Richardson who served
as lead counsel for Fish on the case.

The 180 disabled individuals in the lawsuit will each receive
between $916 and $25,406 in damages based on how HACSC's
discriminatory practices impacted their subsidy disbursements. The
settlement also provides for $695,560 in emotional distress
damages for class members who experienced homelessness as a result
of the discrimination.  Each of the five named plaintiffs in the
lawsuit was awarded $10,000 for the substantial time they devoted
to the case. Significantly, these named plaintiffs risked
retaliation by participating in the lawsuit because HACSC had the
power to reduce their subsidies or otherwise adversely affect
their living situations. As the judge noted, this was an even more
serious threat than the potential for workplace retaliation
typically found in class action litigation.

"Fish was very thorough and detailed in calculating damages for
each class member, which provided a strong rationale for
substantial monetary damages," said Kyra Kazantzis, directing
attorney at the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley.  "They addressed
not only the impact of discrimination against disabled persons in
allocating housing funds, but also addressed the effects on those
who became homeless.  We couldn't have accomplished this
settlement without them."

Kyra Kazantzis led a team from the Law Foundation of Silicon
Valley that included Nadia Aziz, Kara Brodfuehrer, Annette
Kirkham, Melissa Morris, Thomas Zito, Judy Wong, and Matthew
Warren.

In addition to Jon Lamberson, the Fish team included principal
Michael Headley, Esq. -- headley@fr.com -- and associates Bryan
Basso, Esq. -- basso@fr.com -- Emily Garff, Esq., Alana Mannige,
Esq., -- mannige@fr.com -- and Meghana RaoRane, Esq. --
raorane@fr.com --  Since 2015, Fish has dedicated nearly 2,000 pro
bono hours to the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, handling
multiple litigation matters and participating regularly in its pro
bono eviction clinic.

The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley advances the rights of under-
represented individuals and families in its diverse community
through legal services, strategic advocacy, and educational
outreach.

Fish & Richardson -- https://www.fr.com/pro-bono -- is a global
patent prosecution, intellectual property litigation, and
commercial litigation law firm with more than 400 attorneys and
technology specialists in the U.S. and Europe.  In addition to its
expertise in intellectual property law, Fish boasts a robust pro
bono program, and encourages all of its legal professionals to
take on pro bono matters as part of their professional lives. In
2016, Fish lawyers contributed an average of 56 pro bono hours
representing clients on a range of public interest matters,
leveraging its greatest resource -- Fish attorneys -- to address
unmet civil justice needs.


CAMPBELL SOUP: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Brower" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Harold Brower and Melinda Ferguson filed an appeal from
a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Harold Brower, et al. v.
Campbell Soup Company, Case No. 3:16-cv-01005-BEN-AGS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises out of the Defendant's alleged false and misleading
labeling and advertising of its Healthy Request Chunky Grilled
Chicken & Sausage Gumbo soup.

Campbell Soup Company is a producer of canned soups and related
products with its principal place of business in Camden, New
Jersey.

The appellate case is captioned as Harold Brower, et al. v.
Campbell Soup Company, Case No. 17-55406, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellants Harold Brower and Melinda Ferguson's opening
      brief is due on July 3, 2017;

   -- Appellee Campbell Soup Company's answering brief is due on
      August 1, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants HAROLD BROWER, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, and MELINDA
FERGUSON, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and
the general public, are represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY is represented by:

          Dale Joseph Giali, Esq.
          Rebecca B. Johns, Esq.
          Andrea M. Weiss, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-9509
          Facsimile: (213) 576-8121
          E-mail: dgiali@mayerbrown.com
                  rjohns@mayerbrown.com
                  aweiss@mayerbrown.com


CANADIAN FUNDING: Seeks 10th Circuit Review of Ruling in CGC Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Sandy Hutchens, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling relating to the lawsuit entitled CGC Holding Co., et al. v.
Hutchens, et al., Case No. 1:11-CV-01012-RBJ-KLM, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado - Denver.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Sandy Hutchens, et al.
v. JBD Hutchens Family Holdings I, et al., Case No. 17-1109, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Defendants filed a Tenth Circuit appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit.  That appellate case is captioned as CGC Holding Co., et
al. v. Hutchens, et al., Case No. 17-1091.

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are CGC HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, a
Colorado limited liability company; CRESCENT SOUND YACHT CLUB,
LLC, a Florida limited liability company; HARLEM ALGONQUIN LLC, an
Illinois limited liability company; and JAMES T. MEDICK, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated.

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are CGC HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, are
represented by:

          Michael F. Fried, Esq.
          Kevin Peter Roddy, Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
          P.O. Box 10
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0000
          Telephone: (732) 636-8000
          E-mail: mfried@wilentz.com
                  kroddy@wilentz.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Shepherd, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
          35 East State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          E-mail: sshepherd@sfmslaw.com

The Defendants-Petitioners are SANDY HUTCHENS, AKA Fred Hayes, AKA
Moishe Alexander, AKA Moshe Ben Avraham; TANYA HUTCHENS; JENNIFER
HUTCHENS, AKA Jennifer Araujo; 1681071 ONTARIO INC., an Ontario
corporation which has changed its name to Canadian Funding
Limited; NORTHERN CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LTD, an Ontario corporation;
2800 NORTH FLAGLER DRIVE UNITS 106-107 LLC, a Florida limited
liability company; ESTATE OF JUDITH HUTCHENS; 29 LAREN STREET
INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2141250 Ontario Inc.; 3415
ERRINGTON AVENUE INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2129974 Ontario
Inc.; 367-369 HOWEY DRIVE INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA
1714530 Ontario Inc.; 3419 ERRINGTON AVENUE INC., an Ontario
corporation, AKA 2129982 Ontario Inc.; 17 SERPENTINE STREET INC.,
an Ontario corporation, AKA 1714529 Ontario Inc.; 720 CAMBRIAN
HEIGHTS INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2154461 Ontario Inc.;
331 REGENT STREET INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2126929
Ontario Inc.; 789 LAWSON STREET INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA
2128417 Ontario Inc.; 110-114 PINE STREET INC., an Ontario
corporation, AKA 2173061 Ontario Inc.; 15-16 KEZIAH COURT INC., an
Ontario corporation, AKA 2128412 Ontario Inc.; 193 MOUNTAIN STREET
INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2141249 Ontario Inc.; 625 ASH
STREET INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2128413 Ontario Inc.; 364
MORRIS STREET INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2119821 Ontario
Inc.; SANTAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC.; 101 SERVICES ROAD INC.; 146
WHITAKER STREET INC., an Ontario corporation; 1697030 ONTARIO
INC.; JBD HOLDINGS; 1539006 ONTARIO INC.; 308 ELGIN STREET INC.;
CANADIAN FUNDING LIMITED; FIRST CENTRAL HOLDINGS INC.; FIRST
CENTRAL MORTGAGE FUNDING INC.; and JBD HUTCHENS FAMILY HOLDINGS
INC., an Ontario corporation, AKA 2129981 Ontario Inc.[BN]

The Defendants-Petitioners are represented by:

          Scott Eric Gessler, Esq.
          HALE WESTFALL LLP
          1600 Stout Street, Suite 500
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (720) 904-6010

               - and -

          Steven A. Klenda, Esq.
          ADROIT ADVOCATES
          1624 Market Street, Suite 202
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (720) 432-5705
          E-mail: sklenda@adroitadvocates.com


CARBONITE INC: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Automatic Renewal Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Carbonite, Inc. and Does 1 - 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:17-at-00411 (E.D. Cal., April 17, 2017), is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendants' practice of making
automatic renewal or continuous service offers to consumers in
California and at the time of making the automatic renewal or
continuous service offers, failed to present the automatic renewal
offer terms or continuous service offer terms, in a clear and
conspicuous manner and in visual proximity to the request for
consent to the offer before the subscription or purchasing
agreement; charging the Plaintiff's and Class Members' credit or
debit cards, or third-party account without first obtaining the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' affirmative consent to the
agreement containing the automatic renewal offer terms or
continuous service offer terms; and failing to provide an
acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous
service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information
regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being
retained by the consumer.

Carbonite, Inc. is a provider of cloud and hybrid data protection
solutions for small and midsized businesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
      Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
      PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
      4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
      Newport Beach, CA  92660
      Telephone: (949) 706-6464
      Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
      E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
              vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com


CAREGIVERS HOME: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Haggard" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clarissa Haggard, for herself and others similarly situated v.
Caregivers Home Health Texas, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-01199 (S.D.
Tex., April 17, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 in a
workweek.

Caregivers Home Health Texas, Inc. provides community living
assistance and support services, as well as primary home care, and
other similar services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

         - and -

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 351-1100
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: McCabe Appeals Ruling in "Aranda" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Kevin McCabe filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled GERARDO ARANDA, et al. v. CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE,
INC., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-04069, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 19,
2017, the Court has signed off on an award of more than $15
million -- and potentially, as much as $18.9 million -- in
attorney fees for lawyers, who secured a $76 million settlement
from the Defendants accused of using nonprofit surveys to mask
illegal telemarketing calls.

The appellate case is captioned as Kevin McCabe, et al. v.
Caribbean Cruise Line, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 17-1626, in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellant's brief is due on or before May 3, 2017, for Kevin
McCabe.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees GRANT BIRCHMEIER and STEPHEN PARKES are
represented by:

          Jon C. Loevy, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          311 N. Aberdeen Street
          Chicago, IL 60607-1249
          Telephone: (312) 243-5900
          E-mail: jon@loevy.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees REGINA STONE and GERARDO ARANDA, on behalf of
themselves and a class of others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Esq.
          EDELSON P.C.
          350 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: atievsky@edelson.com

Objector KEVIN MCCABE is represented by:

          Todd C. Bank, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TODD C. BANK
          119-40 Union Turnpike
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 520-7125
          E-mail: TBLaw101@aol.com

Defendants-Appellees CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INCORPORATED, VACATION
OWNERSHIP MARKETING TOURS, INCORPORATED, and VACATION OWNERSHIP
MARKETING TOURS are represented by:

          Jeffrey Backman, Esq.
          GREENSPOON MARDER PA
          200 E. Broward Boulevard
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 491-1120
          Facsimile: (954) 213-0140
          E-mail: jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees ECONOMIC STRATEGY GROUP, ECONOMIC STRATEGY
GROUP, INCORPORATED, and ECONOMIC STRATEGY LLC are represented by:

          Anna-Katrina S. Christakis, Esq.
          PILGRIM CHRISTAKIS LLP
          321 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 939-0920
          E-mail: kchristakis@pilgrimchristakis.com

Defendant-Appellee BERKLEY GROUP, INCORPORATED, is represented by:

          Vincent J. Connelly, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-7912
          Facsimile: (312) 706-8614
          E-mail: vconnelly@mayerbrown.com


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Bid to Certify Class Stricken as Premature
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge John Z. Lee entered an order in the lawsuit titled
Richard Gordon, the Plaintiff, v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., et
al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-05848 (N.D. Ill.), striking
motion to certify class as premature in light of ongoing class
discovery and the Court's class certification briefing schedule
set on March 16, 2017.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 4, 2017,
the Plaintiff should file the motion for class certification after
class discovery has concluded pursuant to the briefing schedule.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qRx9liko


CHICAGO, IL: Seventh Circuit Appeal Initiated in KCL Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Keep Chicago Livable, Susan Maller, Danielle McCarron,
Benjamin T. Wolf and Monica Wolf filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their entitled Keep Chicago Livable, et al. v. City of
Chicago, Case No. 1:16-cv-10371, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The appellate case is captioned as Keep Chicago Livable, et al. v.
City of Chicago, Case No. 17-1656, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit on behalf of two classes of
plaintiffs -- shared housing hosts and guests of shared housing
hosts on Airbnb and other similar short-term rental
intermediaries.  The two Classes and two Subclasses are defined
as:

   -- Class "A" -- "Shared housing hosts."  Representative
      parties: KCL and Benjamin Thomas Wolf;

      * Subclass "A1" -- "Shared housing hosts that live in
        apartment buildings with guest suites."  Representative
        parties: KCL and Susan Maller; and

      * Subclass "A2" -- "Shared housing hosts who live in
        buildings on the Prohibited Buildings List."
        Representative parties: KCL and Danielle McCarron; and

   -- Class "B" -- "guests of shared housing hosts."
      Representative parties, KCL, Monica Wolf and John Doe.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellant's brief is due on or before May 8, 2017, for Keep
Chicago Livable, Susan Maller, Danielle McCarron, Benjamin T. Wolf
and Monica Wolf.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants KEEP CHICAGO LIVABLE, an Illinois not-for-
profit corporation; BENJAMIN T. WOLF, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; SUSAN MALLER; DANIELLE
MCCARRON; and MONICA WOLF are represented by:

          Shorge K. Sato, Esq.
          SHOKEN LEGAL, LTD.
          125 S. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 818-4146
          E-mail: ssato@shoken-legal.com

Defendant-Appellee CITY OF CHICAGO is represented by:

          Ellen W. Mclaughlin, Esq.
          CITY OF CHICAGO LAW DEPARTMENT
          30 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60602-0000
          Telephone: (312) 742-5147
          E-mail: ellen.mclaughlin@cityofchicago.org


CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on April 26 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class
(the "Class") consisting of persons and entities that acquired
Citizens Financial Group, Inc. ("Citizens" or the "Company")
(NYSE: CFG) securities between March 18, 2016 and March 29, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you are a member of the Class, you may move the Court no later
than 60 days from the date of this notice, to serve as lead
plaintiff.  Please contact Lesley Portnoy at 888-773-9224 or 310-
201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.

On March 29, 2017, the Wall Street Journal ("WSJ") reported that
certain Citizens employees admitted that Company employees faked
"financial checkup" meetings with customers.  The Company claimed
that the "Citizens Checkup" program resulted in 400,000 scheduled
appointments in 2016.  However, according to the WSJ, former
employees said they falsified information because of pressure to
meet expectations related to the program.  On this news the
Company's stock price declined, injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this lawsuit alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that Company
employees were falsifying information related to the Citizens
Checkup program; (2) that, as a result, the Company's reported
Citizens Checkup figures were inflated; and (3) that, as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Citizens' business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of Citizens during Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice
to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff.  To be a member
of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067,
at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or
visit our website at www.glancylaw.com


COMCAST: Judge Dismisses Leave to Amend Bogus Fee Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge on April 25 dismissed with leave to amend a
class action accusing Comcast of charging cable TV subscribers
billions of dollars in bogus fees.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria granted both groups of
plaintiffs -- a California group and an out-of-state group --
leave to amend.

Lead plaintiff Dan Adkins sued Comcast in October 2016, claiming
it charges customers $10 extra each month in "broadcast TV" and
"regional sports" fees, which it disguises as government-imposed
taxes. Adkins said the practice raises customers' monthly charges
above what they were told they would pay when they subscribed.

Comcast said in its motion to dismiss that it charges the fees to
cover part of the cost of transmitting broadcast TV signals and
regional sports networks, and that Congress "encouraged" it to
list the costs on subscribers' bills when it passed the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act in 1992.

At an April 20 hearing, Judge Chhabria said he would grant
Comcast's motion to dismiss with leave to amend because customers
can cancel service and get a full refund within a month.

The judge made good on that promise on April 25, ruling in a 2-
page order that the California plaintiffs had failed to state
their claims because they did not say how Comcast tricked them
over the fees.

But, Judge Chhabria wrote: "it appears possible that the complaint
could be amended to state a claim with respect to at least some of
the counts," and granted the California plaintiffs 21 days to
amend.

Judge Chhabria found the out-of-state plaintiffs had failed to
establish personal jurisdiction over Comcast, but granted them
leave to amend "because the law regarding personal jurisdiction
over the claims brought by the out-of-state plaintiffs is in
flux."

Judge Chhabria referred to Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. San
Francisco County Superior Court, which the U.S. Supreme Court is
set to decide in June.  The decision in that case will determine
whether out-of-state plaintiffs can sue an out-of-state company
for injuries suffered in another state.

Judge Chhabria said that if the Supreme Court favors the out-of-
state plaintiffs, they can seek leave to amend their complaint
within 30 days of the decision.

Class counsel Dan Hattis said in an email on April 25 that the
plaintiffs plan to file an amended complaint.

"Judge Chhabria's order was very positive for plaintiffs; no
claims were dismissed without leave to amend, and Judge Chhabria
indicated that a repleaded complaint would survive a motion to
dismiss," Mr. Hattis said.  "Comcast's high-power attorneys left
the courtroom in a huff, very clearly upset with the ruling."

Comcast is represented by Seamus Duffy with Drinker Biddle & Reath
in Philadelphia, who could not be reached for comment on April 25.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: "Strauch" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOSEPH STRAUCH, TIMOTHY COLBY, CHARLES
TURNER, and VERNON CARRE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. COMPUTER SCIENCES
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-00956-JBA (D. Conn.),
the Plaintiffs asks that the Court to enter an Order:

   1. certifying the following Classes:

      Connecticut Class:

      "all persons who were, are, or will be employed by CSC in
      Connecticut as Associate Professional System
      Administrators, Professional System Administrators, and
      Senior Professional System Administrators, at any time from
      July 1, 2012 through the date of the final disposition of
      this action, who earn or earned less than $100,000 in total
      annual compensation, and who were not members of the "Test
      and Training Ranges" segment ("TTR") of CSC. The
      Connecticut Class contains two subclasses: (1) the
      Associate Professional and Professional System
      Administrators defined above; and (2) the Senior
      Professional System Administrators defined above";

      California Class:

      "all persons who were, are, or will be employed by CSC in
      California as Associate Professional System Administrators,
      Professional System Administrators, and Senior Professional
      System Administrators, at any time from July 1, 2010
      through the date of the final disposition of this action,
      who earn or earned less than $100,000 in total annual
      compensation, and who were not members of the TTR segment
      of CSC. The California Class contains two subclasses: (1)
      the Associate Professional System Administrators and
      Professional System Administrators defined above; and (2)
      the Senior Professional System Administrators defined
      above"; and

North Carolina Class:

      "all persons who were, are, or will be employed by CSC in
      North Carolina as Associate Professional System
      Administrators, Professional System Administrators, and
      Senior Professional System Administrators, at any time from
      July 1, 2012 through the date of the final disposition of
      this action, who earn or earned less than $100,000 in total
      annual compensation, and who were not a members of the TTR
      segment of CSC. The North Carolina Class contains two
      subclasses: (1) the Associate Professional System
      Administrators and Professional System Administrators
      defined above; and (2) the Senior Professional System
      Administrators defined above";

   2. appointing Plaintiffs' Counsel as Class Counsel; and

   3. directing counsel to disseminate notice to the class.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          Michael J. Scimone, Esq.
          Michael N. Litrownik, Esq.
          Elizabeth V. Stork, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638 8800

                - and -

          Karen B. Kravetz, Esq.
          SUSMAN, DUFFY & SEGALOFF, P.C.
          P.O. Box 1684
          New Haven, CT 06507
          Telephone: (203) 624-9830

               - and -

          Todd Jackson, Esq.
          Genevieve Casey, Esq.
          FEINBERG, JACKSON,
          WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP
          476 9th Street
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 839 6824

               - and -

          Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
          Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
          Lin Y. Chan, Esq.
          Michael Levin-Gesundheit, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000


CONSOLIDATED WORLD: May 16 Status Hearing on Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Harry D. Leinenweber entered an order in the
lawsuit entitled Angel Bakov, et al., the Plaintiff, v.
Consolidated World Travel, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-
cv-02980 (N.D. Ill.), continuing status hearing on Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class to May 16, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KcSk3y00


CORRECTIONS CORP: Faces "Nieto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Josephine Nieto, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Corrections Corporation of America, CCA of
Tennessee, LLC, CoreCivic, Inc., and CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00339 (W.D. Tex., April 17, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay night-shift residential
supervisors' overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate correctional and detention
facilities across the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles W Branham III, Esq.
      Rachel C. Moussa, Esq.
      DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP
      3900 Elm Street
      Dallas, TX 75226
      Telephone: (214) 722-5990
      Facsimile: (214) 722-5991
      E-mail: tbranham@dobllp.com
              rmoussa@dobllp.com

         - and -

      Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (877) 561-0000
      E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
              jtb@jtblawgroup.com


CREST PUMPING: Appeals Ruling in "Carley" Suit to Fifth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Crest Pumping Technologies, L.L.C., filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Scot Carley v. Crest Pumping
Technologies, L.L.C., Case No. 7:15-CV-161, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland Odessa.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Scot Carley v. Crest Pumping
Technologies, L.L.C., Case No. 17-50226, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee SCOT CARLEY, On Behalf of Himself And All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Jeremi Kaleb Young, Esq.
          YOUNG LAW FIRM
          1001 S. Harrison
          Amarillo, TX 79101
          Telephone: (806) 331-1800
          Facsimile: (806) 398-9095
          E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com

Defendant-Appellant CREST PUMPING TECHNOLOGIES, L.L.C., is
represented by:

          Jennifer L. Anderson, Esq.
          JONES WALKER, L.L.P.
          8555 United Plaza Boulevard
          4 United Plaza
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 248-2040
          Facsimile: (225) 248-3040
          E-mail: janderson@joneswalker.com

               - and -

          Christopher S. Mann, Esq.
          JONES WALKER, L.L.P.
          201 Saint Charles Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70170-5100
          Telephone: (504) 582-8332
          Facsimile: (504) 589-8332
          E-mail: cmann@joneswalker.com


DEMOCRATIC NAT'L: Class Action Over Primary Mishandling Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ring of Fire Network reports that for those who are still
seeking justice against the Democratic National Committee for
their mishandling of the Democratic primary, here it is: a lawsuit
that was filed in June of last year against the DNC is heading to
court.

The class action lawsuit has been making its way through the court
system since October of 2016, and on April 25 it was set to head
back to court to determine whether or not it will be dismissed, as
requested by the DNC itself.

The lawsuit, which was lodged by two Bernie Sanders supporters
Jared Beck and Elizabeth Lee Beck, allege that the DNC and DNC
chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz violated the DNC charter and helped
tip the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton.  While not an unusual
argument to be made, this is the first time such an argument will
be made in a court of law.

From the Observer:

"So far in court, the DNC's lawyers haven't refuted that the
primaries were rigged, but in their motion to dismiss, they argued
that some Sanders supporters cited in the class action lawsuit
posted on social media during the primaries that the Democratic
Party was favoring Clinton. The lawyers have also argued that
neutrality is just a political promise that the DNC should not be
bound to keeping."

The Democratic primary was a highly contentious one, not least of
which because the DNC made several deliberate missteps in tipping
the scales toward Candidate Hillary Clinton.  This included a
delayed response to calls for more debates, as well as some shady
rule-changing at the Nevada Caucus, among other sketchy
situations.

When the Podesta emails were leaked, concerned Berniecrats were
given the evidence they needed to conclude that an effort was
being made to favor Clinton over Sanders from major players in the
DNC.

Whether this lawsuit is able to proceed or not, that the concerns
of these progressives are being heard in an official capacity is
progress.


DEVON ENERGY: Appeals Seeligson Class Cert. Ruling to 5th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Devon Energy Production Company, L.P., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Henry Seeligson, John M.
Seeligson, Suzanne Seeligson Nash, and Sherry Pilcher,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Devon Energy Production Company, L.P., Case No. 3:16-CV-00082-K,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division.

The appellate case is captioned as Henry Seeligson, John M.
Seeligson, Suzanne Seeligson Nash, and Sherry Pilcher,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Devon Energy Production Company, L.P., Case No. 17-90002, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Ed
Kinkeade entered a memorandum opinion and order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for the Court to reconsider its order denying
class certification and denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file second class certification motion.

A class defined in the Memorandum Opinion and Order certifying the
class as "all persons or entities who, between January 1, 2008 and
February 28, 2014, (i) are or were royalty owners in Texas wells
producing natural gas that was processed through the Bridgeport
Gas Processing Plan by Devon Gas Services, LP ("DGS"); (ii)
received royalties from Devon [Energy] Production Company, L.P.
("DEPCO") on such gas; and (iii) had oil and gas leases that were
on one of the following forms: Producers 88-198(R) Texas Paid-Up
(2/93); MEC 198 (Rev. 5/77); Producers 88 (Rev 10-70 PAS) 310;
Producers 88 Revised 1-53-(With Pooling Provision); Producers 88
(2-53) With 640 Acres Pooling Provision; Producers 88 (3-54) With
640 Acres Pooling Provision; Producers 88 (4-76) Revised Paid Up
with 640 Acres Pooling Provision; Producers 88 (7-69) With 640
Acres Pooling Provision; and Producers 88 (Rev. 3-42) With 40
Acres Pooling Provision ("The Class Lease Forms")."

The class expressly excludes "(a) overriding royalty interest
owners who derive their interest through the oil and gas lease;
(b) all governmental entities, including federal, state and local
governments and their respective agencies, departments, or
instrumentalities; (c) the States and territories of the United
States or any foreign citizens, states, territories or entities;
(d) the United States of America; (e) publicly traded entities and
their respective parents, affiliates, and related entities; (f)
owners of any interests and/or leases located on or within any
federally created units; (g) owners of any non-operating working
interest for which DEPCO or its agents or representatives, as
operator, disburses royalty; (h) DEPCO and any entity in which
DEPCO has a controlling interest, and their officers, directors,
legal representatives and assigns; and (i) members of the
judiciary and their staff to whom this action is assigned."

Devon Energy contends that the overarching issue is whether the
Appellate Court should grant review to correct the District
Court's clearly erroneous application of the post-Wal-Mart class-
certification standards, and to resolve the intra-circuit split
caused by the District Court's order.  More specifically, the
questions presented are:

   1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by
      certifying a class based on two "central issues" that
      misapply controlling Texas law and do not resolve any issue
      that is central to the validity of each of the class
      members' claims;

   2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by wholly
      failing to address essential case management issues prior
      to certifying a class;

   3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by making
      clearly erroneous findings of fact in disregard of the
      uncontroverted record; and

   4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by finding
      an implied duty to market under lease language the Texas
      Supreme Court has held cannot give rise to an implied duty
      to market.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by:

          George L. McWilliams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE MCWILLIAMS, P.C.
          P.O. Box 58
          Texarkana, AR 75504
          Telephone: (870) 772-2055
          E-mail: glmlawoffice@gmail.com

               - and -

          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
          Natalie Lesser, Esq.
          Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: eciolko@ktmc.com
                  pmuhic@ktmc.com
                  tgraden@ktmc.com
                  nlesser@ktmc.com
                  mtroutner@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Brad E. Seidel, Esq.
          SEIDEL LAW FIRM, P.C.
          6 Hedge Lane
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 537-0903
          E-mail: bradseidel@me.com

               - and -

          David Drez, Esq.
          WICK PHILLIPS GOULD & MARTIN, LLP
          100 Throckmorton Street, Suite 500
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 332-7788
          E-mail: david.drez@wickphillips.com

               - and -

          Jason E. Roselius, Esq.
          Brian L. Cramer, Esq.
          MATTINGLY & ROSELIUS, PLLC
          13182 N. MacArthur Blvd.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73142
          Telephone: (405) 603-222
          E-mail: jason@mroklaw.com
                  brian@mroklaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew Tylor Shoop, Esq.
          MATTHEW TYLOR SHOOP, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          4525 Emerson Ave., No. 2
          Dallas, TX 75205
          E-mail: tylershoop@gmail.com

               - and -

          Matt Keil, Esq.
          John C. Goodson, Esq.
          KEIL & GOODSON P.A.
          406 Walnut Street
          Texarkana, AR 71854
          Telephone: (870) 772-4113
          Facsimile: (870) 773-2967
          E-mail: mkeil@kglawfirm.com
                  jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joshua L. Hedrick, Esq.
          HEDRICK KRING PLLC
          1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 4425
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 880-9605
          Facsimile: (214) 481-1844
          E-mail: josh@hedrickkring.com

Defendant-Petitioner Devon Energy Production Company, L.P., is
represented by:

          Craig A. Haynes, Esq.
          Jeff Ballew, Esq.
          Richard B. Phillips, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
          One Arts Plaza
          1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 969-1700
          Facsimile: (214) 969-1751
          E-mail: craig.haynes@tklaw.com
                  jeff.ballew@tklaw.com
                  rich.phillips@tklaw.com


DISNEY: Animators Launch Fresh Suit Over Non-Poaching Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Maddaus, writing for Variety, reports that in January, Disney
agreed to pay $100 million to settle claims that it conspired with
its competitors to suppress animators' wages. The agreement
appeared to put an end to the long-running class action case,
which arose from a Justice Department investigation into non-
poaching practices in Silicon Valley.

But on April 24, two animators launched a fresh lawsuit against
Disney in U.S. District Court, alleging that as animation
producers they were improperly excluded from the settlement.

The plaintiffs are Charles Williams and Alice Goldstone. According
to LinkedIn, Ms. Goldstone was a producer on "Hercules" and "Home
on the Range" before leaving Disney in 2004.
Mr. Williams was an executive producer on "Brother Bear" and
several animated shorts, and left the company in 2010.

The lawsuit contends that Mr. Williams and Ms. Goldstone should
have been included in the settlement class because their salaries
and employment data were included in surveys that were allegedly
prepared for the purpose of suppressing wages.

The class action suit alleged that Pixar, Lucasfilm, DreamWorks
Animation, and Disney, among others, agreed on salary ranges for
certain job descriptions, and agreed not to top each others'
salary offers, in order to prevent salaries from escalating.

In addition to Disney's $100 million, the class action plaintiffs
also got settlements of $50 million from DreamWorks Animation, $13
million from Sony Imageworks, and $5.95 million from Blue Sky. The
affected class included some 10,000 people.

Goldstone and Williams learned only in March that they were not
among those who would receive a payment, the new lawsuit alleges.
The lawsuit claims that their exclusion is "arbitrary," given that
producers were included in the payouts to DreamWorks and the other
firms.  It's not clear how many Disney producers were excluded
from the settlement.

Disney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


DITECH FINANCIAL: Cohen Appeals E.D.N.Y. Judgment to 2nd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Aaron Cohen filed an appeal from a District Court order
dated March 24, 2017, and judgment dated March 27, 2017, entered
in the lawsuit styled Cohen v. Ditech Financial LLC, Case No. 15-
cv-6828, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (Central Islip).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 11,
2017, Judge Leonard D. Wexler granted the Defendants' motions to
dismiss the case.  Mr. Cohen commenced an action on behalf of
himself and as a putative class action, alleging violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Cohen v. Ditech Financial LLC,
Case No. 17-950, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Aaron Cohen, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Shimshon Wexler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SHIMSHON WEXLER, PC
          216 W 104th St., #129
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 760-2400
          Facsimile: (917) 512-6132
          E-mail: shimshonwexler@yahoo.com

Defendant-Appellee Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, PC, is
represented by:

          Andrew Morganstern, Esq.
          ROSICKI, ROSICKI & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          51 East Bethpage Road
          Plainview, NY 11803
          Telephone: (516) 741-2585
          Facsimile: (516) 470-0972
          E-mail: amorganstern@rosicki.com

Defendant-Appellee Ditech Financial LLC is represented by:

          Justin Anthony Angelo, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          919 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 223-0200
          E-mail: angeloj@ballardspahr.com


DNA CONTRACTING: "Parra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gerardo Parra and Francisco Emilio Baez, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. DNA Contracting
LLC and DNA Contracting & Waterproofing, LLC, both d/b/a Galiza
Enterprises, and/or any other entities affiliated with or
controlled by DNA Contracting LLC, and DNA Contracting &
Waterproofing, LLC, both d/b/a Galiza Enterprises, Case No. 1:17-
cv-02755(S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a company that provides
comprehensive masonry restoration, structural repairs and roofing
to the New York metropolitan area. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      Leonor H. Coyle, Esq.
      LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
              lcoyle@vandallp.com
              llusher@vandallp.com


DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces "Hubbard" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Labor Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDI HUBBARD, SHERLYN HUFFMAN, REBECCA BEAVER and HOLLY JIMENEZ,
Individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. DOLGENCORP, LLC, DOLLAR GENERAL CORP., and DG
RETAIL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02102-CSB-EIL (C.D.
Ill., April 26, 2017), alleges that Dollar General maintained a
common pattern and practice of allowing, inducing and
incentivizing its store managers to require, force, expect,
encourage and/or suffer and permit Plaintiffs and class members to
work "off-the-clock" before, during and after their scheduled
shifts to avoid compensating them for all straight time worked, to
avoid compensating them for all hours worked in excess of forty
(40) per week at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rate of
pay, to enable it to "under-budget" its labor costs and to "under-
staff" its stores (but nonetheless meet the operational needs its
store), all for the purpose and objective of staying within its
budgeted labor cost allotted to each of its stores.

Plaintiffs also assert individual and class claims under the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

Dollar General Corp. is a discount retailer in the United States.
Plaintiff worked as a nonexempt Key-Holder (Lead Sales Associate)
at a Dollar General store.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
     James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
     J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
     Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
     JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
     262 German Oak Drive
     Memphis, TN 38018
     Phone: (901) 754-8001
     Fax: (901) 759-1745
     E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
             jholt@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com
             pjackson@jsyc.com


EHEALTH INC: Faces "Adam" Suit Over Personal Information Leak
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH ADAM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. EHEALTH, INC., a Corporation, and DOES 1-
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case 17-cv-309050 (Cal. Super., County
of Santa Clara, April 24, 2017), alleges that Defendant's current
and former employees' highly sensitive personal identifying
information, including Form W-2's, social security numbers and
related information, was compiled and negligently released by
Defendant in response to a "phishing scam" and is now in the
possession of unknown third parties who are believed to be using
the data for illegal purposes.

eHealth operates eHeahhlnsurance.com, a private health insurance
exchange where individuals, families and small businesses can
compare health insurance products from leading insurers side by
side and purchase and enroll in coverage online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott R. Cooper, Esq.
     Samantha A. Smith, Esq.
     THE COOPER LAW FIRM
     4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250
     Irvine, CA 92604
     Phone: (949) 724-9200
     Fax: (949) 724-9255
     E-mail: scott@cooper-firm.com
             samantha@cooper-firm.com


FLINT, MI: Attorney Says Water Crisis Class Actions Face Delay
--------------------------------------------------------------
WSJM reports that an update was given on April 24 to Flint
residents on progress in five class action lawsuits over the
city's water crisis.  The suits are against the governor and state
and federal officials.  Attorney Cary McGehee tells Michigan News
Network she's frustrated with how long the process is taking.

"We're hoping this process doesn't last long, but we've now been
in litigation for over two years, and while the government has
paid over $13 million in legal defense bills, the people of Flint
continue to wait for some justice," Ms. McGehee said.

Ms. McGehee believes the government's delay is a tactic so they
will not have to face the damage suffered by the residents of
Flint.  She says justice delayed is justice denied.


FOX NEWS: Kelly Wright Joins Racial Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Choi, writing for Business Insider, reports that thirteen
current and former employees of Fox News are filing a class-action
lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court, alleging that they
experienced "abhorrent, intolerable, unlawful and hostile racial
discrimination," while senior Fox News officials ignored their
requests to take action.

"When it comes to racial discrimination, 21st Century Fox has been
operating as if it should be called 18th Century Fox," said
Douglas Wigdor and Jeanne Christensen, representatives of the
plaintiffs, in a statement cited by BuzzFeed News.

Fox News reporter Kelly Wright, an employee of the network since
2003 and the latest plaintiff to join the suit, claimed in the
filing that he was marginalized by the network's so-called
"plantation-style management."

He alleges that Bill O'Reilly, the former host of "The O'Reilly
Factor," denied him opportunities to appear on his show to examine
race relations in America -- even rebuffing Wright's reporting on
the escalating racial tensions in Ferguson, Missouri, because it
portrayed "blacks in too positive a light," according to BuzzFeed.

Fox News said in a statement that it "vehemently denies the race
discrimination claims in both lawsuits" and said it would
"vigorously defend these cases."

Ms. Wright is joined by other African-American ex-employees who
allege they encountered "horrific discrimination" from Judith
Slater, a Fox News comptroller who was fired in March after an
internal investigation.  Several plaintiffs alleged that Slater
had asked if their children were raised by the same father; told
Ms. Wright that he had to comb his hair before work because he had
"too much afro," and allegedly asked if they could beatbox for
her.

Though Fox representatives said that they took "any complaint of
this nature very seriously and took the appropriate action in
investigating and firing Ms. Slater within two weeks," the
plaintiffs criticized the statement, saying that they repeatedly
complained about Slater's actions to no avail in years past.

Monica Douglas, a credit and collections manager of Panamanian
heritage, claimed she was warned by Slater not to bring her
grievances to the human resources department: "I am HR," Ms.
Slater was alleged to have said.  Ms. Douglas' accusations go
further, alleging that Ms. Slater had kicked her buttocks and said
that she "would not even let her dog eat the food Panamanians
eat," BuzzFeed reported.

The latest accusations are unfolding at a time when Fox News is
trying to recalibrate from Bill O'Reilly's firing over a growing
sexual harassment scandal.

"If 21st Century Fox chooses to defend the indefensible --
systemic race discrimination -- we will utilize our collective
efforts and resources to hold those responsible for these
egregious discriminatory acts before a Bronx jury," attorneys
Mr. Wigdor and Ms. Christensen said.


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: "Cruckshank" Fairness Hearing on July 10
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Christopher Cruckshank, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Freedom Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-00011-AYS
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Anne Y. Shields entered an order:

   1. certifying 2 Classes:

      Class A consisting of:

      "(a) all individuals (b) with a New York address (c) who
      were sent a letter from Freedom to (d) which was not
      returned as undeliverable (e) on or after a date one year
      prior to the filing of this action and on or before August
      30, 2016 (f) concerning a mortgage loan that Freedom began
      servicing while the mortgage loan was in default (g) where
      the letter in question either (1) only listed the unpaid
      principal balance of the debt or (2) failed to disclose
      that Freedom was a debt collector or (3) failed to disclose
      that the letter was an attempt to collect a debt or (4)
      otherwise allegedly violated the FDCPA or the Real Estate
      Settlement Procedures Act"; and

      Class B consisting of:

      "(a) all individuals (b) with a New Jersey address (c) who
      were sent a letter from Freedom in (d) which was not
      returned as undeliverable (e) on or after a date one year
      prior to the filing of this action and on or before August
      30, 2016 (f) concerning a mortgage loan that Freedom began
      servicing while the mortgage loan was in default (g) where
      the letter in question either (1) only listed the unpaid
      principal balance of the debt or (2) failed to disclose
      that Freedom was a debt collector or (3) failed to disclose
      that the letter was an attempt to collect a debt or (4)
      otherwise allegedly violated the FDCPA or the Real Estate
      Settlement Procedures Act".

   2. appointing Christopher Cruckshank as representative of
      Class A;

   3. appointing Jonbu Adebo as representative of Class B; and

   4. appointing Plaintiffs's counsel, Ryan Gentile, Esq., of the
      Law Offices of Gus Michael Farinella, PC as Class Counsel
      for Class A and Class B;

The Court said, "In order to receive a portion of the cash payment
under the Settlement Agreement, a class member mist complete and
return to the class administrator a claim form postmarked no later
than June 9, 2017. The Claim form will be sent with the class
notice. Within 10 days of this Order, Freedom shall file with the
Court proof of compliance with the notice requirements of the
Class Action Fairness Act if 2005. Any class member is hereby
enjoined from commencing or prosecuting anyu claim covered or to
be covered by the Settlement Agreement and the settlement it
contemplates. A final hearing on the fairness and reasonableness
of the Settlement Agreement and whether final approval shall be
given to it and the request for fees and expenses by class counsel
will be held on July 10, 2017 at 10:30 a.m. The parties motion for
final approval shall be filed by June 30, 2017".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DJK7hECW


GALLUP INC: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hartley" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hartley, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Gallup, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00768-L-AGS (S.D. Cal.,
April 17, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using
an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without
prior express consent of the called party.

Gallup, Inc. is a research-based, global performance-management
consulting company headquartered in Washington, D.C. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Appeals Order in "Harkey" Suit to 2nd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant General Electric Company filed an appeal from a court
order dated March 7, 2017, relating to the lawsuit styled Harkey
v. General Electric Company, Case No. 13-cv-1799, in the U.S.
District Court for the District Connecticut (New Haven).

The appellate case is captioned as Harkey v. General Electric
Company, Case No. 17-798, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon.
Warren W. Eginton entered an order:

   1. certifying a liability Consumer Protection Law Subclass of:

      "all persons residing in the States of Alaska, Arkansas,
      California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii,
      Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, New Jersey,
      New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and
      the District of Columbia who purchased a GE-branded
      microwave oven model number JEB 1090, JEB 1095, ZMC1090,
      and/or ZMC 1095 for primarily personal, family or household
      purposes and not for resale. Specifically excluded from the
      Class are: (1) GE, as well as any entity in which GE has a
      controlling interest or which has a controlling interest in
      GE and any of GE's parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, legal
      representatives, assigns, successors, and officers or
      directors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and
      any member of the judge's immediate family; (3) claims for
      personal injury, wrongful death, and/or emotional distress;
      and (4) claims for consequential damages flowing from a
      manifestation of the glass shattering defect Plaintiffs'
      allege";

   2. certifying a liability Texas Implied Warranty Subclass of:

      "all persons residing in the State of Texas who purchased a
      GE-branded microwave oven model number JEB 1090, JEB 1095,
      ZMC1090, and/or ZMC 1095. Specifically excluded from the
      Class are: (1) GE, as well as any entity in which GE has a
      controlling interest or which has a controlling interest in
      GE and any of GE's parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, legal
      representatives, assigns, successors, and officers or
      directors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and
      any member of the judge's immediate family; (3) claims for
      personal injury, wrongful death, and/or emotional distress;
      and (4) claims for consequential damages flowing from a
      manifestation of the glass shattering defect Plaintiffs'
      allege";

   3. denying without prejudice the motion to certify a
      declaratory judgment/injunction class and any damages
      class; and

   4. granting motion to appoint as counsel Tycko & Zavareei,
      LLP, and Izard Nobel, LLP.[BN]

Petitioner-Defendant General Electric Company is represented by:

          Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq.
          ROBINSON & COLE LLP
          280 Trumbull Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 275-8388
          E-mail: wackerman@rc.com

               - and -

          Michael Schissel, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          399 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 715-1157
          E-mail: michael.schissel@apks.com

Plaintiffs-Respondents Glen Grayson, Doreen Mazzanti, Daniel Levy,
David Mequet and Lauren Harris, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Anna C. Haac, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
          29 South Main Street
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6294
          E-mail: mkindall@ikrlaw.com


GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Stuart" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Global Tel*Link Corporation filed an appeal from a court
order dated March 2, 2017, in the lawsuit titled Kaylan Stuart, et
al. v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-05275-TLB, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas -
Fayetteville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 29,
2017, Judge Timothy L. Brooks denied the Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that GTL charged them
unjust and unreasonable rates for inmate phone-calling services at
various correctional facilities throughout the United States, in
violation of the Federal Communications Act and the common law of
unjust enrichment.

The appellate case is captioned as Kaylan Stuart, et al. v. Global
Tel*Link Corporation, Case No. 17-1720, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript is due on or before May 15, 2017;

   -- Appendix is due on May 24, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellant Global Tel*Link Corporation is due on
      May 24, 2017;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the Court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Kaylan Stuart, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Susan L. Burke, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SUSAN L. BURKE (BURKE PLLC)
          1611 Park Avenue
          Baltimore, MD 21217
          Telephone: (410) 733-5444
          E-mail: sburke@burkepllc.com

               - and -

          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Monique Myatt Galloway, Esq.
          James Maro, Esq.
          Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq.
          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          Amanda Trask, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: eciolko@ktmc.com
                  mgalloway@ktmc.com
                  jmaro@ktmc.com
                  dmoffa@ktmc.com
                  pmuhic@ktmc.com
                  atrask@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Lynch, Esq.
          ANDREW R. LYNCH, P.C.
          150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 225
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 373-7735
          E-mail: andrew@atlnotguilty.com

               - and -

          Vess A. Miller, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          COHEN MALAD LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
                  rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                  ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          James Radford, Esq.
          RADFORD & KEEBAUGH
          315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (678) 271-0302
          E-mail: james@decaturlegal.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Dustin Murilla is represented by:

          Susan L. Burke, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SUSAN L. BURKE (BURKE PLLC)
          1611 Park Avenue
          Baltimore, MD 21217
          Telephone: (410) 733-5444
          E-mail: sburke@burkepllc.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
          BARRACK RODOS AND BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
          E-mail: JGittleman@barrack.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          James Maro, Esq.
          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          Amanda Trask, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: jmaro@ktmc.com
                  pmuhic@ktmc.com
                  atrask@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-3986
          Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com

               - and -

          Todd Seaver, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          E-mail: tseaver@bermandevalerio.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Walter Chruby is represented by:

          Daniel Berger, Esq.
          Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
          Yechiel Michael Twersky, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: danberger@bm.net
                  bpodell@bm.net
                  mitwersky@bm.net

               - and -

          Robert A. Braun, Esq.
          Benjamin Brown, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          West Tower, Suite 500
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005-3934
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: rbraun@cohenmilstein.com
                  bbrown@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Susan L. Burke, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SUSAN L. BURKE (BURKE PLLC)
          1611 Park Avenue
          Baltimore, MD 21217
          Telephone: (410) 733-5444
          E-mail: sburke@burkepllc.com

               - and -

          James Maro, Esq.
          Amanda Trask, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: jmaro@ktmc.com
                  atrask@ktmc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Rocky Hobbs is represented by:

          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: pmuhic@ktmc.com

Defendant-Appellant Global Tel*Link Corporation is represented by:

          Courtney S. Elwood, Esq.
          Derek T. Ho, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
          1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036-3209
          Telephone: (202) 326-7900
          Facsimile: (202) 326-7999
          E-mail: celwood@kellogghansen.com
                  dho@khhte.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Herrington, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
          E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Marshall S. Ney, Esq.
          FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
          3350 S. Pinnacle Hills Pkwy., Suite 301
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 644-6049
          E-mail: mney@fridayfirm.com


HONEYWELL INT'L: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Kelly" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Annette Dobbs, David Kelly and Richard Norko filed an
appeal from court orders both dated February 28, 2017, and
judgment dated March 6, 2017, entered in the lawsuit titled Kelly
v. Honeywell International Inc., Case No. 16-cv-543, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven).

The appellate case is captioned as Kelly v. Honeywell
International Inc., Case No. 17-803, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Defendant
Honeywell International Inc. filed an appeal from a judgment dated
March 6, 2017, entered in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is
captioned as Kelly v. Honeywell International Inc., Case No. 17-
675.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants David Kelly, Richard Norko and Annette
Dobbs, for themselves and others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Thomas W. Meiklejohn, Esq.
          LIVINGSTON, ADLER, PULDA, MEIKLEJOHN & KELLY, P.C.
          557 Prospect Avenue
          Hartford, CT 06105
          Telephone: (860) 570-4628
          E-mail: twmeiklejohn@lapm.org

Defendant-Appellee Honeywell International Inc. is represented by:

          Brian T. Ortelere, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5150
          Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
          E-mail: brian.ortelere@morganlewis.com


HYUNDAI: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Paint Defect
-------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey Stricker, Esq. -- kstricker@mofo.com -- of Morrison &
Foerster LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that on April 13,
2017, United States District Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell for the
Central District of California granted a motion to dismiss a class
action complaint alleging that Hyundai sold cars with an alleged
latent paint defect that caused the "self-healing" paint to
bubble, peel, and flake.  Resnick et al. v. Hyundai Motor Am.,
Inc. et al., No. 8:16-cv-00593-BRO (PJWx), Dkt. No. 80.  The court
dismissed plaintiffs' warranty, negligent misrepresentation,
fraudulent concealment, and state consumer protection claims
without prejudice, with the exception of a Massachusetts Unfair
and Deceptive Trade Practice Act claim, which was dismissed with
prejudice.

Consumers Challenge Alleged Paint Defect Under State Consumer
Protection Laws.

In March 2016, 15 individuals from 10 different states sued
defendants Hyundai Motor America, Inc. and Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd.
Plaintiffs are current owners of 2006-2016 Hyundai Santa Fe,
Sonata, and Elantra automobiles manufactured in the United States
that have an alleged paint defect that manifests itself over time
and causes the paint to bubble, peel, and flake. Plaintiffs claim
that Hyundai fraudulently concealed the alleged paint defect when
plaintiffs purchased their vehicles and refused to offer
plaintiffs or the putative class any relief.

In November 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 57.) Plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Complaint in November 2016, and stipulated
to consolidate two cases against defendants in January 2017.  In
February 2017, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, alleging fourteen causes of action, including for
breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, and violations of various state consumer protection
laws.

Court Dismisses Express and Implied Warranty Claims.

For the majority of plaintiffs, the court dismissed without
prejudice the breach of express warranty claims because the
alleged defect occurred outside Hyundai's warranty period.  The
court rejected plaintiffs' argument that an exception should apply
to hold Hyundai liable for latent defects outside the warranty
period.  The court also dismissed plaintiffs' warranty claims
based on representations on Hyundai's corporate website and
advertising campaigns regarding the quality of the paint as
outside the warranty period, which the court limited to the
express warranty period.  The court granted leave to amend for two
plaintiffs who may have experienced the alleged defect during the
warranty period, but did not clearly allege those facts.

The court dismissed without prejudice claims for breach of implied
warranty of merchantability under California's Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act.  The court held that the implied warranty
of merchantability requires "something beyond mere aesthetic
concerns," and that plaintiffs only allege that the paint defect
affected their vehicles' aesthetics.  The court rejected
plaintiffs' argument that a breach of implied warranty of
merchantability arises whenever a vehicle's behavior fails to
comport with industry standards.

Court Dismisses Negligent Misrepresentation Claims Under the
Economic Loss Rule.

The court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' negligent
misrepresentation claims as barred under the economic loss rule.
Plaintiffs alleged that the paint defect caused "out of pocket
losses associated with the paint defect, corrosion repairs and
diminished value of [their] vehicle[s]."  Under the economic loss
rule, the court held that these alleged damages were insufficient
to support a negligent misrepresentation claim because they arose
from harm to the product itself (i.e., the body of the car). The
court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the economic loss rule
did not apply because of the "special relationship" exception,
which does not apply to those who have a direct contractual
relationship with the defendants (like plaintiffs).

Court Dismisses State Consumer Protection and Fraudulent
Concealment Claims.

Plaintiffs also brought claims based on fraudulent concealment and
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False
Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act based on the
allegations that: (1) defendants made affirmative
misrepresentations of fact, and (2) defendants fraudulently
concealed their knowledge of the alleged paint defect. The court
dismissed these claims without prejudice based on plaintiffs'
failure to allege facts indicating that defendants knew or should
have known of the alleged defect at the time of sale. Plaintiffs'
general allegations that there were "concerns" regarding the
possibility of self-healing paints peeling were insufficient to
establish presale knowledge. Plaintiffs failed to allege "who had
these concerns, the substance of the concerns, or whether the
concerns were ever communicated to Hyundai."  The court also found
that allegations regarding anonymous online complaints were not
sufficient to establish defendants' knowledge of the alleged
defect.  The court further emphasized that, even if plaintiffs'
sufficiently pleaded knowledge, plaintiffs did not adequately
plead specific reliance on the alleged affirmative
misrepresentations. The court dismissed plaintiffs' non-California
state consumer protection law claims without prejudice on similar
grounds.

Hyundai Takeaway.

The opinion is quite rigorous in holding plaintiffs to their
pleading burden.  As was done here, courts typically allow
plaintiffs an opportunity to amend.


ILLINOIS: Certification of Medical-Enrolled Children Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BLAKE DONEGAN, by and through his mother
ANGELA DONEGAN, ANTONIO CAMPBELL, by and trough his mother,
SHANEATHA ROLLING, JANELLE EATON, by and through her mother,
JACQUELINE EATON, DEREK TAN, by and through his mother, AUDREY TAN
and KINA WINES, by and through her mother, SHARON QUINN,
individually and on behalf of a class, the Plaintiffs, v. FELICIA
F. NORWOOD, in her official capacity as Director of the Illinois
Department of Healthcare and Family Services, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-11178 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
certify a class of:

   "all Medical-enrolled children under the age 2 in the State of
   Illinois who received in-home shift nursing services or had
   received in-home shift nursing services, and when they obtain
   the age of 21 years are subjected to reduced Medicaid funding
   which reduces the medical level of care which they had been
   receiving prior to obtaining 21 years. This class definition
   does not include those persons who are enrolled in the State
   of Illinois' Medically Fragile Technology Department (MFTD)
   Medicaid Waiver program.

The case is brought as a class action pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure because the Defendant has acted or
refused to act on grounds applicable to the class as a whole. The
Plaintiffs and Class members are qualified persons with a
disability under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fvk2qX3O

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Robert H. Farley, Jr.
         ROBERT H. FARLEY, JR., LTD
         1155 S. Washington Street
         Naperville, II 60540
         Telephone: (630) 369 0103
         Facsimile: farleylaw@aol.com

              - and -

         Mary Denise Cahill, Esq.
         CAHILL & ASSOCIATES
         1155 S. Washington Street
         Naperville, II 60540
         Telephone: (630) 778 6500
         E-mail: mdcahill@sbcglobal.net


IREMEDY HEALTHCARE: Faces "Thomas" TCPA Violations Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth A. Thomas Md, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability
company, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Iremedy Healthcare Companies, Inc.,
f/k/a The Paquin Healthcare Companie, Inc., a Florida Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-14120-DMM (S.D. Fla., April 10, 2017)
seeks to put a stop to Defendant's practice of sending
unauthorized and unwanted fax advertisements.  The Plaintiff
further seeks to obtain redress for all persons and entities
injured by Defendant's conduct pursuant to Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

iRemedy sent the unsolicited fax advertisements to Plaintiff and
members of the Class despite (i) having no previous relationship
with them, (ii) never receiving their consent to receive such
faxes, and (iii) that none of the faxes sent contained the
requisite opt-out notices.

Defendant iRemedy is an e-commerce company that sells medical
devices to healthcare providers around the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dillon Brozyna, Esq.
   Edelson PC
   123 Townsend, Suite 100
   San Francisco, CA 94107
   Tel: 415-212-9300
   Fax: 415-373-9435
   Email: dbrozyna@edelson.com

        - and -

   Stefan Coleman, Esq.
   Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, P.A.
   201 South Biscayne Boulevard, 28th Floor
   Tel: 877-333-9427
   Fax: 888-498-8946
   Email: law@stefancoleman.com


IRWIN D. SIMON: "Barnes" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER BARNES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, and Derivatively on Behalf of THE HAIN
CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. IRWIN D. SIMON, PASQUALE
CONTE, ANDREW R. HEYER, ROGER MELTZER, LAWRENCE S. ZILAVY, RICHARD
C. BERKE, SCOTT M. O'NEIL, ADRIANNE SHAPIRA, and RAYMOND W. KELLY,
Defendants, and THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02501 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 26, 2017), alleges that Defendants violated the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act by issuing false statements regarding
the company's fourth quarter and 2016 fiscal year financial
results.  The Defendants allegedly declared that the Company had
strong and effective internal controls with its revenue
recognition and sales and promotion incentives when in fact, it
does not.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes,
and sells organic and natural products in the United States, the
United Kingdom, Canada, and Europe.

Defendant Irwin D. is Hain Celestial's President, Chief Executive
Officer.  Defendant Pasquale Conte is Hain Celestial's Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.  The others are
members of the Board of Directors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas G. Amon, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS G. AMON
     733 Third Avenue, Floor 15
     New York, NY 10107
     Phone: (212) 810-2430
     E-mail: tamon@amonlaw.com

        - and -

     Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
     Craig W. Smith, Esq.
     Shane P. Sanders, Esq.
     Scott F. Templeton, Esq.
     ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
     600 B Street, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 525-3990
     Fax: (619) 525-3991
     E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
             csmith@robbinsarroyo.com
             ssanders@robbinsarroyo.com
             stempleton@robbinsarroyo.com


J&B MECHANICAL: Faces "Johnston" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Johnston, individually and on behalf of those similarly-
situated v. J&B Mechanical, LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-00051-JHM-HBB
(W.D. Ken., April 17, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

J&B Mechanical, LLC is a corporation that serves the Feed, Grain
and General Industries, specializing in construction, millwright,
fabrications, demolitions, riggings, inspections and preventative
maintenance. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Dutkanych, Esq.
      BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC
      411 Main Street
      Evansville, IN 47708
      Telephone: (812) 424-1000
      Facsimile: (812) 424-1005
      E-mail: ad@bdlegal.com


JIMMY JOHN'S: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Lucas" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Sebastian Lucas, Patrick Coyne and Jared Ruder filed an
appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit styled
Sebastian Lucas, et al. v. Jimmy John's Enterprises, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-05509, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Sebastian Lucas, et al. v.
Jimmy John's Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-1655, in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellant's brief is due on or before May 8, 2017, for Patrick
Coyne, Sebastian Lucas and Jared Ruder.[BN]

Plaintiffs EMILY BRUNNER, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, as Class/Collective representative,
and CAITLIN TUROWSKI, and Plaintiffs-Appellants SEBASTIAN LUCAS,
PATRICK COYNE and JARED RUDER are represented by:

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: slesser@klafterolsen.com

Defendants JIMMY JOHN'S ENTERPRISES, INC., JIMMY JOHNS LLC and
JIMMY JOHNS FRANCHISOR, LLC, are represented by:

          Gerald Leonard Maatman, Jr., Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-6448
          Telephone: (312) 460-5965
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7965
          E-mail: gmaatman@seyfarth.com

Defendant JS FORT GROUP, INC., is represented by:

          Kimberly A. Yourchock, Esq.
          HONIGMAN, MILLER, SCHWARTZ & COHN
          660 Woodward Avenue
          2290 First National Building
          Detroit, MI 48226-0000
          Telephone: (313) 465-7562
          Facsimile: (313) 465-7563
          E-mail: kyourchock@honigman.com

Defendant JIM LIAUTAUD is represented by:

          Andrew Kopon, Jr., Esq.
          KOPON AIRDO LLC
          233 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 506-4450
          E-mail: AKopon@koponairdo.com


KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Senne Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Aaron Senne, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling relating to the lawsuit styled Aaron Senne, et al. v.
Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00608-
JCS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of
all minor league baseball players employed by Major League
Baseball or any MLB franchise under the Minor League Uniform
Player Contract.

The appellate case is captioned as Aaron Senne, et al. v. Kansas
City Royals Baseball Corp., et al., Case No. 17-80043, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Petitioners are AARON SENNE, MICHAEL LIBERTO,
OLIVER ODLE, BRAD MCATEE, CRAIG BENNIGSON, MATT LAWSON, KYLE
WOODRUFF, RYAN KIEL, KYLE NICHOLSON, BRAD STONE, MATT DALY, AARON
MEADE, JUSTIN MURRAY, JAKE KAHAULELIO, RYAN KHOURY, DUSTIN PEASE,
JEFF NADEAU, JON GASTON, BRANDON HENDERSON, TIM PAHUTA, LEE SMITH,
JOSEPH NEWBY, RYAN HUTSON, MATT FREVERT, ROBERTO ORTIZ, WITER
JIMENEZ, KRIS WATTS, MITCH HILLIGOSS, BRETT NEWSOME, JAKE OPITZ,
DANIEL BRITT, YADEL MARTI, HELDER VELAQUEZ, JORGE JIMENEZ, JORGE
MINYETY, EDWIN MAYSONET, JOSE DIAZ, NICK GIARRAPUTO, LAUREN
GAGNIER, LEONARD DAVIS, GASPAR SANTIAGO, GRANT DUFF, OMAR AGUILAR,
MARK WAGNER, DAVID QUINOWSKI, and BRANDON PINCKNEY, Individually
and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated.

The Defendants-Respondents are KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP.;
MIAMI MARLINS, L.P.; SAN FRANCISCO BASEBALL ASSOCIATES, LLC;
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, an unincorporated
association, DBA Major League Baseball; ALLAN HUBER SELIG, "Bud";
ANGELS BASEBALL LP; ST. LOUIS CARDINALS, LLC; COLORADO ROCKIES
BASEBALL CLUB, LTD.; CINCINNATI REDS, LLC; HOUSTON BASEBALL
PARTNERS LLC; ATHLETICS INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC; ROGERS BLUE JAYS
BASEBALL PARTNERSHIP; PADRES L.P.; SAN DIEGO PADRES BASEBALL CLUB,
L.P.; MINNESOTA TWINS, LLC; DETROIT TIGERS, INC.; LOS ANGELES
DODGERS LLC; STERLING METS L.P.; AZPB L.P.; NEW YORK YANKEES
P'SHIP; RANGERS BASEBALL EXPRESS, LLC; RANGERS BASEBALL, LLC;
MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL CLUB, INC.; MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL
CLUB, L.P.; CHICAGO CUBS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC; PITTSBURGH
ASSOCIATES, LP; BASEBALL CLUB OF SEATTLE, LLP; and LOS ANGELES
DODGERS HOLDING COMPANY LLC

The Plaintiffs-Petitioners are represented by:

          Aaron Michael Zigler, Esq.
          Robert L. King, Esq.
          Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY LLC
          505 N 7th Street
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844
          Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
          E-mail: azigler@koreintillery.com
                  rking@koreintillery.com
                  stillery@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Bobby Pouya, Esq.
          Daniel Leon Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON WARSHAW & PENNEY, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: bpouya@pswlaw.com
                  dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce Lee Simon, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNEY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
          E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com

The Defendants-Respondents are represented by:

          Elise M. Bloom, Esq.
          Neil Abramson, Esq.
          Adam M. Lupion, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          Telephone: (212) 969-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: ebloom@proskauer.com
                  Nabramson@proskauer.com
                  alupion@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Harold M. Brody, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          2049 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
          Telephone: (310) 557-2900
          Facsimile: (310) 557-2193
          E-mail: hbrody@proskauer.com

               - and -

          D. Gregory Valenza, Esq.
          SHAW VALENZA LLP
          300 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 983-5960
          Facsimile: (415) 983-5963
          E-mail: gvalenza@shawvalenza.com


KB HOME: Court Approves $2MM in Class Action Attorneys' Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Brooks Pierce's Marck Sperling, in an article for JDSupra, wrote
that "It's not very often that I see a fee application in a
settled class action in the Business Court that doesn't strike me
as requesting approval of an overpayment for a less than
successful result.   Those are most often in the settlement of
merger class action in which the only benefit for the class was
the extraction of additional disclosures in a proxy statement."

"But looking at the (unpublished) Order approving a class action
settlement and a fee petition in Elliott v. KB Home North
Carolina, Inc., I had exactly the opposite reaction.  It was an
excellent result for the class members, and the nearly $2 million
in attorneys' fees approved by the Business Court were well
earned.

"I've written about the Elliott case three times: The class was
certified by Judge Jolly in 2012.  Judge Jolly ruled later that KB
Home had waived its right to compel arbitration of the claims.
After Judge Jolly's retirement, Judge McGuire ruled that he could
modify the membership of the previously certified class due to a
change in circumstances.  The class members are homeowners in
North Carolina living in houses built by KB Home.  The houses were
constructed with siding manufactured by HardiePlank that did not
have a weather restrictive barrier (a WRB) behind the siding.  The
houses were then damaged by water infiltration. "

This is not a settlement where the class members receive something
like coupons towards a future home purchase.  Instead, there is
real and substantial money being paid to them.  Depending on the
square footage of their homes, class members who are current
homeowners can be paid between $6500 and $17,000.  In the
alternative, these class members can have their existing siding
and replaced with new HardiePlank, this time with the missing WRB.

There is also a subclass of class members who have already sold
their homes.  These subclass members are entitled to receive
either a lump sum payment of $3250 or to prove that the selling
price of their home decreased due to the lack of a WRB.  This type
of recovery is capped at $12,000.

There is no doubt that the lawyers worked hard to achieve this
result, as detailed in the Affidavit of lead counsel in support of
the fee petition.  They filed or responded to twenty-seven briefs
in the trial court and eight briefs in the appellate courts.  They
reviewed 46,000 pages of documents produced, and they took or
defended or attended forty-four depositions in five states.  Fee
Affidavit Par.41.

Judge McGuire wrote in glowing terms of the qualifications of
class counsel.  He said that they had "decades of experience
litigating construction product defect cases on an individual,
multi-family, and class basis."  He called one of the lawyers "one
of the nation's most respected and experienced attorneys in these
areas."  Order Par.37.

As a part of the settlement agreement, the Defendants agreed that
they would not oppose a request for fees and expenses not to
exceed $1,925,000.  That is exactly the amount requested by
Plaintiffs' counsel: including $148,493.61 in out-of-pocket
expenses and $1,776,506.39 in attorneys' fees.

That fee amounted yielded an "implied hourly rate" of $337.28
(based on 5,267 hours of work), which was approved as reasonable
by Judge McGuire. Order Paragraphs 40-41.  That hourly rate is
within the ranges previously approved as reasonable by the
Business Court -- like $325.04 per hour in Corwin v. British Am.
Tobacco PLC, 2016 NCBC 14 at *15 and between $300 and $500 per
hour in Nakatsukasa v. Furiex Pharms., Inc., 2015 NCBC 71 at *24.

"I have a hard time reconciling this fee petition to the one from
the lawyers representing the class in the Ehrenhaus case (which
challenged the merger years ago between Wachovia and Wells Fargo).
The Ehrenhaus lawyers asked for $1,975,000, almost the same as the
request by the Elliott lawyers ($1,925,000).  But the Ehrenhaus
lawyers obtained nothing of value for that class.  Also, they did
not bother to submit any records regarding the hours worked on the
case, other than to claim having spent 2300 hours on the case
(less than half of the 5267 hours spent by the Elliott lawyers).
They took four depositions (the Elliott lawyers took forty-four)
and reviewed 9,500 pages of documents (far less than the 46,000
obtained by the Elliott lawyers).  The Ehrenhaus settlement,
moreover, came just a couple of months after the lawsuit was
filed.  The Elliott lawyers worked their case for eight years."

The Ehrenhaus fee petition of $1,975,000 ended up getting chopped
down by Judge Diaz of the Business Court by nearly half (to $1
million).


LINDSAY ENTERTAINMENT: Seeks Review of Decision in "Tassy" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Lindsay Entertainment Enterprises, Inc., filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Gloria Tassy v. Lindsay
Ent Enterprises Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00077, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 27,
2017, the Hon. Thomas B. Russell entered a memorandum opinion and
order granting in part and denying in part Gloria Tassy's Motion
for Conditional Certification.  The proposed collective class
under the Fair Labor Standards Act is conditionally certified as:

      All current and former Entertainers/Exotic Dancers who
      worked for Lindsay Entertainment Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a
      The Godfather, from February 10, 2013 to the present who
      were classified as independent contractors, worked for tips
      only, and, as a result, were not paid the wage required by
      federal law;

The appellate case is captioned as Gloria Tassy v. Lindsay Ent
Enterprises Inc., Case No. 17-5338, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee GLORIA TASSY, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          333 W. Vine St., Suite 1200
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 286-8368
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3487
          E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com

Defendant-Appellant LINDSAY ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES, INC., is
represented by:

          David N. Ward, Esq.
          CLAY, DANIEL, WALTON & ADAMS PLC
          462 S. Fourth Street, Suite 101
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 561-2005
          Facsimile: (502) 415-7505
          E-mail: david@justiceky.com


SEAWORLD PARKS: Appeals Ruling in "Herman" Suit to 11th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Herman, et al. v. SeaWorld Parks &
Entertainment Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-03028-MSS-JSS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 25,
2017, U.S. District Judge Mary S. Scriven ruled on April 17
against SeaWorld in the class action over its automatic renewal of
annual passes, finding the theme park breached the contracts and
violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act by renewing during the
one-year term and collecting unauthorized payments after the
contracts expired.  The Court previously granted class
certification to a class of customers from Florida, Texas,
Virginia and California, where SeaWorld operates theme parks.

The appellate case is captioned as SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment,
Inc. v. Jason Herman, et al., Case No. 17-90008, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]

Defendant- Petitioner SEAWORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC., is
represented by:

          Stephen M. Brooks, Esq.
          Lucas Allen Westby, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
          201 17th Street NW, Suite 1700
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (404) 322-6465
          Facsimile: (404) 322-6050
          E-mail: stephen.brooks@nelsonmullins.com
                  lucas.westby@nelsonmullins.com

               - and -

          Thomas William Carroll, Esq.
          Colin C. Deihl, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS, LLP
          3200 Wells Fargo Center
          1700 Lincoln St.
          Denver, CO 80203-4532
          Telephone: (303) 607-3500
          E-mail: thomas.carroll@FaegreBD.com
                  colin.deihl@FaegreBD.com

               - and -

          Nicholas J. Nelson, Esq.
          Aaron Daniel Van Oort, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS, LLP
          90 S 7th St., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 766-7205
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: nicholas.nelson@FaegreBD.com
                  aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com

Plaintiffs- Respondents JASON HERMAN, individuals and on behalf of
those similarly situated, JOEY KRATT, individuals and on behalf of
those similarly situated, and CHRISTINA LANCASTER, individuals and
on behalf of those similarly situated, are represented by:

          James E. Felman, Esq.
          Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq.
          KYNES MARKMAN & FELMAN, PA
          P.O. BOX 3396
          Tampa, FL 33601
          Telephone: (813) 229-1118
          Facsimile: (813) 221-6750
          E-mail: jfelman@kmf-law.com
                  kyanes@kmf-law.com

               - and -

          Paul R. Fowkes, Esq.
          KOMNINOS & FOWKES LAW GROUP, LLC
          709 W Azeele Street
          Tampa, FL 33606-2352
          Telephone: (813) 251-3444
          Facsimile: (813) 472-7570
          E-mail: pfowkes@dfhlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Ryan C. Hasanbasic, Esq.
          BOUZAS OWENS, PA
          2154 Duck Slough Blvd., Suite 101
          Trinity, FL 34655-5073
          E-mail: Ryan@DispartiLaw.com


LONG BEACH, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Patel" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Daksha Patel, Dipak L. Patel, Jayantibhai Patel and
Pravin L. Patel filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to
the lawsuit entitled Jayantibhai Patel, et al. v. City of Long
Beach, et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-02806-AB-GJS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The lawsuit alleges civil rights violations.

The appellate case is captioned as Jayantibhai Patel, et al. v.
City of Long Beach, et al., Case No. 17-55411, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript is due on July 25, 2017;

   -- Appellants Daksha Patel, Dipak L. Patel, Jayantibhai Patel
      and Pravin L. Patel's opening brief is due on September 5,
      2017;

   -- Appellees City of Long Beach and Does' answering brief is
      due on October 3, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JAYANTIBHAI PATEL, Individual and all others
similarly situated and Plaintiff Tenants, DBA Princess Inn; PRAVIN
L. PATEL, Individual and all others similarly situated and
Plaintiff Tenants; DIPAK L. PATEL, Individual and all others
similarly situated and Plaintiff Tenants; and DAKSHA PATEL,
Individual and all others similarly situated and Plaintiff
Tenants, are represented by:

          Frank Alan Weiser, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF FRANK A. WEISER
          3460 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 384-6864
          Facsimile: (213) 383-7368
          E-mail: maimons@aol.com

Defendant-Appellee CITY OF LONG BEACH, a municipal corporation, is
represented by:

          Randall Charles Fudge, Esq.
          Theodore B. Zinger, Esq.
          LONG BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          333 W. Ocean Blvd.
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 570-2200
          Facsimile: (562) 436-1579
          E-mail: randall.fudge@longbeach.gov
                  ted.zinger@longbeach.gov


LVNV FUNDING: Final Settlement Approval Pending in "Sandoval"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned GEORGINA SANDOVAL, on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LVNV FUNDING LLC;
and RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., the Defendants, Case No.
2:15-cv-06728-KM-MAH (D.N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty on April 5 held
that, in light of Plaintiff's April 4 Consent Motion to Certify
Class and Grant Final Approval of Parties' Class Settlement
Agreement and Release, which represent that no class member has
filed an objection to the class settlement agreement, the Court
cancelled the Fairness Hearing previously scheduled for April 6 at
10 a.m.

The Court set a hearing for May 1 to consider the Consent Motion
to Certify Class and Grant Final Approval of Parties' Class
Settlement Agreement and Release.

The Plaintiff, on consent of Defendants, proposed to certify the
case to proceed as a class action and seek final approval of the
Parties' class settlement agreement, on behalf of the following
class:

   "all consumers residing within the State of New Jersey, to
   whom Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., mailed a collection
   letter in the same or similar form as the September 8, 2014
   letter sent to Plaintiff; which letter (i) was dated within
   one year prior to September 8, 2015, (ii) was seeking to
   collect a consumer debt allegedly owed to LVNV Funding LLC,
   which originated from Credit One Bank, N.A., and (iii) was
   sent in a windowed envelope such that the account number
   associated with the debt was visible from outside the
   envelope".

The Plaintiff's amended complaint alleges Defendants violated the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by mailing consumers
collection letters in windowed envelopes such that the account
number associated with the debt was visible from outside the
envelope.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SX3QvUVR

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 200
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273 7117

               - and -

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


LYFT INC: Page Appeals Ruling in "Cotter" Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
Objector James Page filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Patrick Cotter, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., Case No.
3:13-cv-04065-VC, pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 28,
2017, the District Court gave final approval to a $27 million
settlement between ride-hail app Lyft and its drivers, who claimed
they were classified as independent contractors so Lyft could
skirt minimum wage laws.

The appellate case is captioned as Patrick Cotter, et al. v. Lyft,
Inc., Case No. 17-15648, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript is due on May 30, 2017;

   -- Appellant James Page's opening brief is due on July 10,
      2017;

   -- Appellees Patrick Cotter, Jeffrey Knudtson, Lyft, Inc. and
      Alejandra Maciel's answering brief is due on August 10,
      2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Objector-Appellant JAMES PAGE is represented by:

          Caroline V. Tucker, Esq.
          TUCKER POLLARD
          2102 Business Center Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 253-5710
          E-mail: ctucker@tuckerpollard.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees PATRICK COTTER, ALEJANDRA MACIEL and JEFFREY
KNUDTSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Matthew David Carlson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          466 Geary Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail:  mcarlson@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee LYFT, INC., is represented by:

          Simona Agnolucci, Esq.
          R. James Slaughter, Esq.
          KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          E-mail: sagnolucci@keker.com
                  rslaughter@kvn.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Ahearn, Esq.
          Thomas M. McInerney, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower
          One Market Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-4810
          Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
          E-mail: chris.ahearn@ogletreedeakins.com
                  tmm@ogletreedeakins.com


MDL 2179: MRM and Tobatex Appeal Ruling in Deepwater Horizon Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs M.R.M. Energy, Incorporated, and Tobatex, Incorporated,
filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the multidistrict
litigation titled In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater
Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, MDL NO. 2:10-MD-2179, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Deepwater Horizon, Case
No. 17-30233, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on April 22,
2010, the ultra-deepwater floater Deepwater Horizon sank after a
blowout of the Macondo well caused a fire and explosion on the rig
off the coast of Louisiana.  At the time of the explosion,
Deepwater Horizon was contracted to an affiliate of BP plc.

Following the incident, civil and criminal claims, as well as
causes of action, fines and penalties by local, state and federal
governments were filed.  Litigation commenced shortly after the
incident, and most claims were consolidated by the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and transferred to the MDL Court
in Louisiana.  A significant portion of the contingencies arising
from the Macondo well incident has now been resolved as a result
of settlements with the U.S. Department of Justice, BP and the
states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants TOBATEX, INCORPORATED, A Georgia
Corporation; and M.R.M. ENERGY, INCORPORATED, A Georgia statutory
close corporation, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Samuel Tasker Rees, Esq.
          26 Muirfield Place
          New Orleans, LA 70131
          Telephone: (213) 220-9988
          Facsimile: (323) 874-1234
          E-mail: STReesEsq@Earthlink.Net

Defendants-Appellees BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED; BP
AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP CORPORATION NORTH AMERICA,
INCORPORATED; BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED;
TRANSOCEAN, LIMITED; HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INCORPORATED;
CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, formerly known as Cooper
Cameron Corporation; BP, P.L.C.; and BP AMERICA, INCORPORATED, are
represented by:

          Don Keller Haycraft, Esq.
          LISKOW & LEWIS, P.L.C.
          701 Poydras Street
          1 Shell Square
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 581-7979
          Facsimile: (504) 556-4108
          E-mail: dkhaycraft@liskow.com

Defendants-Appellees TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INCORPORATED, and
TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING, INCORPORATED are
represented by:

          Richard J. Hymel, Esq.
          MAHTOOK & LAFLEUR, L.L.C.
          600 Jefferson Street
          Lafayette, LA 70501
          Telephone: (337) 266-2189
          E-mail: rhymel@mandllaw.com

               - and -

          Edward F. Kohnke, IV, Esq.
          PREIS, P.L.C.
          Pan American Life Center
          601 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 581-6062
          Facsimile: (504) 522-9129

               - and -

          Evans Martin McLeod, Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR, L.L.P.
          365 Canal Street
          1 Canal Place
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 566-1311
          E-mail: marty.mcleod@phelps.com

               - and -

          Kerry J. Miller, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
          201 Saint Charles Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 566-8646
          Facsimile: (504) 585-6946
          E-mail: kjmiller@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Campbell E. Wallace, Esq.
          FRILOT, L.L.C.
          1100 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 599-8054
          Facsimile: (504) 599-8114
          E-mail: cwallace@frilot.com


MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Brinkley" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Monterey Financial Services, Inc. and Monterey
Financial Services, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Tiffany Brinkley v. Monterey Financial
Services, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01103-WQH-WVG, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
asserts that she "was, at all time relevant herein, a natural
person and a resident of Tukwila, Washington."  She seeks, among
other things, to certify a putative class that purports to include
"all persons who, while physically located or residing in
California and Washington who made or received one or more
telephone calls with Defendant MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
during the four year period preceding the filing of this lawsuit
(the Class Period) and did not receive notice at the beginning of
the telephone call that their telephone conversation may be
recorded or monitored" (the Class)."

The appellate case is captioned as Tiffany Brinkley v. Monterey
Financial Services, et al., Case No. 17-80053, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent TIFFANY BRINKLEY, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Christina Elizabeth Wickman, Esq.
          Steven Allen Wickman, Esq.
          WICKMAN & WICKMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          500 La Terraza Boulevard, Suite 150
          Escondido, CA 92025
          Telephone: (760) 732-3300
          Facsimile: (619) 271-8656
          E-mail: Christina@wickmanlaw.com
                  Steve@wickmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick N. Keegan, Esq.
          KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP
          6156 Innovation Way
          Carlsbad, CA 92009
          Telephone: (760) 929-9303
          E-mail: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com

Defendants-Petitioners MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., and
MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, are represented by:

          William P. Cole, Esq.
          Matthew R. Orr, Esq.
          CALL & JENSEN, APC
          610 Newport Center Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 717-3000
          E-mail: wcole@calljensen.com
                  morr@calljensen.com


MONTROSE RESTAURANT: Montano Appeals S.D. Tex. Ruling to 5th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs David Montano and Gaston Nieves filed an appeal from a
court ruling relating to the lawsuit styled David Montano, et al.
v. Montrose Restaurant Associates, Inc., Case No. 4:12-CV-153, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as David Montano, et al. v.
Montrose Restaurant Associates, Inc., Case No. 17-20223, in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DAVID MONTANO, Individually and on Behalf of
Other Employees Similarly Situated, and GASTON NIEVES are
represented by:

          Trang Quoc Tran, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          2537 S. Gessner Road
          Houston, TX 77063
          Telephone: (713) 223-8855
          Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
          E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com

Defendant-Appellee MONTROSE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED,
doing business as Restaurant Associates Payroll, also known as
Tony's, also known as Tony's Restaurant, is represented by:

          George R. Gibson, Esq.
          NATHAN SOMMERS JACOBS
          2800 Post Oak Boulevard
          Houston, TX 77056-6102
          Telephone: (713) 892-4843
          Facsimile: (713) 892-4800
          E-mail: ggibson@nathansommers.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Tosses Ex-USC Players' Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins, Cara Bayles, Zachary Zagger and Melissa Lipman,
writing for Law360, report that a California federal judge on
April 25 tossed a former University of Southern California
football player's putative class action alleging the NCAA and Pac-
12 Conference improperly deny student-athletes minimum wage,
finding that the athletes aren't employees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg found that the majority of
courts have ruled that college athletes aren't employees and they
haven't distinguished between sports that generate revenue and
those that do not.  Even if there were a distinction, revenue
generation doesn't determine employment status and FLSA claims
must be tossed with prejudice, the judge said.

"Leaving aside the policy question of whether and how Division I .
. . college football players should be compensated, there is
simply no legal basis for finding them to be 'employees' under the
FLSA," the judge said.

The ruling marks an end to a putative class action filed by former
Trojans linebacker Lamar Dawson in September alleging the NCAA and
Pac-12 Conference violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and
various California labor laws by not paying players for hours
worked and overtime.

Mr. Dawson, who played for USC from 2011 to 2015, sought to
distinguish his case from Berger v. NCAA, another putative class
action brought by track and field student-athletes, which the
Seventh Circuit decided in December.

In the Berger case, the Seventh Circuit found the University of
Pennsylvania athletes were not employees under the FLSA.  Despite
dedicating many hours to their sport, they have traditionally done
so without any real expectation of earning an income, the
appellate court ruled.

Mr. Dawson, however, argued that his case was different, because
the major Division I football programs are structured more like
commercial enterprises that generate "enormous revenue" that would
not "exist were it not for the on-the-field efforts of the
football players themselves."

Mr. Dawson's complaint cites revenue estimates from the NCAA's own
research that shows collegiate athletics generate $6.1 billion a
year and that the Pac-12 grossed $374 million in 2014 alone.

Earlier in April the NCAA asked the judge to toss the suit,
arguing during a hearing in San Francisco that the money teams
generate and restrictions on players' activities don't make the
association an employer.

The NCAA reasoned that Mr. Dawson's suit was weaker than Berger's,
since Mr. Dawson didn't name the schools as defendants in the
complaint.  The NCAA also argued that the fact college football is
a multimillion-dollar industry, which makes more money than track
and field, is legally irrelevant.

But Mr. Dawson's attorney, Mark Rifkin of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP, said the NCAA's requirements of student-
athletes, regulating their hours and their academic performance,
and the fact that they weren't entitled to pay were all hallmarks
that the association "controls nearly every aspect of the lives of
student-athletes."

But on April 25, Judge Seeborg rejected Dawson's arguments. Dawson
didn't present any legal authority that supports his conclusion
that the Berger ruling shouldn't apply to his case due to the size
of the college football industry, the judge said.

Judge Seeborg also dismissed the suit with prejudice.  Because Mr.
Dawson's complaint is based on an untenable legal theory,
amendment would be futile, the judge said.

Mr. Rifkin told Law360 on April 25 that he's disappointed in Judge
Seeborg's ruling and he plans to appeal it.  He declined to
comment further.

NCAA chief legal officer Donald Remy said in a statement on
April 25 that the NCAA is pleased that the court dismissed the
suit.  There is no legal support for the argument that student-
athletes are university employees, and it is unfortunate the NCAA
must continue to expend resources on cases that copy previously
dismissed lawsuits, Remy said.

Mr. Dawson is represented by Betsy C. Manifold, Jeffrey G. Smith
and Mark C. Rifkin of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP,
John M. Kelson of The Law Offices of John M. Kelson, and Jerry K.
Cimmet.

The NCAA is represented by Kenneth D. Sulzer, Esq. --
ksulzer@constangy.com -- Steven B. Katz, Esq. --
skatz@constangy.com -- and Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Esq. --
skrollrosenbaum@constangy.com -- of Constangy Brooks Smith &
Prophete LLP.  The Pac-12 is represented by Kiran A. Seldon, Esq.,
Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq., and Diana Tabacopoulos, Esq., of Seyfarth
Shaw LLP.

The case is Dawson v. National Collegiate Athletic Association et
al., case number 3:16-cv-05487, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


NATALE BAKERY: "Reyes" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA, NY Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO REYES, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, v. NATALE BAKERY CORP. d/b/a VACCARO'S
BAKERY and GIUSEPP NATALE, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02448
(E.D.N.Y., April 24, 2017), alleges that Defendants knowingly and
willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying
Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs the Fair Labor Standards
Act overtime rate (of time and one-half) or the New York State
overtime rate (of time and one-half) and compensation for all
hours worked due to Defendants' policy of time-shaving work.[BN]

Plaintiff worked as baker.

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     Shin Hahn, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Appeals Ruling in "Hayford" Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant NationStar Mortgage, LLC, filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Terri Hayford v. NationStar Mortgage,
LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-04480-JJT, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated persons all overtime pay for all time worked in
excess of 40 hours per week in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Terri Hayford v. NationStar
Mortgage, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-15614, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellant NationStar Mortgage, LLC's opening brief is due
      on July 12, 2017;

   -- Appellee Terri Hayford's answering brief is due on
      August 11, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee TERRI HAYFORD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Michelle Ray Matheson, Esq.
          MATHESON & MATHESON, PLC
          15300 N. 90th Street
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Telephone: (480) 889-8951
          Facsimile: (480) 339-4538
          E-mail: mmatheson@mathesonlegal.com

Defendant-Appellant NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, is represented by:

          Cory G. Walker, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Suite 300
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 862-8800
          Facsimile: (702) 862-8811
          E-mail: cgwalker@littler.com

               - and -

          Robert Francois Friedman, I, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2001 Ross Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 880-8100
          Facsimile: (214) 880-0181
          E-mail: rfriedman@littler.com


NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL: Settlement in "Cohn" Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled HENDY COHN, on behalf of herself and the
class, the Plaintiff, v. NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., and
PRESSLER & PRESSLER, LLP, the Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-02855-
RER (E.D.N.Y.), Hendy Cohn was slated to move the Court on April
27, 2017, before the Honorable Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. United States
Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of New York, at 2 p.m.,
for an Order granting final approval of the Stipulation and
Settlement Agreement based upon the accompanying Memoranda of Law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shimshon Wexler, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SHIMSHON WEXLER PC
          216 West 104th St., #129
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: 212-760-2400
          E-mail: shimshonwexler@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Jacob Scheiner, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JACOB J. SCHEINER, PC
          568 Church Ave
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (516) 284 6282
          E-Mail: Jacob@scheineresq.com


NEW YORK: Disabled Riders File Class Action Against MTA
-------------------------------------------------------
Sheila Anne Feeney, writing for amnewyork, reports that two class
action lawsuits were filed against the MTA on April 25 accusing
the transit system of discriminating against disabled riders.

The lawsuits were filed by disability rights advocates on behalf
of a coalition of other disability rights groups and three
individuals.

The state lawsuit contends that 360 of the system's 472 subway
stations are unusable by people who can't take the stairs, making
NYC's underground system one of the least accessible in the nation
for people in wheelchairs and with mobility impairments.
The federal lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York,
alleges that the MTA fails to properly maintain the elevators that
do exist, with 12 percent out of service on any given day.
The failure to provide notice of outages or to offer alternatives
to those dependent on elevators also presents a discriminatory
hardship, the suit claims.

One plaintiff, Sasha Blair-Goldensohn, whose spine was partially
severed after being hit by a 100-pound tree limb in Central Park
in 2009, said his work commute requires a transfer and four
elevators because there is no direct, accessible route.

"The lack of elevators doubles my commute time, at best.  And if
just one elevator is out of service, I'm stuck," Blair-Goldensohn
said in a statement.  "I never know when I'll have to ask
strangers to carry me up the stairs in my wheelchair.  It's nerve-
wracking, dangerous and degrading."

An MTA spokeswoman said she could not comment on pending
litigation, but that the authority is spending more than $1
billion "to increase the number of ADA-compliant subway stations
and replace existing elevators and escalators."
There are 248 elevators in the system and 117 stations are ADA
accessible with 25 more in line to become so, she said.  Elevators
in the system are available 96 percent of the time, and cannot
operate 100 percent of the time due to maintenance needs, although
scheduled maintenance is done during off-peak hours to minimize
disruption, she said.


NEW YORK: American Bus Assoc. Appeals Order in Suit vs. NYSTA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs American Bus Association, DATTCO, Inc. and Starr
Transit Co., Inc., filed an appeal from a District Court order
dated March 21, 2017, in the lawsuit styled American Bus
Association, et al. v. New York State Thruway Authority, et al.,
Case No. 17-cv-782, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the purported
class action lawsuit has been filed against New York State Thruway
Authority on February 1, 2017.  NYST is a system of limited-access
highways located within the state of New York in the United
States.

The appellate case is captioned as American Bus Association v. New
York State Thruway Authority, Case No. 17-873, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Reginald Raybern Goeke, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP(DC)
          1999 "K" Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263 3241
          Facsimile: (202) 263 5241
          E-mail: rgoeke@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Richard P. Schweitzer, Esq.
          RICHARD P. SCHWEITZER, PLLC
          1717 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 223-3040
          Facsimile: (202) 223-3041
          E-mail: rpschweitzer@rpslegal.com

Defendants-Appellees New York State Thruway Authority; New York
State Canal Corporation; Bill Finch, in his official capacity as
Acting Executive Director of the New York State Thruway Authority;
Joanne M. Mahoney, in her official capacity as Chair of the New
York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation Boards of
Directors; Donna J. Luh, in her official capacity as ViceChair of
the New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation Boards of
Directors; Richard N. Simberg, in his official capacity as a
member of the New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation
Boards of Directors; J. Donald Rice, Jr., in his official capacity
as a member of the New York State Thruway Authority/Canal
Corporation Boards of Directors; Jose Holguin-Veras, in his
official capacity as a member of the New York State Thruway
Authority/Canal Corporation Boards of Directors; Robert L. Megna,
in his official capacity as a member of the New York State Thruway
Authority/Canal Corporation Boards of Directors; and Stephen M.
Saland, in his official capacity as a member of the New York State
Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation Boards of Directors, are
represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          120 Broadway
          New York, NY 10271
          Telephone: (212) 416-8020
          E-mail: barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov


NEW YORK: DoTF Ordered to Pay $44.4-Mil. to Truckers
----------------------------------------------------
The Trucker reports that the New York Supreme Court has ordered
the New York Department of Taxation and Finance to pay $44,429,473
for what the court determined as an unconstitutional registration
and decal fee.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, an
organization representing professional and small-business
truckers, has filed a class action lawsuit against the New York
agency.

"We fought against a number of similar taxes back in the 1980s and
1990s and the states lost in every one of those cases," said OOIDA
President Jim Johnston.  "We were shocked that New York even
thought they could get away with this.  The amount for the New
York HUT decal is $19, which may seem insignificant, but if other
states were to do the same thing, it would be huge -- collectively
and in administrative costs."

The association had challenged the taxes as unconstitutional and
discriminatory against out-of-state truckers who drive their
trucks mostly in other states in contrast to New York-based
truckers who drive a disproportionately higher number of miles in
New York.

OOIDA established that the challenged taxes resulted in a higher
per mile tax rate being imposed on out-of-state trucks, and
therefore violated the Commerce Clause.

The class action lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of taxes
that impose $15 for a certificate of registration and a $4 decal
charge on all trucks using New York state highways.

The taxes are imposed not only on New York-based trucks, which are
driven proportionately higher miles in New York, but were also
charged on trucks based outside of New York, which are driven
mostly in states other than New York.

"If there are other states that think tacking on flat fees to
their state truck taxes won't be noticed as an economic burden to
interstate commerce, they need to understand this is not a good
idea," Mr. Johnston said.  "We will take them to court in a
heartbeat."


NEXTIVA INC: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Marketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a San Bernardino individual has filed a class-action lawsuit
against a telecommunications company over allegations of unlawful
marketing calls.

Jessica Hernandez filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated on April 19 in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against Nextiva Inc. and Does 1
through 10 citing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in November
2016, the defendants began calling her in an attempt to solicit
their services.  The plaintiff holds Nextiva Inc. and Does 1
through 10 responsible because the defendants allegedly used an
automatic telephone dialing system to call the plaintiff several
times without her consent.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory
damages, $1,500 in treble damages, and any other relief as the
court deems just.  She is represented by Asaf Agazanof of Law
Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC in Los Angeles.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 5:17-cv-00757-PSG-SS


NORTHSTAR LOTTERY: Seeks Dismissal of Illinois Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Meisel, writing for Law360, reports that Illinois' former
lottery manager asked a federal judge on April 24 to toss a suit
accusing the company of misrepresenting the chances of winning to
consumers and the retailers who sold the tickets, arguing that the
allegations were based on nonlogic and bad math.

Northstar Lottery Group LLC, which had run the nation's first
public-private lottery partnership when it was installed to run
Illinois' lottery by former Gov. Pat Quinn in 2010, told the court
on April 24 that the lawsuit is unfounded in reality. The suit,
originally filed in state court in February, alleged that
Northstar defrauded businesses that sold scratch-off lottery
tickets and individuals who bought the tickets by misrepresenting
chances of winning.

The complaints in both state and federal court include charges
that Northstar discontinued scratch-off games before large payouts
were awarded, depriving customers of jackpots.  The suit says that
by misrepresenting the chances of winning a jackpot, Northstar
violated contracts with ticket vendors that would have earned
commissions and bonuses from sales.  Plaintiffs' counsel told
Law360 in March that the suit is an outgrowth of an investigation
by the Chicago Tribune in 2015, which found that the Illinois
Lottery's biggest scratch-off game did not award 40 percent of its
grand prizes.

But Northstar in its motion to dismiss and accompanying memorandum
told the court that the allegations of fixing games by purposely
underselling tickets could not possibly be true, as odds for
winning a certain lottery game are set way ahead of time and are
available to the public.

"That is simply not the case: If the odds reflect the total
universe of tickets printed for each individual game (and
plaintiffs do not allege otherwise), then the fact that some
portion of the tickets for a particular game were not ultimately
sold could not have affected the odds of winning for the
individual tickets that were sold," Northstar said.  "As
plaintiffs themselves allege, those odds were fully disclosed to
players on the tickets themselves and elsewhere."

Northstar went further, telling the court that the plaintiffs'
case could not survive because they were not truly injured by not
winning lottery games that they had very little chance of winning
in the first place.  The company pointed to last May's landmark
decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, in
which the high court held that a party must prove an injury in
fact.

"Plaintiffs lack standing because Northstar's alleged conduct
caused them no cognizable injury," Northstar said.  "Plaintiffs'
claims each hinge on the proposition that they were somehow
injured by not winning the lottery or, in the retailer's case, by
not selling a winning lottery ticket.  That sort of obviously
speculative injury does not meet the standing requirements that
the Supreme Court set forth in Spokeo, and also fails to satisfy
injury and causation elements essential to each of plaintiffs'
substantive claims."

Northstar called the consumer and retailer plaintiffs' claims of
damages "wholly conclusory and illogical," asking the court to
throw out the entire seven counts leveled against the company,
including tortious interference, violation of Illinois' Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, unjust enrichment and
fraud.  The plaintiffs are seeking $50,000 for each of the seven
counts.  The suit pointed to the plummeting profitability of the
Illinois Lottery under Northstar, which actually lost money in
2014. Northstar had promised to bring in $4.8 billion in the first
five years of the contract, but the lottery came out hundreds of
millions of dollars short of that goal.

The 10-year contract with Northstar was cut short when Quinn began
phasing out the state's relationship with the vendor in August
2014 as his race for re-election heated up and the lottery deal
became a campaign issue. After succeeding Quinn, Gov. Bruce Rauner
renegotiated Northstar's exit contract in 2015, which his
administration said will save Illinois $28 million. Last summer
Rauner said the state is again looking for a lottery vendor.

Representatives for the parties could be reached for comment on
April 25.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robert Sprague --
rsprague@spragueurban.com -- of Sprague & Urban, Tor Hoerman,
Kenneth Brennan and Tyler Schneider of Tor Hoerman Law LLC, Derek
Brandt of Brandt Law LLC and Timothy Hoerman.

Northstar is represented by Troy Bozarth --
tbozarth@heplerbroom.com -- of HeplerBroom LLC and Jason
Winchester -- jgwinchester@jonesday.com -- Nicole Henning and
Sharyl Reisman -- sareisman@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day.

The case is Raqqa Inc. et al. v. Northstar Lottery Group LLC, case
number 3:17-cv-00246, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.

The originating state court case is Raqqa Inc. et al. v. Northstar
Lottery Group LLC, case number 17L51, in the Circuit Court of St.
Clair County.


NOVA HARDBANDING: Faces "Deschamps" Suit Under FLSA, N.Mex. Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIE DESCHAMPS, and all others similarly situated under 29 USC
Section 216(b), Plaintiff, v. NOVA HARDBANDING, LLC, and KEN
BROMLEY, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00493 (D.N.
Mex., April 26, 2017), alleges that Defendants have violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, by
classifying the FLSA and NM Class Members as exempt from overtime,
paying them on a salary basis and refusing to pay them overtime
despite those individuals regularly working over 40 hours per
week.

Defendants provide hardbanding, inspection and other oilfield
services to oilfield clients throughout the Southwest, including
New Mexico and Texas. Defendants employed Plaintiff to perform
manual and technical labor to provide Defendants' products and
services for customers at job sites.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
     J. Forester, Esq.
     Travis Gasper, Esq.
     LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
     1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Tel: (214) 749-1400
     Fax: (214) 749-1010
     Web site: http://www.overtimelawyer.com
     E-mail: jdbraziel-b-law.com
             gasper@l-b-law.com

        - and -

     Jack Siegel, Esq.
     SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
     10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
     Dallas, TX 75231
     Phone: (214) 706-0834
     Fax: (469) 339-0204
     Web site: http://www.siegellawgroup.biz


NUVASIVE INC: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Popov" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Nuvasive, Inc., Alexis V. Lukianov and Michael J.
Lambert filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled
Danny Popov, et al. v. Nuvasive, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-
02005-JM-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is a
putative securities-fraud class action on behalf of those who
purchased NuVasive securities between October 22, 2008, and July
30, 2013.

The appellate case is captioned as Danny Popov, et al. v.
Nuvasive, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-80055, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents DANNY POPOV, Individually and on Behalf of
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, and BRAD MAUSS, Individually
and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, are
represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG, LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: jalieberman@ponlaw.com

Plaintiff-Respondent BRAD MAUSS, Individually and on Behalf of All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Emma Gilmore, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: egilmore@pomlaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners NUVASIVE, INC., and MICHAEL J. LAMBERT are
represented by:

          Robert W. Brownlie, Esq.
          Kellin Maurine Chatfield, Esq.
          Noah Katsell, Esq.
          Stanley Joseph Panikowski, III, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          401 B Street
          San Diego, CA 92101-4297
          Telephone: (619) 699-3665
          Facsimile: (619) 764-6665
          E-mail: robert.brownlie@dlapiper.com
                  kellin.chatfield@dlapiper.com
                  noah.katsell@dlapiper.com
                  stanley.panikowski@dlapiper.com

Defendant-Petitioner ALEXIS V. LUKIANOV is represented by:

          Christopher H. McGrath, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          4747 Executive Drive
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 458-3000
          E-mail: haroldmcgrath@paulhastings.com


PERCEPTA, LLC: Faces "Cortes" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Alice Cortes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. PERCEPTA, LLC and FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-00758-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla., April 26,
2017), alleges that Plaintiff worked an average of approximately
fifty (50) hours per week but was not compensated at a rate of
time and one-half her regular rate of pay for all hours worked
over forty (40) in a work week in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Percepta, LLC operates multi-channel, multi-lingual customer
contact centers in the United States and internationally.
Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a zone manager, performing
customer service and clerical work.  She worked in a call center
environment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregory A. Owens, Esq.
     Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
     BOUZAS OWENS, P.A.
     2154 Duck Slough Blvd., Suite 101
     Trinity FL 34655
     Phone: 727 254 5255
     Fax: 727 483 7942
     E-mail: greg@bouzasowens.com
             miguel@bouzasowens.com


PROCARE AUTOMOTIVE: Faces "Guereca" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Guereca, Plaintiff, v. Procare Automotive, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-368 (W.D. Tex., April 26, 2017), is a
collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay its Parts
Managers overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act
and/or state overtime laws. Instead, Procare Automotive, LLC pays
its Parts Managers a base salary.

ProcareAutomotive, LLC provides products and services in the
automotive collision repair industry in the United States.
Plaintiff Salvador Guereca worked for Procare Automotive, LLC as a
Parts Manager.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carlos A. Solis, Esq.
     310 S. St. Mary's St., Suite 2900
     San Antonio, TX 78205
     Phone: (210) 446-5000
     Fax: (210) 446-5001
     E-mail: csolis@hilley-solis.com


REGRESO FINANCIAL: Certification of Class Sought in "Karcauskas"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled POVILAS KARCAUSKAS, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. REGRESO
FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC; GOLDSMITH & HULL, APC; WILLIAM I.
GOLDSMITH, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-09225-FMO-RAO (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on May 4, 2017 to certify
a class of:

   "(i) all persons having an address within the state of
   California (ii) who were sent a communication from Defendants
   G&H or Mr. Goldsmith (iii) when a wage garnishment order had
   not been obtained (iv) to recover a debt incurred for
   personal, family, or household purposes (v) which was not
   returned undelivered by the United States Postal Service (vi)
   during the period of time one year prior to the filing of the
   Complaint through the date of class certification".

The Plaintiff filed the motion for Class Certification as to
Defendant Goldsmith & Hull, APC for its violations alleged in the
complaint of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and
the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, (RFDCPA) and as
to Defendant William I. Goldsmith for his violations alleged in
the complaint of the FDCPA.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that he be appointed as the
class representative, and that his attorneys be appointed as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gei5ndqx

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Stempler, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT STEMPLER, APC
          P.O. Box 7145
          Oxnard, CA 93031-7145
          Telephone: (805) 246 2300
          Facsimile: (805) 576 7800
          E-mail: Robert@StopCollectionHarassment.com

               - and -

          O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES
          25 East Washington Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-8822
          Facsimile: (312) 372-1673
          E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com


REPUBLIC SCHOOLS: Appeals Ruling in "Skeete" Suit to 6th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant RePublic Schools Nashville filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled IRIKA SKEETE, et al. v. REPUBLIC
SCHOOLS NASHVILLE, Case No. 3:16-cv-00043, in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 26,
2017, the Hon. Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., granted in part and
denied in part the Representative Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The certified class is defined as:

     All individuals who were sent and received a text to their
     cellular telephones by RePublic Schools Nashville ("RSN")
     from the number (615) 270-4554 during the time period
     August 17, 2015, through January 15, 2016, and whose
     cellular phone number was obtained by RSN from the
     Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools database.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: RePublic Schools
Nashville, Case No. 17-505, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner REPUBLIC SCHOOLS NASHVILLE is represented by:

          David Ruben Esquivel, Esq.
          BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC
          150 Third Avenue, S., Suite 2800
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 742-6200
          Facsimile: (615) 742-0405
          E-mail: desquivel@bassberry.com

Plaintiffs-Respondents IRIKA SKEETE and ALLISON BAIRD, on behalf
of themselves and all other entities and persons similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Joey Paul Leniski, Jr., Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: jleniski@bsjfirm.com


SARATOGA DIAGNOSTICS: Class Certification Bid Under Advisement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Ronald A. Guzman entered an order in the lawsuit
styled Dimensions Medical Center, Ltd., et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
Saratoga Diagnostics, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-05608 (N.D. Ill.), taking Plaintiff's amended motion for class
certification under advisement.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 4, 2017,
Plaintiff's prior motion for class certification is stricken.
Motion hearing set for April 13, 2017 is stricken and no
appearance is required.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PLpTGSm4


SCOTTY'S HOLDINGS: Faces "Brady" Suit Over W-2 Tax Form Info Leak
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT D. BRADY, JR. and RACHEL MEGQUIER on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SCOTTY'S
HOLDINGS LLC, DUE NORTH HOLDINGS, LLC, and A POTS & PANS
PRODUCTION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01313-TWP-MJD (S.D.
Ind., April 26, 2017), alleges that Scotty's disregarded the
rights of Plaintiffs and Class members by intentionally,
willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and
implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that their
2016 W-2 tax form information was safeguarded, failing to take
available steps to prevent the disclosure from happening, and
failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols,
policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data even for
internal use.

Defendants operate a chain of 19 restaurants and breweries, known
as Scotty's Brewhouse, Thr3e Wise Men Brewing Co., Scotty's Brew
Club and Scotty's Dawghouse, with locations in Indiana, Illinois,
Florida and Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
     Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
     Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
     COHEN & MALAD, LLP
     One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Phone: (317) 636-6481
     Fax: (317) 636-2495
     E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
             rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
             ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

        - and -

     John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
     Marisa Glassman, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     201 N. Franklin Stret, #700
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Tel: 813.223.5505
     Fax: (813) 223-5402
     E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
             mglassman@ForThePeople.com

        - and -

     Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
     768 Plandome Road
     Manhasset, NY 11030
     Phone: (516) 426-6870
     Fax: (212) 658-9685
     E-mail: paul@paulwhalen.com

        - and -

     Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JEAN SUTTON MARTIN PLLC
     2018 Eastwood Road Suite 225
     Wilmington, NC 28403
     Phone: (910) 292-6676
     Fax: (888) 316-3489
     E-mail: jean@jsmlawoffice.com

        - and -

     Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
     Alex C. Davis, Esq.
     JONES WARD PLC
     312 S. Fourth Street
     Louisville, KY 40202
     Phone: (502) 882-6000
     Fax: (502) 587-2007
     E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com
             alex@jonesward.com

        - and -

     Brian P. Murray, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
     New York, NY 10168
     Phone: (212) 682-5340
     E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com

        - and -

     Dennis L. Webb, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DENNIS L. WEBB, P.A.
     2080 McGregor Blvd. Suite 200
     Fort Myers, FL 33901
     Phone: (239) 334-1600
     Fax: (239) 334-7979
     E-mail: dennis@swflalawyers.com


SLICE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Cooper" Suit Over Data Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
JASON COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SLICE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and UNROLLME INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02340-LB (N.D. Cal., April 26, 2017),
seeks to stop Defendant's alleged practice of unlawfully mining
and selling data collected from the private emails of millions of
consumers.[BN]

Slice Technologies, Inc., is a consumer Internet company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nina Eisenberg, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     E-mail: neisenberg@edelson.com


SMG HOLDINGS: Urbano Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Oscar Urbano, Michael Rangel and Demetha Stroman filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Oscar
Urbano, et al. v. SMG, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00603-AG-MRW, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon.
Andrew J. Guilford entered an order granting the Defendants'
motions for summary judgment and denying the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

The appellate case is captioned as Oscar Urbano, et al. v. SMG, et
al., Case No. 17-80041, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners OSCAR URBANO, MICHAEL RANGEL and DEMETHA
STROMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310)531-1901
          E-mail: MMatern@maternlawgroup.com

Defendants-Respondents SMG, a business entity, form unknown, and
SMG HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, are represented by:

          Sergio Bent, Esq.
          Steven M. Kroll, I, Esq.
          BENT CARYL & KROLL, LLP
          6300 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90048
          Telephone: (323) 315-0510
          Facsimile: (323) 774-6021
          E-mail: sbent@bcklegal.com
                  jcaryl@bcklegal.com


SOLARCITY FINANCIAL: Faces "Thomas" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE ARTHUR THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SOLARCITY FINANCIAL COMPANY,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00820-LAB-BGS (S.D. Cal., April
24, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff worked uncompensated hours
during numerous weeks of his employment, including but not limited
to at least 508 hours between December 13, 2015 and April 16, 2016
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant sells and leases solar power systems for homes,
businesses, and government agencies, and provides installation,
maintenance, and repair services for those customers.  Plaintiff
worked for Defendant as a Field Energy Specialist (FES), and later
as a Retail Energy Consultant (REC) and acting Senior REC at
various locations in San Diego County, including Home Depot, Best
Buy, and mall kiosk locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jamin S. Soderstrom, Esq.
     SODERSTROM LAW PC
     3 Park Plaza, Suite 100
     Irvine, CA 92614
     Phone: (949) 667-4700
     Fax: (949) 424-8091
     E-mail: jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com


SOUTH AFRICA: Pomona Residents to Sue Ekurhuleni Municipality
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kempton Express reports that a resident of ward 25 hopes to gather
enough information regarding the metro's poor service delivery in
the area for the community to start a class action suit against
the municipality.

Residents in Pomona Estates, Pomona residential, Bredell and
Brentwood Park have been subjected to the non-performance and
partial performance of services by the Ekurhuleni municipality
over a number of years, said Hugh Clare-Talbot.

Services to residents, although not delivered or partially
delivered, are billed for and expected to be paid for in
accordance with the residents' contracts with the municipality.
This practice is unacceptable and unlawful, he maintains.

"It is the intention to record as thoroughly as possible, through
the involvement of the entire community, of every service not
delivered or partly delivered on a weekly basis.  The information
received from the community will be compiled into a report and
issued to various officials on a weekly basis."

These services, among others, include poor maintenance of road and
electrical infrastructure; non-delivery of infrastructure such as
roads, sewage and water services; failure to deal with raw sewage
spilling into a wetland and private properties; failure to stop
illegal squatting on private land.

The information gathering and reporting will continue until such
time as the municipality has dealt with all the issues and/ or
committed to a monitored time line in which these issues will be
addressed or alternately until sufficient evidence is gathered to
litigate a class action suit.

The weekly reports request feedback from the metro.  No response
has been received on the three reports sent to date.

Any and all feedback received from the municipality will be bulk
mailed back to the community as soon as it is received.

This process does in no way intend to encourage the community to
break the law by non-payment of services, Mr. Clare-Talbot said.

"This process sets out to ensure that one of the most basic legal
principles in South Africa is upheld and that is where a community
of citizens pay a municipality for services, that such services
are delivered in full.

"This community individually have entered into contracts with the
municipality for the provision of services. Such contracts require
full performance by both parties. If residents in the community do
not pay for the services, they are in breach of these contracts;
likewise if the municipality does not deliver or only partly
delivers such services paid for."

The community is invited to join in this class action suit by
contacting the email address below as well as to report on a
continuous basis all incidents of non-performance via the
following electronic media:

pomonaclassaction@gmail.com or

Pomona Class Action WhatsApp Group to which you will be added

The most important thing for the community is to report every
incident of non-performance or partial performance.

Once this group reaches a critical mass of people, a meeting with
regard to the class action suit will be arranged.


SOUTH CAROLINA, USA: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Kenny" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Niya Kenny, Taurean Nesmith, Girls Rock Charleston,
Incorporated, D. S., and S. P. filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Niya Kenny v. Alan Wilson, Case No. 2:16-
cv-02794-CWH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina at Charleston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed against government officials of Southern Carolina.  Alan
McCrory Wilson is an American attorney and politician, and is
currently serving as the 51st Attorney General of South Carolina.
The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of certain state
statutes.

The appellate case is captioned as Niya Kenny v. Alan Wilson, Case
No. 17-1367, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants NIYA KENNY, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated; TAUREAN NESMITH, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated; GIRLS ROCK CHARLESTON,
INCORPORATED, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; D. S., by and through her next of kin Juanita Ford, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; and S. P., by
and through her next of kin Melissa Downs, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Susan King Dunn, Esq.
          ACLU OF SOUTH CAROLINA
          P. O. Box 20998
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (843) 720-1425
          Facsimile: (843) 720-1428
          E-mail: sdunn@aclusouthcarolina.org

               - and -

          Sarah Hinger, Esq.
          Lenora Lapidus, Esq.
          Dennis David Parker, Esq.
          Galen Leigh Sherwin, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004-2400
          Telephone: (212) 519-7882
          Facsimile: (212) 549-2651
          E-mail: shinger@aclu.org
                  llapidus@aclu.org
                  dparker@aclu.org
                  gsherwin@aclu.org

Defendants-Appellees ALAN WILSON, in his official capacity as
Attorney General of South Carolina, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated; LANCE CROWE, in his official capacity
as the Chief of the Police Department of the City of Travelers
Rest, SC; on behalf of himself and others similarly situated;
STEVE MOORE, in his official capacity as Interim Chief of the
Police Department of the City of Simpsonville, SC; on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated; M. BRYAN TURNER, in his
official capacity as the Chief of the Police Department of the
City of Mauldin, SC; on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated; and A. KEITH MORTON, in his official capacity as the
Chief of the Police Department of the City of Fountain Inn, SC; on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          James Emory Smith, Jr., Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA
          Rembert C. Dennis Office Building
          1000 Assembly Street
          P. O. Box 11549
          Columbia, SC 29211-1549
          Telephone: (803) 734-3970
          Facsimile: (803) 734-3677
          E-mail: esmith@scag.gov

Defendants-Appellees J. ALTON CANNON, JR., in his official
capacity as the Sheriff of Charleston County, SC; on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated; GREGORY G. MULLEN, in his
official capacity as the Chief of the Police Department of the
City of Charleston, SC; on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated; and EDDIE DRIGGERS, JR., in his official capacity as the
Chief of the Police Department of the City of North Charleston,
SC; on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Sandra J. Senn, Esq.
          SENN LEGAL, LLC
          P. O. Box 12279
          Charleston, SC 29407-7417
          Telephone: (843) 556-4045
          Facsimile: (843) 556-4046
          E-mail: Sandy@sennlegal.com

Defendant-Appellee CARL RITCHIE, in his official capacity as the
Chief of the Police Department of the City of Mt. Pleasant, SC; on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, is represented
by:

          Andrew Lindemann, Esq.
          DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA
          1611 Devonshire Drive
          P. O. Box 8568
          Columbia, SC 29202-8568
          Telephone: (803) 806-8222
          Facsimile: (803) 806-8855
          E-mail: alindemann@dml-law.com

Defendant-Appellee LEON LOTT, in his official capacity as the
Sheriff of Richland County, SC; on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Robert David Garfield, Esq.
          Steven R. Spreeuwers, Esq.
          DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA
          1611 Devonshire Drive
          P. O. Box 8568
          Columbia, SC 29202-8568
          Telephone: (803) 806-8222
          Facsimile: (803) 806-8855
          E-mail: rgarfield@dml-law.com
                  sspreeuwers@dml-law.com

Defendant-Appellee W. H. (SKIP) HOLBROOK, Department of in his
official capacity as the Chief of the Police Department of the
City of Columbia, SC; on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          William Michael Hemlepp, Jr., Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
          P. O. Box 667
          Columbia, SC 29202-0000
          Telephone: (803) 737-4242
          Facsimile: (803) 737 4250
          E-mail: wmhemlepp@columbiasc.net

Defendant-Appellee STEVE LOFTIS, in his official capacity as the
Sheriff of Greenville County, SC; on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Anne Ross Culbreath, Esq.
          WILLSON JONES CARTER & BAXLEY, P.A.
          872 South Pleasantburg Drive
          Greenville, SC 29607
          Telephone: (864) 672-3713
          Facsimile: (864) 235-6015
          E-mail: ARCulbreath@wjlaw.net

Defendant-Appellee KEN MILLER, in his official capacity as the
Chief of the Police Department of the City of Greenville, SC; on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, is represented
by:

          Robert Patrick Coler, Esq.
          Logan McCombs Wells, Esq.
          CITY OF GREENVILLE
          P. O. Box 2207
          Greenville, SC 29602-0000
          Telephone: (864) 467-5758
          Facsimile: (864) 467-4424
          E-mail: rcoler@greenvillesc.gov
                  lmwells@greenvillesc.gov

               - and -

          Michael Stuart Pitts, Esq.
          COLLINS & LACY
          P. O. Box 1746
          Greenville, SC 29602
          Telephone: (864) 282-9119
          E-mail: mpitts@greenvillesc.gov


SAINT LUKE'S: Faces "Houston" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Torri M. Houston, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Saint Luke's Health System, Inc.
and Saint Luke's Northland Hospital Corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 4:17-cv-00266-BCW (W.D. Miss., April 10, 2017) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Missouri Minimum Wage Law.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Surgical Technologist at
Defendants' Hospital.

Saint Luke's Health System is a non-profit hospital network in
northeast Kansas and northwest Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
   Kathryn S. Rickley, Esq.
   Osman & Smay LLP
   8500 W. 110th Street, Suite 330
   Overland Park, KS 66210
   Tel: (913) 667-9243
   Fax: (866) 470-9243
   Email: mosman@workerwagerights.com
          krickley@workerwagerights.com

        - and -

   Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
   Joni E. Bodnar, Esq.
   McClelland Law Firm, APC
   The Flagship Building
   200 Westwoods Drive
   Liberty, MO 64068-1170
   Tel: (816) 781-0002
   Fax: (816) 781-1984
   Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
          jbodnar@mcclellandlawfirm.com


STP JJ: Faces "Gibbs" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Gibbs, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. STP JJ Team I, LLC, Case No. 6:17-cv-06238 (W.D.N.Y.,
April 17, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

James Gibbs worked as an Assistant Store Manager through March
2016, at the Henrietta, New York store owned by Defendant.

STP JJ Team I, LLC owns and operates Jimmy John's franchised
locations under one or more franchise agreements with Jimmy John's
Franchise, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
      Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
      Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      Two International Drive, Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone: (914) 934-9200
      Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
      E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com
              fran@klafterolsen.com
              Christopher.Timmel@klafterolsen.com

         - and -

      Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
      Michael Litrownik, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone:  (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile:  (212) 977-4005
      E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com
              mlitrownik@outtengolden.com

         - and -

      Drew Legando, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
      1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 522-9000
      Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
      E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com


THERAPEUTICSMD: Falsely Inflates Company's stock price, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Paoli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Therapeuticsmd, Inc., Robert G. Finizio and Brian
Bernick, Case No. 9:17-cv-80473-RLR (S.D. Fla., April 17, 2017),
is an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants'
scheme to deceive the market and a course of conduct that
artificially inflated the Company's stock price, and operated as a
fraud or deceit on acquirers of the Company's common stock.

Therapeuticsmd, Inc. is a women's health care company focused on
creating and commercializing products targeted exclusively for
women. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cullin O'Brien, Esq.
      CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
      6541 NE 21st Way
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
      Telephone: (561) 676-6370
      Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
      E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com

         - and -

      Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
      Adam M. Apton, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      1101 30th Street, NW Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4294
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com
              aapton@zlk.com


TOMORROW PCS: Conditional Class Certification Sought in "Blank"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned LINDSAY BLANK, on behalf of herself and
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TOMORROW PCS,
LLC and JONG PARK, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-11092-MVL-DEK
(E.D. La.), Lindsay Blank moves the Court for conditional class
certification, judicial notice, and for disclosure of the names
and addresses of potential "opt-in" plaintiffs.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vQy0K0B8

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRANSGUARD INSURANCE: "Leitzbach" Alleges Misclassification
-----------------------------------------------------------
FRANK LEITZBACH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated; Plaintiffs, v. TRANSGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
INC.; TRANSGUARD GENERAL AGENCY, INC.; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS, LLC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. BC 658767 (Cal., Super., County of Los Angeles, April 24,
2017), arises out of an alleged unlawful insurance program
designed to deny misclassified truck drivers access to adequate
compensation for work-related injuries, in violation of California
law and public policy.

TRANSGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. is a nationwide
specialty insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
     Graham Lambert, SBN 303056
     HAFFNER LAW PC
     445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
     Los Angeles, CA 90071 A
     Phone: (213) 514-5681
     Fax: (213) 514-5682
     E-mail: jhh@haffherlawyers.com
             gl@haffnerlawyers.com


TRIDENT ASSET: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled CARY DAVIDSON, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRIDENT ASSET
MANAGEMENT, LLC, and OPS 9, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00499-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iBtBnCB3

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED SERVICES: Settles Sales Tax Class Action for $39 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Bolado and Shayna Posses, writing for Law360, report that
the United Services Automobile Association agreed on April 25 to
pay $39 million to settle a class suit in Florida challenging its
practice of compensating policyholders with totaled cars for the
sales tax incurred in purchasing a replacement, rather than
determining tax based on the covered vehicle's value.

The parties asked the court to sign off on the deal, which
provides members with 100 percent of the value of their claims
plus 8 percent for claims of prejudgment interest.  The claims are
estimated to be about $34 million, according to the filing.

In addition, the settlement allows for the plaintiffs' counsel to
ask for up to $5.1 million in fees and costs, and USAA won't
object, according to the motion. The deal also sets aside about
$46,000 in incentive payments for the five lead plaintiffs.

Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Co. policyholder Chantal
Bastian filed a proposed class action against Garrison and three
other USAA-affiliated auto insurance companies in 2013 over their
sales-tax compensation for totaled vehicles, later agreeing to add
four named plaintiffs who were insured by the other companies.

Bastian alleged that she reported to Garrison that a tree fell on
her covered vehicle and received a letter confirming that it was
determined to be a total loss and breaking down the payments the
insurer would provide -- minus the deductible -- including the
total vehicle cost, the title fee and a license plate fee.  The
insurer put that money toward paying off her loan on the car and
gave her the remainder.

The insurer allegedly accompanied the letter with a market
valuation report detailing how it reached its decision, including
a calculation for the sales tax on a comparable vehicle.  However,
Bastian purchased a cheaper replacement car and received tax
compensation based on its value, according to court documents.

The plaintiffs are represented by Christopher B. Hall --
chall@hallandlampros.com -- of Hall & Lampros LLP and Tracy L.
Markham of Avolio & Hanlon PC.

USAA is represented by Stephen E. Goldman -- sgoldman@rc.com --
Wystan M. Ackerman -- wackerman@rc.com -- and Benjamin C. Jensen -
- bjensen@rc.com -- of Robinson & Cole LLP, and Kristen M. Van der
Linde -- kvanderlinde@boydjen.com -- of Boyd & Jenerette.

The case is Bastian et al. v. United Services Automobile
Association et al., case number 3:13-cv-1454, in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division.


UNITED STUDENT: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Henderson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Shyriaa Henderson filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Shyriaa Henderson v. United Student Aid Funds,
Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-01845-JLS-BLM, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, U.S. District
Judge Janis M. Sammartino has ruled that consumers couldn't blame
their woes over an alleged bombardment of collection attempts that
violate the robocalling law on United Student Aid Funds Inc.,
saying that just because the loan administrator contracted out
collector Navient Solutions Inc. and its army of collectors
doesn't mean it's then liable for those collection activities,
according to the decision.

The appellate case is captioned as Shyriaa Henderson v. United
Student Aid Funds, Inc., Case No. 17-55373, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript is due on May 22, 2017;

   -- Appellant Shyriaa Henderson's opening brief is due on
      June 29, 2017;

   -- Appellee United Student Aid Funds, Inc.'s answering brief
      is due on July 31, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SHYRIAA HENDERSON, on behalf of herself, and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ryan D. Andrews, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Roger J. Perlstadt, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Esq.
          EDELSON P.C.
          350 N. LaSalle St.
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6374
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: randrews@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  rperlstadt@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  atievsky@edelson.com

               - and -

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com

Defendant-Appellee UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS, INC., DBA USA Funds,
is represented by:

          Lisa Marie Simonetti, Esq.
          VEDDER PRICE, L.L.P.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 204-7700
          Facsimile: (424) 204-7702
          E-mail: lsimonetti@vedderprice.com


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Basile" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P., et al., filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Anthony
Basile, et al. v. Pershing Square Capital Mgmt., et al., Case No.
8:14-cv-02004-DOC-KES, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 19,
2017, the Hon. David O. Carter has entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and denying without
prejudice the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to join
parties.  The certified class consists of:

     All persons who sold Allergan common stock contemporaneously
     with purchases of Allergan common stock made or caused by
     Defendants during the period February 25, 2014 through
     April 21, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period") and were
     damaged thereby (collectively, the "Class").

The Defendants-Petitioners are PERSHING SQUARE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT,
L.P.; PS MANAGEMENT, GP, LLC; PS FUND 1, LLC; WILLIAM A ACKMAN;
PERSHING SQUARE, L.P.; PERSHING SQUARE II, L.P.; PERSHING SQUARE
GP, LLC; PERSHING SQUARE INTERNATIONAL, LTD.; PERSHING SQUARE
HOLDINGS, LTD.; MICHAEL PEARSON; VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL.

The appellate case is captioned as Anthony Basile, et al. v.
Pershing Square Capital Mgmt., et al., Case No. 17-80046, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent ANTHONY BASILE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Yury Kolesnikov, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914-2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
          E-mail: achang@bottinilaw.com
                  fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                  ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
          Mark Cotton Molumphy, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                  mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com

Plaintiff-Respondent PATRICK T. JOHNSON is represented by:

          Eli R. Greenstein, Esq.
          Stacey Kaplan, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 400-3000
          Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
          E-mail: egreenstein@ktmc.com
                  skaplan@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Blair Allen Nicholas, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 793-0070
          Facsimile: (858) 793-0323
          E-mail: blairn@blbglaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners PERSHING SQUARE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.;
PS MANAGEMENT, GP, LLC; PS FUND 1, LLC; WILLIAM A ACKMAN; PERSHING
SQUARE, L.P.; PERSHING SQUARE II, L.P.; PERSHING SQUARE GP, LLC;
PERSHING SQUARE INTERNATIONAL, LTD.; and PERSHING SQUARE HOLDINGS,
LTD., are represented by:

          Paul D. Clement, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
          E-mail: paul.clement@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Mark Charles Holscher, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: mark.holscher@kirkland.com

Defendants-Petitioners MICHAEL PEARSON; VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL are
represented by:

          Brian T. Frawley, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-4000
          Facsimile: (212) 558-3588
          E-mail: frawleyb@sullcrom.com


VERIZON: Aliksanyan Seeks to Certify Telephone Customer Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled GARO ALIKSANYAN, Plaintiff, v. VERIZON, NY
STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00394-MKB-SMG
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the court for an order
granting Plaintiff's action for class certification of:

   "all those within New York State who have applied but been
   rejected for Lifeline services through Verizon between the
   dates of January 1, 2015 and March 27, 2017".

According to the complaint, Garo Aliksanyan, a long time Lifeline
Program landline telephone customer of Verizon, has been denied
re-certification five times within the past seven month period,
eight times within the past 24 month period, under the fraudulent
actions of Verizon, the Public Service Commission and the Federal
Communications Commission. The Plaintiff says it speaks for the
tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of similarly
situated qualified Lifeline New York State applicants who do not
have the education, tenacity, language, nor the physical
capability to seek redress from the courts, and as such, asks this
court for class action certifications.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mX73xSPn

Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher Cafaro, Esq.
          MONTFORT, HEALY, MCGUIRE & SALLEY
          840 Franklin Ave
          Garden City, NY 11530

               - and -

          Salomon T. Menyeng, Esq.
          NY STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
          3 Empire State Plaza
          Albany, NY 12223-1350

              - and -

          Edwin R. Cortes, Esq.
          US ATTORNEY EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
          271 Cadman Plaza East
          Brooklyn, NY 11201


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Judge Tosses Plaintiffs' Lawyers Fee Request
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that it's obvious
from a ruling on April 24 by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of
San Francisco that the judge does not think owners of Volkswagen
"clean diesel" cars needed individual counsel.  The judge denied
motions by 244 plaintiffs' lawyers who wanted VW to pay them for
the time they spent drafting filings for individual car owners,
suggesting edits to classwide filings and advising their clients
about developments in the case, including advice about whether to
participate in the $10 billion class action settlement.

Judge Breyer said none of that work benefited the class.  Nor was
it covered by VW's agreement to pay fees to class counsel
Elizabeth Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, lawyers
on the plaintiffs' steering committee and other plaintiffs'
lawyers who assisted Cabraser and her team.

Judge Breyer previously awarded the lawyers who led the case $175
million in fees and costs, "recognizing that counsel had achieved
an extraordinary result for the class and the public as a whole."
By contrast, the judge said, non-class counsel either duplicated
the work of Cabraser and her team or sought fees for work that
didn't advance the class action.

So if VW doesn't have to pay these 244 non-class lawyers for their
time, will the 3,642 VW owners who signed individual contingency
fee agreements with them be on the hook?

Judge Breyer has made clear in previous orders that he does not
want VW plaintiffs' lawyers to go after their clients for
contingency fees.  In November, after VW informed the judge that
it had received attorney lien notifications from a handful of
plaintiffs' firms, the judge instructed Volkswagen to pay class
members directly, rather than recognizing liens against their
settlements by their lawyers.

"A lien reduces class members' compensation and places them in a
position where they must purchase another vehicle but lack the
funds to do so," the judge said in the November order.  "Put
another way, attorneys -- notably, attorneys who did not have a
hand in negotiating the Settlement -- stand to profit while their
clients are left with inadequate compensation."

In a follow up order in December, Judge Breyer enjoined any state
court action, under the All Writs Act, by plaintiffs' lawyers
attempting to collect fees from class members.

But in the April 24 ruling, the judge grudgingly conceded he does
not have authority over contingency fee agreements between VW car
owners and their individual lawyers.  Those agreements, Judge
Breyer said, may entitle plaintiffs' lawyers to collect a share of
their clients' recovery.  "This is a matter of contract law,
subject to the codes of professional conduct, and such disputes
should be resolved in the appropriate forum," he wrote.  "To that
end, the court vacates the injunction on state court actions, to
the extent those actions are brought to enforce an attorney-client
fee agreement."

Judge Breyer did his best to dissuade lawyers from bringing
actions against their clients, though.  He said VW must continue
to pay class members directly, without diverting any part of their
compensation to plaintiffs' lawyers.  He also said that if any
plaintiffs' lawyer does bring an action against a client or
otherwise demand enforcement of a contingency fee contract, the
lawyer must first provide the client with a copy of the April 24
order -- and must certify to Judge Breyer that the client has been
served.

The point? It seems like the judge wants to be sure class members
-- and, presumably, state judges presiding over any disputes
between them and their individual lawyers -- to know that Judge
Breyer doesn't attribute the VW settlement to the work of these
lawyers.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Canadian Vehicle Owners Covered by Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yvonne Colbert, writing for CBC News, reports that a Nova Scotia
man is relieved his Volkswagen purchased in the United States will
now be covered by a class-action lawsuit, but remains frustrated
he cannot register on the company's settlement website.

"It seems a little bit ridiculous that a company with the
ingenuity to defeat regulatory authorities like the [U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency] can't set up a website to allow
people just to register," Alex MacLellan told CBC News.

He is one of an unknown number of Canadians who bought 2.0 litre
TDI Volkswagens in the United States and were caught up in the
diesel emissions scandal.  They were left out of the class action.

Such owners had previously fallen "between the cracks," according
to Charles Wright, one of the lead attorneys representing car
owners in the Canadian class-action case.

Volkswagen was refusing to include them in the settlement, he
said, but changed course following litigation and has now agreed
they can participate in the U.S. settlement.

Mr. MacLellan, who owns a 2010 Jetta diesel wagon, is pleased to
hear that and said it is the right thing for Volkswagen to do.

"I haven't heard anyone come up with a reason why the cross-border
vehicles wouldn't be included," said MacLellan, who lives in Ketch
Harbour, N.S.

The courts in Ontario and Quebec approved a nationwide class-
action settlement involving Volkswagen Group Canada Inc. Last
fall, an American judge also approved a $15-billion settlement for
U.S. owners.  The cases involve certain models and years that were
outfitted with software designed to fool emissions tests.

On April 21, Mr. Wright said Canadians with affected vehicles
purchased in the U.S. should go back to the American settlement
site and "should be able to get their claim processed." Volkswagen
Group Canada posted a similar message on its website.

Unable to register

Mr. MacLellan unsuccessfully tried to do that.  He was able to
enter his Canadian address, but was then asked what dealership he
was taking his car to.  The site wouldn't allow a Canadian
dealership, so he entered one in Maine.

"At that point the system just bogged down and said there was an
error and wouldn't let me proceed," he said.

He called the listed number and was told the problem couldn't be
solved on the phone and tech support was needed.  He said he's
still not been able to register for the settlement and wants to
know why cars like his must be returned to an American dealer,
which will mean added costs for the vehicle owner.

While this class action has moved more quickly than many, Mr.
MacLellan said the value of his Jetta has depreciated since the
scandal broke in September 2015.  He noted the settlement website
asked him to register how many miles are currently on the car.

CBC News has contacted Volkswagen Canada and Wright to inform them
Canadians are still not able to register on the American site.
Mr. Wright said it may take a week for the links to be put in
place.

A Volkswagen spokesperson said the company was working to ensure
the American site will accept claims from Canadians who bought
their vehicles in the U.S.


VOLVO CARS: Renewed Class Certification Bid Terminated
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOANNE NEALE, KERI HAY, KELLY MCGARY, SVEIN
A. BERG, GREGORY P. BURNS, DAVID TAFT, JEFFREY KRUGER and KAREN
COLLOPY individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, and VOLVO CAR
CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:10-cv-04407-JLL-JAD
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs will move the Hon. Judge Jose L. Linares
at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building and Courthouse, 50
Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey 07101, for the entry of an Order
granting Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification.

On April 14, Volvo filed with the Court a Motion to Continue
Motion for Class Certification.  On April 17, Judge Jose L.
Linares entered an Order administratively terminating without
prejudice Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class and Defendants'
Motion to Continue.  The new return date will be set by the Clerk
of the Court upon the filing of the new notice of motion; The
parties are granted leave to seek extensions of time to file
opposition and reply briefs after the new notice of motion has
been filed, etc.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Stephanie E. Saunders, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041

               - and -

          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          555 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312

               - and -

          Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq.
          Eric D. Katz, Esq.
          David A. Mazie, Esq.
          MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068

               - and -

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102

               - and -

          Richard Norman, Esq.
          R. Martin Weber, Jr. , Esq.
          CROWLEY NORMAN LLP
          3 Riverway, Suite 1775
          Houston, TX 77056

               - and -

          Thomas K. Brown, Esq.
          Justin Presnal, Esq.
          FISHER, BOYD, BROWN, & HUGUENARD
          2777 Allen Parkway, 14th Floor
          Houston, TX 77019

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH
          475 White Horse Pike
          Collingswood, NJ 08107-1909

               - and -

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          1331 Lamar, No. 1070
          Houston, TX 77010


WAFFLE HOUSE: Illegally Procures Background Reports, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Daniels, Alex Holt, Larry Washington, Marko Freeman, John
Poindexter, Nikki Sykes, Paula Sbabo, Cassandra McClinton, Wo
Davis, John Agapos, Paula Johnson, Shawnta Powell, Celeste Hines,
Marnetta Jackson, Florence Mims, Constance Hunter,
Shay Tucker, Regina Luckett, and Ashley Martin, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Waffle House,
Inc., WH Capital, LLC, The Source for Public Data, L.P. d/b/a
PublicData.com, ShadowSoft, Inc., Harlington-Straker Studio, Inc.,
and Dale Bruce Stringfellow, Case No. 6:17-cv-00693-RBD-TBS (M.D.
Fla., April 17, 2017), arises from Waffle House's acquisition and
use of consumer and investigative consumer reports from
PublicData, to conduct background checks on the Plaintiffs and
current and former employees without proper disclosures to
applicants and employees prior to taking adverse actions against
them.
Waffle House, Inc. and WH Capital, LLC own and operate a
restaurant chain with more than 2,100 locations in 25 states in
the United States.

The Source for Public Data, L.P. d/b/a PublicData.com, ShadowSoft,
Inc., Harlington-Straker Studio, Inc. are engaged in the
preparation and sale of consumer reports throughout the United
States of America. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
      Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
      EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
      5400 S. University Drive, Ste. 417
      Davie, FL 33328
      Telephone: (954) 889-3359
      Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
      E-mail: Mpascucci@ELPLawyers.com
              JEggnatz@EggnatzLaw.com

         - and -

      Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq.
      Alexandria R. Kachadoorian, Esq.
      Justin Kachadoorian, Esq.
      COUNSELONE, PC
      9301 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 650
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 277-9945
      Facsimile: (424) 277-3727
      E-mail: anthony@counselonegroup.com
              alexandria@counselonegroup.com
              justin@counselonegroup.com


WELLS FARGO: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Collins" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Tanya Collins filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Tanya Collins v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No.
5:15-cv-02225-PSG-KK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that Wells Fargo underpaid the meal break premiums paid to
Home Mortgage Consultants and derivative claims.

The appellate case is captioned as Tanya Collins v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., Case No. 17-80054, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner TANYA COLLINS, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Shawn Westrick, Esq.
          THE WESTRICK LAW FIRM, P.C.
          11075 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 125
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 746-5303
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3373
          E-mail: swestrick@westricklawfirm.com

Defendant-Respondent WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a national
association, is represented by:

          Malcolm A. Heinicke, Esq.
          MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, LLP
          560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 512-4029
          E-mail: Malcolm.Heinicke@mto.com


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Baouch Appeals Judgment to Eighth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Yassine Baouch, et al., filed an appeal from a
memorandum and order and judgment, both dated March 23, 2017,
entered in their lawsuit titled Yassine Baouch, et al. v. Werner
Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:12-cv-00408-LSC, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha.

The appellate case is captioned as Yassine Baouch, et al. v.
Werner Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-1661, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appendix is due on May 8, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellants Adams Frank Akhalu, Jatarveiyon Kevin
      Lee Ashley, Yassine Baouch, Danielle Marie Barney, Chad
      Ryan Basso, Claire Elizabeth Bodo, Justin Burkholder,
      Caroline Cecelia Busick, Christopher Clay Day, Steven Wayne
      Doane, Lance Edwards, Michael Egli, David Allen Faykosh,
      Thomas Fisher, Thomas A. Gillis, Wayne Darius Grant,
      William A. Hamilton, Robert William Herrmann, Adam Hoffman,
      Joseph Horton, Radek Kohout, Scott Larrow, Bruce L. Marsha,
      Jack Dean Michael, Steven Richard Milstead, John Ray Minor,
      James Myrick, Steve N. Neely, Dale Don Oshiro, John A.
      Phillips, Marvin E. Rush, Joseph Sablan Salas, Timothy
      Leonardo Smith, Mark Sohmer, Terri Lynn Thacker, Joseph
      Dewayne Thomas, Troy Edmund Townsend, Aaron David Wing and
      Brian Zeitz is due on May 8, 2017;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the Court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant;

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Yassine Baouch, on behalf of himself and all
those similarly situated, Scott Larrow, on behalf of himself and
all those similarly situated, Justin Burkholder, Robert William
Herrmann, Radek Kohout, Jack Dean Michael, Steven Richard
Milstead, James Myrick, Troy Edmund Townsend, Claire Elizabeth
Bodo, Wayne Darius Grant, Adam Hoffman, Joseph Dewayne Thomas,
Danielle Marie Barney, Chad Ryan Basso, Caroline Cecelia Busick,
Christopher Clay Day, Bruce L. Marsha, Dale Don Oshiro, Aaron
David Wing, David Allen Faykosh, Steve N. Neely, Jatarveiyon Kevin
Lee Ashley, Michael Egli, Thomas Fisher, John A. Phillips, Marvin
E. Rush, Marvin E. Rush, Adams Frank Akhalu, Steven Wayne Doane,
Thomas A. Gillis, William A. Hamilton, John Ray Minor, Joseph
Sablan Salas, Timothy Leonardo Smith, Terri Lynn Thacker and Brian
Zeitz are represented by:

          Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          SWARTZ & SWIDLER LLC
          1101 Kings Highway, N., Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: jboyette@swartz-legal.com
                  mmiller@swartz-legal.com

Plaintiffs-Appellants Yassine Baouch, on behalf of himself and all
those similarly situated, Scott Larrow, on behalf of himself and
all those similarly situated, Justin Burkholder, Robert William
Herrmann, Radek Kohout, Jack Dean Michael, Steven Richard
Milstead, James Myrick, Troy Edmund Townsend, Claire Elizabeth
Bodo, Wayne Darius Grant, Adam Hoffman, Joseph Dewayne Thomas,
Danielle Marie Barney, Chad Ryan Basso, Caroline Cecelia Busick,
Christopher Clay Day, Bruce L. Marsha, Dale Don Oshiro, Aaron
David Wing, David Allen Faykosh, Steve N. Neely, Jatarveiyon Kevin
Lee Ashley, Michael Egli, Thomas Fisher, John A. Phillips, Marvin
E. Rush, Marvin E. Rush, Adams Frank Akhalu, Steven Wayne Doane,
Thomas A. Gillis, William A. Hamilton, John Ray Minor, Joseph
Sablan Salas, Timothy Leonardo Smith, Terri Lynn Thacker, Brian
Zeitz, Lance Edwards, Mark Sohmer and Joseph Horton are
represented by:

          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          SWARTZ & SWIDLER LLC
          1101 Kings Highway, N., Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com

Defendants-Appellees Werner Enterprises, Inc., doing business as
Werner Trucking, and Drivers Management, LLC, are represented by:

          Patrick Joseph Barrett, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Culhane, Esq.
          Joseph Edward Jones, Esq.
          Sarah L. McGill, Esq.
          FRASER STRYKER PC LLO
          500 Energy Plaza
          409 S. 17th Street
          Omaha, NE 68102-2663
          Telephone: (402) 341-6000
          Facsimile: (402) 341-8290
          E-mail: pbarrett@fraserstryker.com
                  ECULHANE@FraserStryker.com
                  jjones@fraserstryker.com
                  smcgill@fraserstryker.com


WINTERS LANDSCAPE: Initial Approval of "Magana" Settlement Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ALFREDO MAGANA, on behalf of himself,
and all other similarly situated plaintiffs known and unknown, the
Plaintiff v. WINTERS LANDSCAPE, INC., A/D/B/A WINTERS NURSERY &
LANDSCAPING, F/K/A MIKE WINTERS LTD., AND MICHAEL L. WINTERS,
INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 1:16-cv-04983 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, with the
agreement of Defendants, moves the Court for an order
preliminarily approving the Parties' stipulation of settlement and
agreement to settle class action claims and an order approving,
the form and manner of class notice, and scheduling a Fairness
Hearing for final approval of settlement.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
          Chicago, IL, 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853 1450

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian K. Jackson, Esq.
          LANER MUCHIN LTD.
          515 N. State Street, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL, 60654
          Telephone: (312) 467 9800


YADKIN VALLEY: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that a
federal judge issued a preliminary approval on April 21 a
settlement of just more than $1 million in a class-action WARN
lawsuit filed by three former employees of the closed Yadkinville
hospital.

The 140 class members will receive a combined $660,000 after
attorney fees are paid.  The compensation will range from $803 to
$21,100 a person.

A final hearing on the settlement is set for 10 a.m. June 22 in
federal court in Greensboro. Notices of the settlement will be
sent to class members.

Yadkin Valley Community Hospital was shut down May 22, 2015, by
CAH Acquisition 10 LLC.  CAH remained in the hospital until Yadkin
County took possession through a federal court agreement on July
15, 2015.

In September 2015, the three former employees -- Carrie Hutson,
Jeanna Simmons and Jenifer Swanner -- filed the class-action
request pursuing salaries and benefits tied to the federal Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN).  Employees must
file a lawsuit in federal court to assert WARN rights.

Payments are projected to begin within 14 days after court
approval of the settlement stipulations.  They would be made on
the first of every subsequent month.


YES ONLINE: June 26 Hearing on Renewed Class Cert. Motion
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Michele Carrese and Luis Espinoza, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Yes Online Inc. d/b/a Dynamic Legal Recovery, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-05301-SJO-AFM (C.D. Cal.), Michele
Carrese, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, will
move the Court on June 26, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the courtroom of the
Hon. S. James Otero, for an order granting her renewed motion for
class certification, on behalf of the following class:

   "all persons with an address in the United States, (b) whose
   cellular telephone Yes Online Inc. d/b/a Dynamic Legal
   Recovery called, (c) between July 18, 2015 and July 18, 2016,
   (d) where Yes Online Inc. d/b/a Dynamic Legal Recovery
   recorded the conversation, and (e) where Yes Online Inc. d/b/a
   Dynamic Legal did not disclose at the outset of the call that
   the call was being recorded".

Ms. Carrese will also move the Court for herself an appointment as
Class Representative, and for appointment of her attorneys as
Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vNHtG6Wa

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman. Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          324 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

               - and -

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826 5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961 5684
          Telephone: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anne Singer, Esq.
          A. SINGER & ASSOCIATES INC.
          199 W. Hillcrest Drive
          Thousand Oaks CA 91360
          Telephone: (805) 375 2010
          Facsimile: (805) 309 2347
          E-mail: anne@asingerlaw.com


* Accounting-Related Class-Actions Up 33% in 2016, Research Shows
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Sheridan, writing for Accountingweb, reports that in an eye-
opening report card, Cornerstone Research reveals that securities
class-action lawsuit filings with accounting allegations --
violations of GAAP and auditing or weak internal controls --
increased 33 percent in 2016 over the prior year.

What's more, the study, Accounting Class Action Filings and
Statements-2016 Review and Analysis, indicates that an
unprecedented number of mergers and acquisitions was behind the
accounting-related cases.  For the first time, many of the cases
alleged problems in reconciling non-GAAP to GAAP measures.

There were 93 accounting-related class-action lawsuits filed last
year, up from 70 in 2015 and 69 in 2014.  The 93 filings last year
is the most since the 97 reported in 2008.

The number of so-called "traditional" accounting case filings --
those that involve Rule 10b-5, Section 11, and/or Section 12(a)(2)
claims -- remained unchanged year-over-year, but market
capitalization losses (expressed as the Disclosure Dollar Loss
Index, or DDL) to defendants was the highest in eight years at
$47.7 billion. (Nonaccounting cases were $59.3 billion.) It should
be noted that the index is not an indicator of liability or
measurement of possible damages.

What's your Business IQ? And how can you improve it?
Accountants and finance leaders know more than just numbers; they
know their business.  This brief will help you evaluate your
business intelligence, gain insight on your promotion readiness,
and discover new ways to bolster your knowledge, skills, and
professional credential.

Finally, the total value of accounting case settlements was the
highest in nine years as a result of the number of approved
settlements and a rise in the average settlement amount.  Though
the number of accounting case settlements fell from 50 in 2015 to
46 in 2016, the total settlement value of $4.8 billion last year
was almost 80 percent higher year-over-year and the highest since
2007.

According to the study, nine accounting case "mega settlements" of
more than $100 million represented $4.4 billion of the total
accounting case settlement value in 2016.

"Accounting cases often represent the majority of the total value
of all settlements reached in a given year, typically with just a
few settlements contributing much of the value," said
Laura Simmons, a senior advisor at Cornerstone Research.  "In
2016, almost 75 percent of the total value of cases settled was
associated with a handful of accounting case settlements,
including two over $1 billion.  The presence or absence of a few
settlements of this size can have a dramatic impact on the overall
numbers for a given year."

Here's a snapshot of some of the other findings:

Industry sector. The majority (71 percent) of accounting case
filings in the consumer, non-cyclical sector were against
biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and healthcare companies --
exceeding the historical level for the third consecutive year.  In
the financial sector, filings were notably lower than they were
from 2007 to 2010, and lower than the overall average from 2007 to
2015.

Restatements. The total restatement case DDL in 2016 grew to 58
percent above the historical average, even though there were fewer
case filings.  About a third (35 percent) of restatement case
filings in 2016 involved companies in the consumer, non-cyclical
sector -- the highest of any sector.  The average DDL for
restatement cases was smaller than that for other accounting cases
for the fourth consecutive year.

Internal control. Allegations of internal control weaknesses have
been a factor in the majority of accounting case filings for the
past seven years.  In 2016, 59 percent of filings included those
allegations -- exceeding the historical average for the fourth
consecutive year.  Of the 14 accounting case filings in 2016 that
included allegations and announcements of internal control
weaknesses, about 60 percent also included a restatement.


* State House Passes Colorado Construction Defects Bill
-------------------------------------------------------
CBS4 reports that there's been a breakthrough on changing the law
on construction defects in Colorado.

The state House passed a bill on April 24 lawmakers say will help
jump start Colorado's sleepy condominium market as reform has
eluded lawmakers for years.

As a result developers are building rental units instead of condos
to avoid costly class action lawsuits by homeowners associations.
The bill that passed the House could help thaw the frozen market.

Under the bill condo owners would now decide whether they want to
be a part of a class action lawsuit instead of their homeowners
association deciding for them.

"It's a monumental step forward," said Rep. Alec Garnett, D-
Denver.

Garnett; Rep. Lori Saine, R-Firestone; and Rep. Cole Wist, R-
Centennial are sponsors of the bill that would give builders the
right to talk to owners directly about possible remedies before
they file suit.  It would require a majority of owners -- not HOA
board members -- to vote in favor of legal action.

"So that way they won't be in financial house arrest and be
shocked to find out that their HOA has entered into a lawsuit and
they can't refinance or sell their home," Saine said.

Builders say the ease of frivolous class actions are one reason
they've stopped building condos and townhomes.

In 2005, condos were 20 percent of the new housing market in
Colorado. They're currently 2 percent.

Unlike previous bills, this one doesn't require mediation before
litigation or that builders get a chance to fix things first.
Individual condo owners can still go it alone.

The compromise passed the House unanimously.

"It really was the willingness of Democrats and Republicans to
say, 'We're going to do something this year no matter what,'"
Garnett said.  "That was able to get this through the House and
onto the Senate with this much bipartisan support."

"We decided to link arms at the very beginning and just keep
marching forward no matter what," Rep. Saine said.

The bill now heads to the Senate where it is also expected to
pass.  It's one of six construction defects bills this session but
half of them have failed.

Another pending bill would allow a judge up front to assign
damages proportionally among those liable so the contractor most
responsible pays the most.



                         *********


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  * * *