CAR_Public/170526.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Friday, May 26, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 105



                            Headlines

1MDB: Class Action Mulled Over US$1.2 Billion Payments to IPIC
AIR CANADA: Safety Board Set to Release Crash Landing Report
AKARI THERAPEUTICS: July 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
AKORN INC: "Ochoa" Suit Challenges Fresenius Deal
AKORN INC: Rochester Drug Alleges Price Fixing of Lidocaine

ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Judge Lifts Injunction on Food Stamps
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Class Suit by Blind Customers
AMERICAN HEALTH: Faces "Cross" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
APU FOODS: June 1 Deadline to Respond to "Marin" Suit Set
AREA STORAGE: "Mathew" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

ARIZONA CARDINALS: Court Narrows Claims in Painkillers Suit
AVANTEUSA LTD: Faces "Fuoco" Suit in Eastern District of New York
BAKER HUGHES: Booth Family Trust Challenges GE Merger Deal
BAVARIA INN: Faces "Mantooth" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Col. Wage Act
BIOGEN INC: Dismissal of Securities Class Action Affirmed

BOCCHI LABORATORIES: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
BOWLING GREEN, KY: Faces "Palmer" Suit over Data Breach
BRIGANTINE INC: Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Unenforceable
CABLE MARKETING: Ex-Employee Files Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
CAESARTONE LTD: August 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

CALIFORNIA: Upton Urges Court to Certify Class & Bifurcate Trial
CANADA: Hayes Gets $25,000 in Estabrooks Sexual Assault Case
CANADA: Settlement Hearing Set for RCMP Class Actions
CANADA: B.C. Defends Class Action Over Partisan Political Ads
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of "Birchmeier" Suit Order

CENTRAL VIRGINIA: Seeks Dismissal of Claim in Inmate Death Suit
CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Wants to Halt Discovery in Sex Bias Case
CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: Could Face Potential Class Action Suit
CHER OIL: Judge to Hear Bids to Dismiss Earthquake Suit on May 31
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Kahn Swick Investigates Officers, Directors

CP KELCO: "Rodrigues" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal.
CRACKER BARREL: ADA Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK
CREDIT COLLECTION: Faces "Law" Suit in Southern Dist. of Alabama
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Philadelphia Workers File Suit for Fair Pay
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Media Blacks Coverage of Class Suit

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Faces Another Class Action Over Bonuses
DENVER, CO: Court Certifies Homeless Citizens Class
DICK'S SPORTING: July 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
EASYSAVER: Rewards Litigation Settlement Challenged
EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Loses Bid to Moot TCPA Class Action

ESKIMO INSULATION: Faces "Molina" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
EXXON MOBIL: Manko Gold Comments on 8th Circuit's Ruling
FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Review of Denial to Dismiss "Brickman" Suit
FEDEX: Workers File Class Action of Pension Calculation Errors
FEDERAL EXPRES: Outten Golden Leads Veterans' Pension Class Suit

FERNANDEZ BROTHERS: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
FERRING PHARMACEUTICALS: More Plaintiffs Added in Bravelle Case
FESTIVA DEVELOPMENT: "Mey" Suit Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Antista" Suit in New Jersey
FORTY NINERS: Bid to Dismiss ADA Class Action Challenged

FRESNO, CA: Residents Sue over Contaminated Water
FYRE MEDIA: Faces "Daly" Lawsuit Alleging Misrepresentation
FYRE MEDIA: Looks for Miracle Amidst Suits Over Cancelled Festival
FYRE MEDIA: Social Media Influencers Could be Dragged Into Suit
GOPRO INC: California Court Dismisses Securities Class Action

GRAIN PROCESSING: Miner Barnhill Achieves Landmark Certification
HARVARD PILGRIM: Sued Over Wilderness Therapy Program Coverage
HIGHVELD SYNDICATION: Georgiou to Appeal Class Action Rulings
HOBBY LOBBY: "Chase" Suit Alleges Phantom Discounts
HOME DEPOT: High Court Refuses to Hear Class Action Appeal

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Gentry Appeals W.D. Va. Ruling to Fourth Circuit
IHS ACQUISITION: Faces "Obare" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Suit
INTRA-CELLULAR THERAPIES: July 11 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
IRONFX: Continued Ops Could Pose Danger to Clients & Reputation

KAISER FOUNDATION: Moura Sues over Health Care Coverage
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Merger Class Action Tossed
LENOVO: Loses Bid to Dismiss Adware Program Class Action
LEPRINO FOODS: "Perez" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to E.D. Cal.
MACY'S CREDIT: Seeks Dismissal of Robocall Class Action

MCDONALD'S CORP: Sept. 7 Fairness Hearing on "Salazar" Case Deal
MDL 2773: "Hadnett" Anticompetitive Suit Sent to N.D. Cal.
MDL 2773: "Herrera" Antitrust Suit Sent to N.D. Calif.
MDL 2773: "Frederick" Anticompetitive Suit Sent to N.D. Cal.
MENTZCO SOLUTIONS: Judge Confirms Chemotherapy Drug Settlement

MERCK & CO: Settles "Pay-for-Delay" Drug Class Action for $60.2MM
MICHIGAN: Faces Suit over Suspension of Driver's Licenses
MURRAY GOULBURN: Federal Court New Venue for Class Action
MYLAN INC: Rochester Drug Alleges Price Fixing of Benazepril HCTZ
NASSAU, NY: "Falk" Suit Sues Over Excessive Tax Map Fees

NEW PENN FINANCIAL: Faces "Williams" Suit in M.D. Florida
NORDSTROM INC: Rest Day Case Provides No Rest for Calif Employers
NRRM LLC: Faces Class Action Over DPPA Violation
OAKLAND RAIDERS: Settles Cheerleaders' Class Action for $1.25MM
OCWEN LOAN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Chavez" Suit Says

PCL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Johnson" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
PEABODY ENERGY: Lynn Appeals Dismissal of Suit to Eighth Circuit
PELLA CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Window Defect Class Action
PETSMART INC: "Rodriguez" Suit Moved to S.D. California
PIZZA HUT: Allan Myers Represents Franchisees in Appeal Case

PNC BANK: Dan-Harry Gets More Time to Respond to Dismissal Bid
PORTLAND, OR: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hudson" Class Suit
PRINCIPAL LIFE: Must Face Class Action Over 401(k) Funds
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Charges
RANDOLPH COUNTY, AL: Faces Class Suit over Excessive Bail

REDDY ICE: Faces "Barnett" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
RETAILMENOT INC: Rigrodsky & Long Represents Scarantino
ROBERT CARTER: "Hines" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Ind.
ROGERS AGENCY: Settlor Had Standing to Assert Claims
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY: "Morris" Suit Alleges Gender & Race Bias

SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Class Action Alleges Wrongful Termination
SEAR HOLDINGS: Misclassifies NY Drivers, "Kloppel" Suit Claims
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Judge Rules in Favor of Plaintiff
SHASTA COUNTY, CA: Inmates' Lawsuit Granted Class Action Status
SIGNET JEWELERS: Ct. Consolidates "Mikolchak" With Related Action

SPACEX: To Pay $4 Million in Worker Class Action Suit
SUNRUN: Faces Securities Class Action in California
TOWERCOMM LLC: Faces "Christian" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
UBER TECH: More Time to Respond to "Gonzalez" Suit Sought
UNITED STATES: Cleveland.com Seeks to Recover PACER Fees

UNITED STATES: Nonprofit Sues Over Calif. Legislative Districts
UNITED STATES: High Court Set to Decide on Immigration Cases
UNITED STATES: IRS Scandal Case Ongoing in Cincinnati
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: July 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Law Firms Provide Update on Class Action

VIZIO: Chamber of Commerce Seeks Review of Smart TV Privacy Case
WALMART: Discriminates Against Pregnant Employees, Suit Claims
WAL-MART: Court Okays $7.5MM Settlement in Same-Sex Benefits Case
WASTE PRO: Faces "Andreu" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
WATER OF LIFE: Former Parishioners File Class Action

WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Window Sales Financing
WELLS FARGO: "Barbose" Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
ZILLOW: Homeowner Files Class Action Over "Zestimate" Tool
ZIMBABWE: Mbare Families File Class Action v. Harare City Council

* Center for Class Action Fairness Curbs Cy Pres Settlements
* CMA Board Publishes Draft Regulation of Class Actions
* Regulations Causing Employers to Flee California
* Two Law Firms Drive Surge in Shareholder Class Actions


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Volkswagen Dropped as Defendant in "Hodjera"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Ordered to Address Defendants' Domicile
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Smith" Remanded to Louisiana State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had 16,482 Unresolved Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 629 Pending Cases at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Had US$1.3-Bil. Reserve at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had 9,500 Claims Pending at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UTC Records US$379MM for Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Still Face Claims at April 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Still Defends PI Suits at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 146 Talcum Suits vs. Colgate-Palmolive Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had 61,700 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Defend Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 346 Cases vs. AK Steel Still Pending at March 31








                            *********


1MDB: Class Action Mulled Over US$1.2 Billion Payments to IPIC
--------------------------------------------------------------
V Anbalagan, writing for Free Malaysia Today, reports that a
letter of demand will be sent to Najib Razak and the 1MDB board of
directors to stop making US$1.2 billion in payments to
International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC) to cover the
default in interest payments on bonds.

Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla said a notice would be issued
and a suit would be filed here if the demands are not complied
with.

"We will go to the court to obtain a declaration that the
settlement between 1MDB and IPIC is against public policy.  We
will also get an injunction to stop the payment," he said at a
news conference here on May 15.

On May 4, Amanah deputy youth chief Muhammad Faiz Fadzil had
submitted a memorandum to Najib in his capacity as finance
minister, questioning the delay in action against those
responsible for the 1MDB money trail.

Faiz said seven years after 1MDB began operations, its debts had
now mounted to RM50 billion and the money trail was being
investigated globally in the United States, Singapore, Switzerland
and Hong Kong.

Following the expiry of the 10-day deadline, a new group, Gerakan
Anakmuda Tolak Najib (Ganti) has emerged to take the matter to the
people and to the court.

Ganti comprises youth members from DAP, PKR, PPBM and Deklarasi
Rakyat.

Haniff, who previously represented PPBM chairman Dr Mahathir
Mohamad, has been appointed lawyer to conduct the legal
proceedings on behalf of Ganti and Deklarasi Rakyat.

1MDB previously claimed it had paid IPIC's subsidiary, British
Virgin Island-registered Aabar Investment PJS Limited ("Aabar
BVI"), a total of RM3.51 billion between 2012 and 2014, something
that IPIC disputed last year, claiming it never received the
money.

The question in the minds of many is this: If 1MDB claimed it had
made the payment before, why did the company agree to make another
payment?

According to filings with the London Stock Exchange, IPIC said it
will receive US$1.2 billion in two equal payments on July 31 and
Dec 31.

The agreement is conditional on the Arbitration Tribunal in London
making a "consent award" by May 31.

The filing indicates that the settlement involved only part of the
total US$6.5 billion sought by IPIC, the remainder of which is
believed to be subject to further negotiations.

On May 15, Faiz and Ganti said they would form a secretariat
to begin legal action against Najib and 1MBD's board of directors.

"We call upon the public, irrespective of their political
affiliations to sign the petition so that they could be included
as plaintiffs in the suit," he said.

He said a class-action could be filed to demonstrate that the
right of the people, who were also taxpayers, could not be
trampled upon.

"The youth must also understands that they will in future bear the
burden of 1MDB debts due to the financial mismanagement and abuse
of power by Najib," Faiz said.

Deklarasi Rakyat coordinator Khairuddin Abu Hassan said 1MDB was
set up to steal the people's money through dubious means.
"Now, Najib is using funds from public institutions and imposing
the GST to settle the 1MDB debts," he added.

Khairuddin, who together with his lawyer Matthias Chang, was
cleared of sabotaging the Malaysian financial system, said the
people should lodge police reports nationwide over the 1MDB
scandal.

"We must put pressure on the enforcement agencies to take action
against the culprits involved," he said.

Khairuddin said as coordinator of Deklarasi Rakyat, he would get
the people to sign the petition during political meetings and also
explain the matter for better understanding of the masses. [GN]


AIR CANADA: Safety Board Set to Release Crash Landing Report
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Macdonald, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
two years after an Air Canada jet crash-landed in a blizzard at
Halifax's airport, injuring 25 people, the results of a
Transportation Safety Board investigation were set to be released
on May 18.

Flight 624 landed about 200 metres short of runway 05 at Halifax
Stanfield International Airport shortly after midnight on March
29, 2015, as it approached in gusty winds and heavy snowfall.

The twin-engine Airbus 320-200 bounced into the air and crashed
near the runway threshold before careening along the tarmac for
another 570 metres.  An engine and the plane's landing gear were
ripped from the airframe amid a shower of sparks and leaking fuel.

The TSB said in a news release on May 16 that the report on what
it terms a "collision with terrain" will be released at a news
conference at a Halifax hotel.

Halifax lawyer Ray Wagner, who has launched a class action suit,
said the report should offer insight into the dynamics between Nav
Canada, the airport authority and what was taking place in the
cockpit as the pilots planned their descent through harsh weather.

"All of that will be helpful in terms of sorting our varying
responsibilities for what happened," Mr. Wagner said in an
interview.

"Any information that we can garner . . . will be extremely
helpful in terms of formulating the questions that we'll be asking
the relevant parties."

In particular, Mr. Wagner said he is keen to learn how the pilots
calculated their approach and what information they received about
the prevailing weather conditions.

However, he said it's important to note that the board's findings
will not assign fault or determine civil or criminal liability.

Late last year, a Nova Scotia Supreme Court justice certified
Mr. Wagner's class action lawsuit that names Transport Canada, Air
Canada, the Halifax International Airport Authority, Nav Canada
and Airbus SAS, the French company that built the jet.

In a statement of claim filed with the class action, three
passengers have come forward to represent the plaintiffs.

Kathleen Carroll-Byrne of Halifax said she continues to suffer
from anxiety, a loss of concentration and a fear of flying.
Halifax resident Asher Hodara said he suffered a mild traumatic
brain injury and dental damage.  Malanga Georges Libboy of Church
Point, N.S., said the crash has left him with profound
psychological stress and pain in his knee, neck and mouth.

None of the allegations in the class action has been proven in
court.

Mr. Wagner said all documents relevant to the case must be
disclosed by end of July, and the discovery process should be
concluded by Nov. 10.

"It will be a pretty intensive period of discovery examinations
that will take place in the latter part of summer and into fall,"
he said.

There were 133 passengers and five crew aboard the flight from
Toronto.

Virtually all of the passengers had to spend about 50 minutes on
the tarmac, huddled against the blowing snow, before they were
taken to an unheated hangar.

In June 2015, the independent safety agency issued a preliminary
report, saying the jet had no major mechanical problems.

The board said it was correctly configured for landing, its air
speed was consistent with a normal approach and there were no
mechanical deficiencies with its engines, flight controls, landing
gear and navigation systems.

In March of this year, Air Canada filed a lawsuit against Airbus,
claiming in Nova Scotia Supreme Court the manufacturer was
negligent by failing to identify shortcomings of the aircraft
related to how its flight path angle is affected by external
forces.  None of those allegations have been proven in court.[GN]


AKARI THERAPEUTICS: July 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former
Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind
investors that they have until July 11, 2017 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against Akari Therapeutics, Plc (Nasdaq:AKTX), if they purchased
the Company's securities between March 30, 2017, and May 11, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Akari Therapeutics and would like
to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you
and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or
email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com).
If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by July 11, 2017.

About the Lawsuit

Akari Therapeutics and certain of its executives are charged with
failing to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include,
but are not limited to, that: (i) the Company's CEO, and possibly
others, caused false information about the Company to be
published, including but not limited to, false information
regarding the Phase 2 PNH trial of Coversin; (ii) the Company
lacked adequate measures to prevent such behavior; and (iii) as a
result of the foregoing, Akari Therapeutics' financial statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On this news, the price of Akari Therapeutics' shares plummeted.

                  About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF -- http://www.ksfcounsel.com-- whose partners include the
Former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law
firm focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class actions,
along with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation
against publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The
firm has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. [GN]


AKORN INC: "Ochoa" Suit Challenges Fresenius Deal
-------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in Chicago
Cook County that Akorn Inc.'s directors are undervaluing the
pharmaceutical company by more than 65 percent at $34 per share in
a hasty sale to Fresenius that would enrich Akorn's chairman of
the board, who owns an illiquid 25 percent stake in the company.

The case is captioned, DANIEL OCHOA, Individually and on Behalf
All Others Similarly Situated, and Derivatively on Behalf of
AKORN, INC, Plaintiff, v. JOHN N. KAPOOR, RONALD M. JOHNSON,
STEVEN J. MEYER, BRIAN TAMBI, ALAN WEIN STEIN, KENNETH S.
ABRAMOWITZ, ADRIENNE L. GRAVES, TERRY A. RAPPUHN, FRESENIUS KABI
AG, FRESENIUS SE & CO. KGAA, and QUERCUS ACQUISITION, INC,
Defendants, and AKORN, INC, a Louisiana corporation, Nominal
Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-06928, in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, May 16,
2017.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 674-4674
Facsimile: (312) 674-4676
Email: dwissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com

     - and -

Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
Eric M. Carrino, Esq.
ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
600 B Street, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 525-3990
Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
        soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
        ecarrino@robbinsarroyo.com



AKORN INC: Rochester Drug Alleges Price Fixing of Lidocaine
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC. and FWK HOLDINGS, L.L.C., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AKORN, INC; FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; HI-TECH
PHARMACAL; IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC.; and SANDOZ, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02136-CMR (E.D. Pa., May 9, 2017), seeks treble
damages arising out of the Defendants' alleged unlawful scheme to
fix, maintain, and stabilize the prices, rig bids, and allocate
customers for generic lidocaine/prilocaine cream.

The case is part of IN RE: GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING
ANTITRUST LITIGATION MDL 2724 16-MD-2724 (LIDOCAINE/PRILOCAINE
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS).

Lidocaine/prilocaine cream is a local anesthetic commonly used
before minor procedures.

Akorn, Inc. is a niche pharmaceutical company that develops,
manufactures and markets generic and branded prescription
pharmaceuticals.[BN]

     Diane M. Nast, Esq.
     ERIC C. Burns, Esq.
     NASTLAW LLC
     1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Phone: 215 923 9300
            215 923 9302
     E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
             eburns@nastlaw.com

        - and -

     Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
     David S. Nalven, Esq.
     Lauren Guth Barnes, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
     Cambridge, MA 02142
     Tel: (617) 482-3700
     Fax: (617) 482-3003
     E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
             davidn@hbsslaw.com
             lauren@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

     Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
     Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-7292
     Fax: (206) 623-0594
     E-mail: barbaram@hbsslaw.com
             jerrodp@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

     Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
     David P. Germaine, Esq.
     VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI, P.C.
     55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 224-1500
     E-mail: jvanek@vaneklaw.com
             dgermaine@vaneklaw.com

        - and -

     David F. Sorensen, Esq.
     Zachary D. Caplan, Esq.
     Christina M. Black, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 875-3000
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
             zcaplan@bm.net
             cblack@bm.net

        - and -

     Peter Kohn, Esq.
     Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
     Jenkintown, PA 19046
     Phone: 215 277 5770
            215 277 5771
     E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
             jlukens@faruqilaw.com

        - and -

     Barry. Taus, Esq.
     Kevin Landau, Esq.
     TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
     Archana Tamoshunas
     80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
     New York, NY 10038
     Phone: 212 931 0704
     E-mail: btaus@tcllaw.com
             klandau@tcllaw.com
             atamoshunas@tcllaw.com

        - and -

     John D. Radice, Esq.
     April D. Lambert, Esq.
     A. Luke Smith, Esq.
     RADICE LAW FIRM
     34 Sunset Blvd.
     Long Beach, NJ 08008
     Phone: (646) 245-8502
     Fax: (609) 385-0745
     E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com

        - and -

     Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
     Donna M. Evans, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 838 7797
            (212) 838 7745
     E-mail: srobertson@cohenmilstein.com
             devans@cohenmilstein.com


ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Judge Lifts Injunction on Food Stamps
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in Oakland
Calif., on May 4 lifted an injunction against Alameda County,
after it cleared its backlog of unprocessed food-stamp
applications and processed new ones in a timely manner for a six-
month period.

The case is captioned, DONALD RAY LILLEY; JARVIS JOHNSON; and
DANIEL MALLORY, Plaintiffs, vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY; ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES
AGENCY; and LORI COX, in her official capacity as Director of the
Alameda County Social Services Agency; Defendants. Case No. 3:15-
cv-004475-JD (N.D. Cal.)

Attorneys for Defendants County of Alameda, the Alameda County
Board of Supervisors, the Alameda County Social Services Agency,
and Lori Cox in her capacity as Director of the Alameda County
Social Services Agency:

G. SCOTT EMBLIDGE, Esq.
ERIN H. REDING, Esq.
JODIE A. SMITH, Esq.
MOSCONE EMBLIDGE & OTIS LLP
220 Montgomery Street, Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 362-3599
Facsimile: (415) 362-2006
Email: emblidge@mosconelaw.com
       reding@mosconelaw.com


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Class Suit by Blind Customers
--------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that under a new settlement, one of the nation's largest movie
theater chains, AMC, will adopt sweeping reforms to give blind
customers access to devices that describe visual elements in
films.

"It makes the movie going experience more equal for blind patrons
to experience what folks who are sighted see in movies," said
Michael Nunez, who represented a class of blind and visually
impaired moviegoers in San Francisco.

Lead plaintiff Scott Blanks sued AMC in February 2016, saying that
though the theatre chain supposedly offered audio-description
devices, it often gave blind patrons the wrong gadgets, such as
devices intended for deaf people, or malfunctioning equipment.

Under the two-year settlement deal, AMC will train employees how
to use and set up the devices, create a step-by-step guide for
them, and test the equipment weekly.

Nunez said the class hopes the new policies and procedures will
become engrained in AMC culture and remain in place long after the
two-year settlement term expires.

As part of the deal, AMC will keep all complaints it receives
about the audio description devices, and a disability access
coordinator will review and resolve those complaints, Nunez said.

The theatre chain will also create audio descriptions for its pre-
film announcements, giving blind patrons a chance to test their
devices and make sure they work properly before the film starts.

AMC also will ensure that suppliers of movie trailers provide
audio descriptions for film previews whenever possible, Nunez
said.

Beyond carrying out changes in theatres, AMC will also make its
website and mobile app more accessible and publicize the
availability of its audio-description equipment online.
Furthermore, it will update its website and mobile apps to inform
patrons when audio equipment is out or unavailable at certain
locations, Nunez added.

"We're hoping the policies and practices in the settlement serve
as a model for other movie theatre chains as they look to improve
access to audio description at their theatres as well," Nunez
said.

Nunez, of Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld in San Francisco, worked
with attorneys from Disability Rights Advocates in Berkeley to
secure the settlement deal.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Blanks, the California Council
of the Blind, Lighthouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Leah
Gardner, Charles Nabarrete, Robert Schulenburg and Empish Thomas.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers approved a stipulated
request to dismiss the case without prejudice. Rogers will retain
jurisdiction over the case until April 2019 to ensure compliance.

AMC did not immediately respond to a phone call and email seeking
comment.


AMERICAN HEALTH: Faces "Cross" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Cross, Plaintiff, v. American Health Services, LLC
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00726-AA (D. Ore., May 9, 2017),
alleges on behalf of Plaintiff and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, that Defendant negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone,
utilizing an automatic telephone dialing system or using an
"artificial or prerecorded voice" in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

American Health Services, LLC operates community clinics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
     HYDE & SWIGART
     23 Newtown St.
     Medford, OR 97501
     Phone: (602) 265-3332
     Fax: (602) 230-4482
     E-mail: david@westcoastlitigation.com


APU FOODS: June 1 Deadline to Respond to "Marin" Suit Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case captioned Maria Kamila Marin, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APU Foods
Corp., Paula Andrea Gil and Walter Burgos, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-02956 (E.D. N.Y., April 24, 2017), have stipulated and
agreed that all defendants have until June 1, 2017, to answer or
otherwise move with respect to the complaint, according to a
docket entry dated May 8, 2017.

An initial conference in the case was scheduled to take place
May 26, 2017, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 443, 40 Centre Street, New
York, NY 10007 before Judge Valerie E. Capron.

The suit seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs under the provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Laws.

Plaintiffs worked as server for Defendants' five Peruvian
restaurants in New York City. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
      32 Broadway, Suite 601
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 688-5640
      Fax: (212) 688-2548


AREA STORAGE: "Mathew" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------
DAVID MATHEW and RICHARD KALINOWSKI, individually and on behalf of
those individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AREA
STORAGE & TRANSFER, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02773-
SJF-SIL (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2017), seeks to recover monetary
damages, declaratory relief and affirmative relief, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law
(NYLL).

The Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to recover overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week;
spread of hours for days worked in excess of ten hours per day;
interest on all compensation Defendant withheld; award of
$5.000.00; maximum penalty for violations of NYLL; liquidated
damages; and attorneys' fees and costs.

Area Storage provides transportation and storage services. The
Company transports household goods and office and industrial
equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Saul D. Zabell, Esq.
          ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
          Bohemia, NY 11716
          Telephone: (631) 589 7242
          Facsimile: (631) 563 7475
          E-mail: SZabella@laborlawsny.com


ARIZONA CARDINALS: Court Narrows Claims in Painkillers Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that three National Football League teams must continue to fight
off a class action in San Francisco, claiming they pushed
painkillers on hurt athletes, though a federal judge blew the
whistle on May 15, on most claims against 32 teams.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup found only two former players
with claims against three teams -- the Green Bay Packers, Denver
Broncos, and Los Angeles Chargers -- could pursue their grievances
under Maryland's three-year statute of limitations.

Lead plaintiff Etopia Evans, widow of the late Charles "Chuck"
Evans, who played for the Minnesota Vikings and Baltimore Ravens,
sued all 32 NFL teams in May 2015. Evans and 12 former players say
the teams conspired since at least 1964 to dole out unprescribed
pills and injections to put hurt athletes back in play without
warning them of the long-term effects.

Alsup in February dismissed with prejudice conspiracy claims
against the teams, finding the players could not allege they
suffered financial harm within the four-year statute of
limitations.

In his May 15 ruling, Alsup had harsh words for the plaintiff's
124-page amended complaint, grumbling that much of it repeated
"the same sweeping criticisms and accusations, directed against
the NFL as a whole, that permeated" the previous complaint.

"Only a fraction" of the complaint's 50 relevant pages of specific
allegations pertained to the named plaintiffs, rather than
potential class members not yet certified by the court, Alsup
wrote.

"Plaintiffs do not have leave to patch up weaknesses in their
pleadings by expanding their numbers at this stage," Alsup ruled.
"It is important at the outset to determine whether the named
plaintiffs can state claims for relief before deciding whether or
not they can represent a class."

But claims of intentional misrepresentation against 12 of the 32
teams could survive a motion to dismiss, Alsup ruled. The
plaintiffs said the teams falsely represented that they cared
about the players and prioritized their safety.

However, when considering the NFL teams' motion for summary
judgment, Alsup found most of those claims were barred by
Maryland's statute of limitations.

Only two former players -- Alphonso Carreker and Reggie Walker --
suffered injuries within the three years before the lawsuit was
filed in May 2015, Alsup wrote.

Carreker, who played for the Green Bay Packers and Denver Broncos
from 1984 to 1991, had to get heart surgery in 2013 after anti-
inflammatory drugs stopped working because of resistance he'd
built up from taking painkillers during his career, according to
the complaint.

After suffering a sprained ankle while playing for the San Diego
Chargers (now the Los Angeles Chargers), Walker said he was given
Toradol injections by a team doctor before every game for the rest
of his career. Now that he's retired, Walker continues to feel
pain in his ankles.

Those are the only claims that will proceed in the lawsuit and
serve as the basis for class certification due to Maryland's
statute of limitations, Alsup ruled.

Alsup set a deadline of June 1 for the plaintiffs to file a motion
for class certification.

Attorneys for the proposed class of retired players and the NFL
teams did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment.

The class is represented by William Sinclair of Silverman Thompson
Slutkin White in Baltimore.

The NFL teams are represented by Jack DiCanio of Skadden Arps
Slate Meagher & Flom in Palo Alto.

Alsup dismissed a similar lawsuit against the NFL in December
2014. An appeal of that ruling is pending in the Ninth Circuit.

The case is captioned, ETOPIA EVANS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ARIZONA CARDINALS FOOTBALL CLUB, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case
3:16-cv-01030-WHA (N.D. Cal.).


AVANTEUSA LTD: Faces "Fuoco" Suit in Eastern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AvanteUSA Ltd.  The
case is captioned as Brianna A. Fuoco, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AvanteUSA
Ltd., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02783-LDW-AKT (E.D.N.Y., May
8, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Leonard D.
Wexler.

AvanteUSA is an accounts receivable management firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706 5055
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


BAKER HUGHES: Booth Family Trust Challenges GE Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
shareholders say in a federal class action in Houston, that Baker
Hughes omitted or misrepresented material information in an
amended SEC filing for the company's $7.4 billion merger with
(nonparty) General Electric.

The case is captioned, BOOTH FAMILY TRUST, On Behalf of Itself and
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BAKER HUGHES
INCORPORATED, MARTIN S. CRAIGHEAD, GREGORY D. BRENNEMAN, CLARENCE
P. CAZALOT, JR., WILLIAM H. EASTER III, LYNN L. ELSENANS, ANTHONY
G. FERNANDES, CLAIRE W. GARGALLI, PIERRE H. JUNGELS, JAMES A.
LASH, J. LARRY NICHOLS, JAMES W. STEWART, and CHARLES L. WATSON,
Defendants, Case 4:17-cv-01457 (S.D. Tex., May 10, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
Houston, TX 77002
Tel: (713) 227-7720

     - and -

Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Tel: (212) 682-3025
Fax: (212) 682-3010


BAVARIA INN: Faces "Mantooth" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Col. Wage Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHADA MANTOOTH, GALE RAFFAELE, ALEXIS NAGLE, and NICOLE BUJOK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. BAVARIA INN RESTAURANT INC D/B/A SHOTGUN WILLIE'S,
and DEBRA MATTHEWS, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01150-RPM (D.
Col., May 9, 2017), alleges that Defendants have and continue to
unjustly and illegally enrich themselves at dancers' expense,
denying Plaintiffs and other Class members their earned minimum
wages, overtime pay, and the full retention of their tips,
charging the Plaintiffs and similarly situated dancers fees to
work, and subjecting them to unlawful fees and fines and other
kickbacks.

The case was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Colorado Wage Claim Act.

Defendant owns and operates an adult entertainment establishment
located in Glendale, Colorado.  Plaintiff Mantooth was, at
relevant times, working as a dancer at Shotgun Willie's in Denver,
Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mari Newman, Esq.
     Darold W. Killmer, Esq.
     Andy McNulty, Esq.
     KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP
     1543 Champa St., Ste. 400
     Denver, CO 80202
     Phone: (303) 571-1000
     Fax: (303) 571-1001
     E-mail: mnewman@kln-law.com
             dkillmer@kln-law.com
             amcnulty@kln-law.com


BIOGEN INC: Dismissal of Securities Class Action Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
James Carroll, Esq. -- james.carroll@skadden.com --
Michael Hines, Esq. -- michael.hines@skadden.com -- and Sarah van
Vliet, Esq. -- sara.vanvliet@skadden.com -- of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that
on May 12, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
affirmed dismissal of the putative securities class action In re
Biogen Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 16-1976.  The action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
shortly after Biogen announced that it was revising its full-year
2015 financial guidance downward principally due to slowing growth
of the company's multiple sclerosis drug, TECFIDERA.  Following
that July 2015 announcement, Biogen's share price fell 22 percent
(representing an approximately $20 billion market cap decline).

The action alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act against Biogen and certain of its current
and former officers. Citing adjective- laden statements from 10
anonymous "confidential witnesses," the plaintiffs alleged that
the defendants intentionally misled the investing public regarding
the impact on TECFIDERA sales resulting from the company's October
2014 announcement that a patient treated with the drug had died
from complications associated with the rare neurological disease
progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).

The district court dismissed the case with prejudice for failure
to meet the heightened pleading requirements of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA).  In a 72-page opinion,
the court observed that the plaintiffs' complaint and brief
"gloss[ed] over" Biogen's repeated public disclosures about the
impact of the PML event on TECFIDERA's performance and held that
the "[d]efendants' warnings about the PML death fall far short of
reckless conduct."  Weighing competing inferences, the district
court held that far more compelling than any inference of fraud is
that the "defendants were, at worst, overly optimistic in
attempting to predict the PML death's effect on revenues."  The
district court also held that nearly all of the alleged
misstatements were immaterial as a matter of law or protected by
the PSLRA's safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements.

The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the complaint failed to
meet the rigorous pleading standards for allegations of scienter
under the PSLRA.  In that regard, the First Circuit observed that
the statements attributed to confidential witnesses "are so
lacking in connecting detail that they cannot give rise to a
strong inference of scienter" and that "[t]he statements do not
even begin to quantify the magnitude of the sales decline at the
company level," nor do they "explain with any precision whether
the sales decline resulted from higher discontinuations, fewer new
starts, changes in the market, or some combination of these
factors."  The First Circuit concluded that "the confidential
witness statements are consistent with the defendants' public
disclosures," which "repeatedly returned to the PML incident as
one factor impacting TECFIDERA's performance."

This is the second time in recent years that the First Circuit has
affirmed dismissal of a putative securities class action against
Biogen.  In 2008, the court affirmed dismissal of a putative
securities fraud class action filed just days after a different
Biogen drug was temporarily and voluntarily withdrawn from the
market.  N.J. Carpenters Pension & Annuity Funds v. Biogen IDEC
Inc., 537 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2008).  That case, which the First
Circuit described as one that is "paradigmatic of securities fraud
cases against drug development companies," was similarly dismissed
for failure to plead the requisite strong inference of scienter.
[GN]


BOCCHI LABORATORIES: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
RENO SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself, all others, similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BOCCHI LABORATORIES OHIO, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. BC660545 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 8, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, restitution, and related relief
under Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed, to provide him
and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods,
failed to provide them with rest periods, failed to pay premium
wages for unprovided, meal, and/or rest periods, failed to pay
overtime wages,, failed to provide them with accurate written,
wage statements, and failed to timely pay them all of their, final
wages following separation of employment.

Bocchi Laboratories is a full-service contract manufacturer
specializing in health, beauty and personal care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Segal, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlavv.com
                  thomas@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@seiarehlaw.com


BOWLING GREEN, KY: Faces "Palmer" Suit over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a former employee of a Med
Center Health hospital in Kentucky stole personal information from
the billing accounts of 160,000 patients, a class claims in
Bowling Green, Ky. state court.

The case is captioned, SAMUEL PALMER, on behalf of himself and
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BOWLING GREEN -
WARREN COUNTY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL CORPORATION D/B/A MED CENTER
HEALTH AND COMMONWEALTH HEALTH CORPORATION, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 17-CI-00579 (Commonwealth Of Kentucky Warren Circuit Court,
Division _____, May 12, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

Kelli Lester, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
360 E. 8th Avenue, Suite 305
Bowling Green, KY 42101
Phone: (270) 495-6801
Email: klester@forthepeople.com

     - and -

John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Marisa Glassman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
        mglassman@ForThePeople.com

     - and -

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


BRIGANTINE INC: Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Unenforceable
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hazel U. Poei, Esq. -- PoeiH@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis
P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that a
class action waiver in an arbitration agreement is unenforceable
under the National Labor Relations Act, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel
has ruled.

The case is Neal Pataky et al. v. The Brigantine, Inc., No. 3:17-
cv-00352 (S.D. Cal. May 3, 2017).

Judge Curiel's decision tracks the Ninth Circuit's Morris v. Ernst
& Young, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. granted, No. 16-300
(U.S. Jan. 13, 2017), finding that engaging in concerted activity
by jointly pursuing legal claims with other employees is a
substantive right and distinguishing earlier case law in which a
plaintiff had the right to opt out of an agreement but voluntarily
chose not to do so.  Morris did not extend its holding to class
waivers in arbitration agreements that are not required to be
signed as a condition of employment.  Thus, both Morris and Pataky
indicate that agreements with opt-out clauses may still be
enforceable.

Significantly, Judge Curiel found the class waiver provision of
the agreement was not severable from the arbitration agreement, he
stated, "because the parties did not agree to class arbitration,
the Court cannot rely on the severability provision in the
arbitration agreement to compel Plaintiffs to class arbitration."

Judge Curiel further denied the defendant's request for stay
pending the U.S. Supreme Court's review of Morris based on its
finding that the defendant did not demonstrate hardship or
inequity resulting from proceeding in court and, thus, did not
meet its burden in requesting the stay.

Therefore, employers should take care in demonstrating hardship
and inequity in any requests for stays pending the Supreme Court's
ruling in Morris. [GN]


CABLE MARKETING: Ex-Employee Files Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a
St. Tammany Parish resident has filed a class-action lawsuit
against his former employer over allegations that he was not
fairly compensated for his work.

Darrell Hobbs filed a complaint on behalf of individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated filed a complaint on
May 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana against Cable Marketing and Installation of Louisiana
Inc. and Cable Marketing and Installation Inc. alleging that they
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he was
employed by the defendants from December 2017 to April and worked
up to 72 hours per workweek as a cable installer.  The plaintiff
holds Cable Marketing and Installation of Louisiana Inc. and Cable
Marketing and Installation Inc. responsible because the defendants
allegedly intentionally classified plaintiff as independent
contractor and failed to pay the statutory minimum wage and
overtime pay.

The plaintiff seeks an order allowing this case to proceed as a
class action, award for all unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees, costs and all other relief as may be just and
proper.  He is represented by Charles J. Stiegler of Stiegler Law
Firm LLC in New Orleans.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Case
number 2:17-cv-04766 [GN]


CAESARTONE LTD: August 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., and Pomerantz LLP on May 15 disclosed
that the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed
class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of common
stock of Caesarstone Ltd. (NASDAQ:CSTE):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
CAESARSTONE, LTD. COMMON STOCK FROM FEBRUARY 12, 2014 THROUGH
AUGUST 18, 2015, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on August 14, 2017, at 3:30 p.m. before the
Honorable Jesse M. Furman, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States
Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 1105, New York,
New York 10007, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the
proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action
for consideration including the sum of $2,200,000 should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of
Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to one-third of
the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than
$175,000 and an incentive payment of no more than $15,000 in
aggregate to Lead Plaintiffs, should be approved; and (4) whether
this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement dated April 13, 2017 (the "Settlement
Stipulation").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Caesarstone, Ltd.
("Caesarstone") common stock during the period from February 12,
2014 to August 18, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement
Class"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including
the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating
to your ownership interest in Caesarstone common stock. If you
have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice") and a copy of the Proof
of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies by writing to or
calling the Claims Administrator at Caesarstone, Ltd. Securities
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St.,
Ste. 3, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax)
(610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website,
www.strategicclaims.net.  If you are a member of the Settlement
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form postmarked
no later than September 15, 2017, establishing that you are
entitled to recovery.  Unless you submit a written exclusion
request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action
whether or not you make a claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion so that it is received no later
than July 17, 2017, in the manner and form explained in the
detailed Notice to the Claims Administrator.  All members of the
Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the
Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the
Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiffs must be in
the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received
no later than July 28, 2017, by each of the following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court Southern District of New York
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007-1312

LEAD COUNSEL:

Jacob A. Goldberg
Gonen Haklay
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
Jenkintown, PA  19046

Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
Michele S. Carino, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:

George T. Conway III, Esq.
Christopher R. Deluzio, Esq.
WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
51 West 52nd Street
New York, New York 10019

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel:

Jacob A. Goldberg
Gonen Haklay
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
Jenkintown, PA  19046
Tel.: (215) 600-2817

Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
Michele S. Carino, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel.: (212) 661-1100

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: MAY 15, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK[GN]


CALIFORNIA: Upton Urges Court to Certify Class & Bifurcate Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, DAVID UPTON, Plaintiff, v. ARNOLD
SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Case No. 5: 10-cv-00631 AB (PJW)(C.D.
Cal.), Mr. Upton urged U.S. Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh to
grant his request for class certification and for bifurcation of
liability and damages trials, and to reject the Defendants'
opposition to his motion.

                            Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

              Upton Seeks to Certify Defendant Class

Mr. Upton filed a motion on Dec. 8, 2016, asking the District
Court to certify his lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Rule
23(a)(1) and (2), and (b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  He proposed an executive authority agent defendant
class and subclass.

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

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

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

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

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

He also proposed that each of the respective city and county
attorneys of the California Constitution, Art. 3, Sec. 3 executive
authority, be appointed to represent the city and county State of
California class members according to their respective
jurisdictions; and the U.S. Attorney General's office be appointed
to represent the remaining federal and 49 other states' state,
county, and city executive authority agent defendant subclass
members within the meaning of Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

                      Defendant's Opposition,
                          Upton's Reply

The Defendant argues that Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion
is Plaintiff's "latest attempt to add parties to this action".

The Defendant also argues that the motion to certify the specified
defendant class and subclass should not be granted because the
proposed class and subclass does not meet the Rule 23(a)(3) and
(4) "typicality" and "adequate representation" requirements.

In response, Mr. Upton argues that:

     -- although the motion cut-off deadline has passed although,
Plaintiff has since sought leave of court to extent the motion
cut-off deadline to April 12, 2017;

     -- the Motion for Class Certification essentially seeks to
certify an issue pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, "in the interests of materially advancing the
disposition of this litigation as a whole," rather than to add
parties;

     -- it is impractical to bound the certification of a
defendant class action to the Rule 23(a)(3) "typicality"
requirement in this context where California's botched parole
legislation gives the California Board of Parole Hearings
authority to enter California Penal Code Sec. 3056 "no bail"
parole hold arrest warrants into national and international
computer information system databases and any person subject to
the California Penal Code Sec. 3000 post determinate term of
imprisonment expiration constitutionally unrecognized 'mandatory
parole term' can be arrested and extradited to California from
anywhere on the earth, because it is impossible for Plaintiff to
predict what the defense of a city, county, state, federal, or
international law enforcement officer faced with the obligation to
"execute" a California Panel Code Sec. 3056 "no bail" parole hold
not involving the "execution" of a determinate term of
imprisonment imposed pursuant to the judgment of a California
court will be;

     -- it is impractical to bound the certification of a
defendant class to the Rule 23(a)(4) "adequate representation"
requirement because Plaintiff does not represent the defendant
class or the defendant subclass; and

     -- because the "executive" authority agent Defendant class
and subclass need to be enjoined from "executing" California Penal
Code Sec. 3056 without any constitutionally recognized
jurisdiction to do so, the District Court has a sua sponte duty to
grant the Motion for Class Certification because, inter alia, the
federal government has an interest in facilitating the U.S.
Supreme Court's Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011) mandate lest
it be implicated as an accessory to the racketeering activity of
former Defendant and California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and
current California governor Jerry Brown within the meaning of Sec.
3 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

In Plata, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5% of capacity.


CANADA: Hayes Gets $25,000 in Estabrooks Sexual Assault Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Cave, writing for CBC News, reports that Bobby Hayes, whose
lawyers succeeded in getting a class action lawsuit certified
against the City of Saint John, on behalf of potentially more than
100 victims of sexual assault by the late police officer Kenneth
Estabrooks, has been awarded $25,000 in costs.

The award from the Court of Queen's Bench is unprecedented after a
class action certification in New Brunswick but only a fraction of
what Mr. Hayes's lawyers sought.

"As far as we've been able to determine, that is the largest costs
award in New Brunswick on a contested motion,"
John McKiggan, Mr. Hayes's Halifax-based lawyer, told reporters
outside the courtroom after the proceedings.

"Basically, what the court was saying is that they recognize this
was an important step in the proceeding and it was one that
merited a significant award."

"In other words, they were recognizing the effort that both sides
put in, when prosecuting and defending the claim and the court
recognized that there should be a significant cost award attached
to that."

The lawyers had asked for $150,000 plus disbursements of
approximately $33,000, in part because they said the city had
mounted a "scorched earth" defence, fighting the certification at
every step.

And it might not be over yet.

The city is seeking leave to appeal the class action
certification.  The Court of Appeal will consider the request on
June 22.

In his written decision filed on May 12, Justice William Grant
acknowledged that a certification motion is a "do or die"
proceeding for the plaintiff because if he or she is not
successful, the litigation ends.

Justice Grant said it was clear the plaintiff "spared no effort."

The judge also acknowledged receipt of a summary of fees on behalf
of two law firms representing Mr. Hayes that between them billed
867 hours.

"Using their regular hourly rates the value of that time would
exceed half a million dollars plus tax," wrote Justice Grant.

Mr. Hayes's lawyers had argued they expected their costs to be
deducted from the final costs award if the 117 people interviewed
by a private investigator hired by the city were ultimately
successful in their lawsuit.

Based on the assumption that each would receive an average award
of $222,000, that would result in a total award in the range of
$26 million, for which costs would exceed $780,000, wrote Grant,
reciting the argument made by Mr. Hayes's lawyers.

Big risk for high reward

Defence lawyers for the city had argued that $2,500 would be an
appropriate costs award based on previous cases.

Justice Grant agreed with them that class actions are often cases
of big risk for high reward.

"But if there is no possibility of any meaningful costs being
payable until the conclusion of the case, the field of lawyers who
could afford, let alone be willing to take the risk, is narrowed
considerably," he wrote.

Justice Grant said that would give defendants with deep pockets an
enormous advantage over potential plaintiffs.

Class members not rich

"I am satisfied, based on the record, that it is very unlikely
that the potential class members in this case would be able to
pursue these claims on their own," Justice Grant wrote.

"In  my view a class action proceeding is most likely their only
hope of obtaining justice for the abuse they suffered and I find
that access to justice is an issue of paramount importance in this
litigation as well an important consideration on the question of
costs."

The $25,000 judgment includes $1,000 previously awarded when the
city lost its bid to get the names of the class members.

Mr. Hayes's lawyer was expecting Justice Grant to deal with his
client's request to have the city pay for the notice program to
advise class members that the class action has been certified.

Mr. Estabrooks, who died in 2005, was a police officer from 1953
to 1975, when he admitted he had sexually abused at least two boys
and was transferred to the works department without being charged.
In 2012, the city paid for a private investigation that found
evidence of at least 79 victims Mr. Estabrooks and possibly many
more. [GN]


CANADA: Settlement Hearing Set for RCMP Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Emily Lazatin, writing for CKNW, reports that the last crucial
step for a multitude of women who are part of two class-action
lawsuits against the RCMP stemming from harassment and bullying
allegations is underway.

Lawyer David Klein, who represents the women, says the settlement
approval application will be heard in federal court in Toronto.

"If we get an approval [this] week, the deadline for filing claims
will be by the end of the year."

If approved, processing claims would be the next step.

"It's hard to say how long it would take for the claims to
process, it could take a number of months.  I would expect
payments to start flowing in 2018."

Mr. Klein says 1,000 women have now come forward with allegations.

If the federal court green-lights the settlement, he expects
several hundred more women to join the class action.

"There will be several hundred more who come forwards beyond the
one thousand that have contacted us.  Once the settlement is
approved by the judge, the claim centre will be opened and claims
can start being filed.  With that many complaints, it will take
several months to start processing them."

Last October, the RCMP publically apologized to women in the force
and announced $100-million was set aside for settlements.

The RCMP's national watchdog released a report on May 15 saying
bullying and harassment remain a serious problem in the force.

Another report from former Auditor General Sheila Fraser called
for substantial reforms including the RCMP creating a separate
unit for investigating workplace harassment. [GN]


CANADA: B.C. Defends Class Action Over Partisan Political Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that the B.C.
government is defending itself against a class-action lawsuit
alleging it misspent millions on partisan political ads during the
recent provincial election campaign.

In a lawsuit filed in March before the official campaign got
underway, David Trapp, the representative plaintiff, claimed that
the government had spent up to $15 million on advertising for the
purpose of enhancing the image of the B.C. Liberal party, which
was also named as a defendant.

During the campaign, the government directed a freeze on all "non-
essential" advertising and public communications.

On May 3, less than a week before the election, the government
filed its response to the class-action lawsuit, denying the
allegations and asserting that it is responsible for ensuring
public money is "controlled, accounted for and well managed."

The response to the civil claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court says
that the government must as a matter of policy endorse advertising
that is "fact-based" and points to or provides information on
policies, programs and services.

"The government also requires that public money not be used to
purchase advertising in support of a political party."

The class-action suit claims that in addition to burnishing the
image of the Liberals, the ads were designed to improve the then-
governing party's likelihood of success in the election by winning
enough seats to hold a majority government.

The government's response says that the proposed class-action
group -- all B.C. taxpayers -- is not one to which the government
owes a fiduciary or other private law duty enforceable in court.

"The fiduciary duty alleged in this case is both novel and broad.
It does not fall within a historically recognized category.

"The collection of taxes and distribution of public money held by
the government is a purely public function. It has no private law
analogue that could ground the recognition of a fiduciary duty."

Asked to comment on the government's response, Trapp's lawyer Paul
Doroshenko said he and his client have a "good legal basis" for
their argument.

"Generally speaking, I think every government has a fiduciary
duty.  You discharge your fiduciary duty very easily as a
government.  But as soon as you go and use taxpayers' money for a
purpose that is not for the taxpayers, you've breached your
fiduciary duty."

Mr. Doroshenko said that despite the election result, which saw
the Liberals fall just short of a majority government, they will
be pursuing the lawsuit.

"We looked at the replies filed by the government and the Liberal
party and it hasn't really changed our direction.  It was more or
less what we expected."

The next steps in the case include a bid to get certification of
the class-action suit, but no date has been set for the next court
appearance and the process is going to be a lengthy one, said Mr.
Doroshenko.

Mr. Trapp, a retired White Rock resident, said he was upset to
watch on television the ads that he believed were a waste of
taxpayers' money. [GN]


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of "Birchmeier" Suit Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Caribbean Cruise Line, Incorporated and Vacation
Ownership Marketing Tours, Incorporated, filed an appeal from a
court ruling relating to the lawsuit styled Grant Birchmeier, et
al. v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Incorporated, 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, the District
Court has previously 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 Grant Birchmeier, et al. v.
Caribbean Cruise Line, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 17-1984, in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that
Appellant's brief is due on or before June 19, 2017, for Caribbean
Cruise Line, Incorporated and Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours,
Incorporated.[BN]

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

          Ryan D. Andrews, Esq.
          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Roger Perlstadt, Esq.
          Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Esq.
          EDELSON P.C.
          350 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  randrews@edelson.com
                  rperlstadt@edelson.com
                  atievsky@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Esq.
          EDELSON, P.C.
          123 Townsend Street
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  erapp@edelson.com

               - and -

          Michael Kanovitz, Esq.
          Jon C. Loevy, Esq.
          Scott R. Rauscher, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          311 N. Aberdeen Street
          Chicago, IL 60607-1249
          Telephone: (312) 243-5900
          Facsimile: (312) 243-5902
          E-mail: jon@loevy.com
                  mike@loevy.com
                  scott@loevy.com

Defendants-Appellants CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INCORPORATED, and
VACATION OWNERSHIP MARKETING TOURS, INCORPORATED, 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


CENTRAL VIRGINIA: Seeks Dismissal of Claim in Inmate Death Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Seal writing for Daily Progress reports that the Central
Virginia Regional Jail is again seeking to have a central claim
dropped from a lawsuit filed against it over an inmate's death in
2014.

Attorney Helen Phillips, on behalf of the CVRJ, filed a motion on
May 11 seeking the summary judgment and dismissal of one of the
claims in a $22.5 million suit on the grounds that there is "no
genuine dispute" of the material facts in the case.

For nearly two years, the jail has fought back against the
wrongful death lawsuit filed in federal court in Charlottesville
in June 2015 by Sherry Thornhill, the mother of former inmate
Shawn Christopher Berry. On Aug. 7, 2014, Berry was arrested on
outstanding warrants and brought to the CVRJ, telling officers and
jail staff that he was a heroin user.

Two days later, Berry died from what was eventually determined to
be adverse effects from heroin and alcohol.

While his death was ruled an accident, Thornhill filed the suit
against the jail, then-Superintendent Glenn Aylor and several
other jail staffers for the "deliberate torture and killing" of
her son, laying out the brutal details of Berry's deterioration
over the two-day span he was in CVRJ.

In a May 11 filing, Phillips echoed her previous stance on the
allegation, accusing Thornhill of "craft[ing] an elaborate account
that ignored" the video recordings and incident reports in the
case, asking that Thornhill's claim of deliberate indifference to
Berry's medical needs be dismissed.

The claim, which seeks $10 million in damages, is one of three in
the case. Thornhill also alleges that the jail cultivated a
deliberate indifference to the medical needs of all of its
inmates, seeking $10 million in damages, and that the jail staff's
actions led to Berry's death, seeking $2.5 million in damages.

As Thornhill did in her original complaint, Phillips recounts
Berry's final days in a statement of material facts that are
"without genuine dispute" but reframes the series of events to
show that each of the defendants in the case did all that they
could to treat Berry.

The filing states that, ahead of his transfer to the jail, Berry
refused his arresting deputies' offers to call a rescue squad for
medical assistance related to his heroin use and asthma. During an
interview, Berry told the officers that he had used drugs but did
not say that he was addicted to alcohol or subject to withdrawal
symptoms from alcohol.

He did not detail his history of drug and alcohol abuse until he
arrived at the jail, speaking with a nurse who is named as a
defendant in the lawsuit. According to that nurse's deposition,
Berry admitted that he "snorted heroin every day and consumed a
fifth of liquor a day," but says he did not display any
corresponding withdrawal symptoms.

The nurse then treated Berry for his asthma and ordered that he be
monitored for withdrawal symptoms, the filing reads. As such, his
vital signs were routinely checked by medical staff, and he was
given medicine for his nausea and Gatorade for hydration, it
continues.

When Berry became sick during the first night of his stay, an
officer walked with Berry to the jail's medical unit, noting that
Berry was "walking freely on his own." When they arrived, Berry
was then directed to the booking area for observation, where he
received medication to treat symptoms of heroin withdrawal.

At no time, the filing states, did Berry tell his accompanying
officer about his alcohol abuse. The officer noted that while he
was aware of Berry's alcohol use after reading booking reports, he
did not see Berry exhibiting signs of alcohol withdrawal.

The following morning, another defendant nurse testified that she
saw Berry in the medical department walking without assistance,
and she checked his vital signs. Again, Berry made no mention of
his alcohol use, she said. Just before he was transported to court
for his first hearing, Berry told officers that he was sick to his
stomach but did not fall ill on the trip to the courthouse. His
case ended up being delayed after an officer told a court deputy
about Berry's condition.

The next morning, on the day of his death, Berry appeared
"unwell," according to the testimony of an officer, and was taken
by wheelchair to a shower. Minutes later, an officer heard a
strange sound from the shower and found Berry on the floor. One of
the three nurses listed as defendants in the case immediately came
and checked on him, requested a pitcher of Gatorade to treat his
dehydration and assessed his vitals.

The nurse testified that Berry repeatedly said, "I just want to
rest, I'm OK now," and took medication for his nausea. He was
taken back to his cell, the filing said; according to video
evidence, officers checked on him multiple times per hour
thereafter.

That evening, officers were called to Berry's cell to assist him
and witnessed him have a "'fit' where his eyes were closed and his
upper body began 'spasming.'" When he came to, he began throwing
up and told another defendant nurse that he needed to lie down.
That nurse then called for an ambulance to have Berry transported
to a hospital.

As she was returning to the medical unit to retrieve the necessary
paperwork for Berry's transfer, the defendant nurse heard the
"Code Blue" call and "ran [back] to booking."

While the nurse was gone, Berry had begun coughing up small
amounts of blood and, minutes later, a "large amount of blood came
up" from his throat. He stopped breathing soon after, the filing
reads. Multiple people attempted to revive him, with some even
coming in contact with his blood, but they were ultimately
unsuccessful.

Given that series of events, which relies on video evidence from
the jail and deposition testimony from the involved nurses,
officers and jail staff, Phillips argues that Thornhill has not
produced "any evidence" to substantiate the notion that jail staff
members were indifferent to Berry's needs. She asks that the claim
be summarily tossed from the suit.

The case already has been altered from its original complaint,
which sought classification as a class-action suit on behalf of
other CVRJ inmates.

In February 2016, a federal judge denied the class-action
classification and dismissed six CVRJ employees, five of whom were
non-medical officers, as defendants. The remainder of the suit was
allowed to go forward.[GN]


CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Wants to Halt Discovery in Sex Bias Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that Chadbourne &
Parke on May 15 fired back at claims that it is trying to evade
discovery in a sex bias class action filed against the firm by
three former partners, saying producing reams of documents would
be pointless while its motion to dismiss the case is pending.

The firm, represented by Proskauer Rose, sent a letter to U.S.
District Judge J. Paul Oetken in Manhattan asking him to reject
the plaintiffs' request to hold a hearing on whether discovery
should be conducted before the judge rules on the firm's claim
that the former partners were not "employees" covered by the
federal Equal Pay Act. [GN]


CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: Could Face Potential Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Travis Dove for New York Times reports as that it battles to stay
open, Charlotte School of Law is blaming its problems on the
federal government, the law school accreditation body and
disgruntled former students who have sued the school.

Now, the for-profit school in North Carolina faces a fresh
challenge in the form of a civil investigation opened by the state
attorney general's office.

"We are looking into whether students were able to make decisions
about attending the school with the full information they needed,"
Josh Stein, the attorney general, said in a phone interview. "This
affects a lot of students and involves a lot of money. Students
had an average of $50,000 in loans a year."

About 700 students were enrolled at the law school as of last
fall, and from the fall of 2010 to the spring of 2016, the school
received $337.1 million in federal student loans for tuition and
student living expenses, according to Law School Transparency, a
nonprofit that tracks data about the nation's law schools.

Enrollment plunged, however, after the American Bar Association's
accreditors placed the school on probation in November. A short
time later, the federal Education Department cut off loans to
current students because, it said, the school had made
"substantial misrepresentations" to students about its compliance
with accreditation standards.

"Students made decisions worth tens of thousands of dollars," Mr.
Stein, a Democrat, said, "and they deserved full information. We
are looking into whether the school may have misrepresented any
information."

Depending on what the investigation yields, Mr. Stein said, the
attorney general's office could initiate legal action seeking
financial relief for students and could also impose civil
penalties.

The law school did not respond to a request for comment.

Charlotte School of Law officials have said previously that they
were required to keep confidential the accreditation shortfalls
identified by the bar association early last year. The failings
did not become public until the 11-year-old school's formal
probation was disclosed in November.

Mr. Stein's office wrote to Betsy DeVos, the education secretary,
in April to ask that her department extend the deadline for
Charlotte students to discharge student loans. Currently, students
enrolled within 120 days of a school's closing are eligible to
have their loan balances wiped off the books.

If the law school closes, but does not announce it soon, students
would lose the ability to have their debts canceled.

Several months ago, school officials asked the bar association to
approve an alternative teaching plan for the 220 students still
enrolled there, but the school has not taken visible action to
close its doors.

Charlotte School of Law is one of three struggling for-profit
schools owned by the Infilaw Corporation, part of Sterling
Partners, a private equity firm with offices in Baltimore and
Chicago. Infilaw also owns Florida Coastal School of Law and
Arizona Summit Law School.

The Charlotte school's problems in recent months have included
nearly $150,000 in overdue city and county taxes, a revenue
shortfall that prompted the subletting of classroom space and an
interim dean stepping down within a month of being hired.

Many law schools in the United States are enduring rocky times --
the number of students pursuing law degrees nationwide has fallen
sharply in the past several years -- but few have teetered as
publicly as Charlotte.

In April, though, trustees at Whittier College, in California,
announced unexpectedly that they would close its law school. The
move made Whittier Law School the first fully accredited law
school to meet that fate. Faculty members have said they will
challenge the decision in court.

Charlotte School of Law students, citing the school's failure to
make the accreditation problems public, have filed individual
lawsuits and suits seeking class-action status in which they
accuse the school of breach of contract, among other accusations.

The school argues in court papers that the delayed disclosure of
the accreditation information did not harm the students because
"they were already enrolled or had graduated" when the bar
association made its decision.

"These students had access to a wealth of information about
graduate employment rates and admissions data through the
disclosures the A.B.A. requires every school to make annually,"
the school says in the papers, filed in federal court for the
Western District of North Carolina.

The school blames the federal Education Department's "ill-advised"
loan freeze after the probation determination for precipitating
the trouble.

In an April 14 letter to Ms. DeVos, Chidi Ogene, the law school's
president, asked that the federal loans be reinstated. Mr. Ogene
said in the letter that the school had adopted measures to rectify
deficiencies, including imposing some caps on enrollment, higher
admissions criteria, and "enhanced student disclosures and
communications beyond those mandated by law, all subject to
verification by an independent monitor."

The Education Department, which has not yet resumed the loans, did
not respond to requests for comment.

About 100 students are set to graduate on May 20. The school has
notified them that absent the federal funds, they may pay their
outstanding tuition with private loans the school is providing at
zero interest and payable over 10 years.

It was unclear whether graduates must sign up for the loans in
order to receive degrees. Without a degree, they cannot take a
state bar exam in North Carolina or elsewhere to qualify to
practice law. [GN]


CHER OIL: Judge to Hear Bids to Dismiss Earthquake Suit on May 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Athens writing for Stillwater News Press reports the oil and
gas companies being sued in a class action case stemming from the
Cushing earthquake have at separate times sought to have the case
thrown out. Now they'll learn at the same time if the case will
continue in Payne County District Court.

Judge Phillip Corley decided to hear the motions from all
defendants at the same time with a hearing scheduled for 9 a.m.
May 31. Defendants Cher Oil Company, Crown Energy Company, FHA
Investments, Petrowarrior LLC and White Star Petroleum are being
sued for civil relief more than $10,000 following the 5.0
magnitude earthquake on Nov. 16 that destroyed buildings in
downtown Cushing.

According to court documents filed in the civil lawsuit, a hearing
on the motion to dismiss that White Star Petroleum LLC filed was
continued in March, and since then other companies had attempted
to seek dismissal. Several Cushing residents filed the suit in the
wake of learning Cushing wouldn't receive any monetary disaster
assistance after the city's damage assessment concluded weeks
following the earthquake.

The Cushing Lion's Den, located at 124 W. Broadway St., collapsed
in March and had been uninhabited since November after a
structural engineer warned it wasn't safe, according to Lion's
Club President Lou Griffin. "We had some engineers said it could
be saved, and we had others who said they wouldn't re-enter it,"
Griffin told the News Press.

Now, the club has been subpoenaed to produce and provide any
documents related to inspection of the building in connection to
the damage the earthquake caused. The lawsuit is based on whether
waste water injection wells within 6 miles of the earthquake's
epicenter caused the disaster and the subsequent damage, for which
Gov. Mary Fallin declared a state of emergency in Payne County
days after it occurred. [GN]


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Kahn Swick Investigates Officers, Directors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq. -
- charles.foti@ksfcounsel.com --  a partner at the law firm of
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC , announces that KSF has commenced an
investigation into Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (NYSE: CMG).

On April 25, 2017, the Company revealed that it had recently
detected unauthorized activity on the network that supports
payment processing for purchases made in our restaurants and that
the extent of the breach was unknown but an investigation was
ongoing. The Company further advised that customers should
closely monitor their payment card statements for unauthorized
charges and notify their issuing bank if such activity occurred.

On May 4, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company by a proposed class of financial institutions alleging
that its negligence in failing to maintain adequate data security
measures to prevent the breach resulted in closed accounts,
stopped payments and other costly damages including expenses for
cancelling and reissuing cards compromised in the data breach and
for refunding fraudulent charges. The suit also alleges that
Chipotle had decided in 2015 that it would not upgrade its
terminals to EMV chip card technology, claiming that it would slow
down customer lines.

KSFs investigation is focusing on whether Chipotles officers
and/or directors breached their fiduciary duties to its
shareholders or otherwise violated state or federal laws.

If you have information that would assist KSF in its
investigation, or have been a long-term holder of Chipotle shares
and would like to discuss your legal rights, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or
email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com).

                 About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include the Former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices
in New York, California and Louisiana.[GN]

         Lewis Kahn
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         Tel No: 877-515-1850
         E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com


CP KELCO: "Rodrigues" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jose S. Rodrigues, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. CP Kelco U.S., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, DOES 1
through 100, and J.M. Huber Micropowders Inc., a California
Corporation, Case No. 37-02017-00004339-CU-OE-CTL, was removed on
May 18, 2017 from the Superior Court of the State of California,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
(San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-
01030-AJB-NLS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, CP Kelco is a leading
hydrocolloids producer with offices and facilities across the
globe, serving over 100 countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2274 East Maple Avenue, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com

CP Kelco U.S., Inc. is represented by:

          Marie Burke Kenny, Esq.
          PROCOPIO CORY HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP
          525 B Street, Suite 2200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238 1900
          Facsimile: (619) 235 0398
          E-mail: marie.kenny@procopio.com


CRACKER BARREL: ADA Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Moussako, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania
federal judge granted preliminary approval on May 15 to a class
action settlement that would make Cracker Barrel implement a
national disability access compliance policy for its parking lots.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell ruled to preliminarily
approve a settlement motion brought by counsel for Sarah Heinzl on
May 12, after she alleged in October 2014 that the restaurant
chain Cracker Barrel failed to ensure that its accessible parking
spots had slopes usable by individuals with disabilities.  The
settlement requires Cracker Barrel to implement a policy to bring
the parking lots of all its restaurants in compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

If the settlement goes into effect, the company will have to fix
within 30 months any problems found with accessibility at 107
Cracker Barrel locations owned directly by the company specified
in the course of litigation as having accessibility problems,
according to the filing.

The settlement also provides for $830,000 in attorneys' fees, and
a payment of $7,500 to Ms. Heinzl.

The rest of the more than 600 Cracker Barrel locations will be
divided by whether they were opened before or after May 1 of this
year.  For older stores, an ADA consultant will develop a survey
to be taken by the company's staffers in assessing the compliance
of their parking lots with the law.  The older stores will have to
remove whatever problems are found by the survey within either two
years after the survey at that location is taken, or seven years
after the settlement goes into effect, whichever comes first.

Stores opened after May 1 will be required to use recent ADA
standards in their construction, and they will have to receive a
certification of compliance from an independent engineering firm.
Within four years of the opening, the same survey will have to be
conducted, according to the brief.

The suit was first filed in October 2014, and was granted class
certification in April 2016, over objections from Cracker Barrel.
In October 2016, plaintiffs sought summary judgment on Cracker
Barrel's liability, arguing that the company failed to make its
parking lots in compliance with the ADA. The motion was
voluntarily withdrawn in December 2016 in order to negotiate the
current settlement, according to the brief.

Benjamin Sweet, one of the attorneys for the ADA class, praised
the quick preliminary approval ruling to Law360 on May 16.

"We think it's reflective of the quality of the injunctive relief
we secured for the class," he said.

Counsel for Cracker Barrel were not immediately available for
comment on May 16.

Ms. Heinzl is represented by Benjamin J. Sweet, R. Bruce Carlson,
Edwin J. Kilpela, and Stephanie K. Goldin --
sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com -- of Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela &
Carpenter LLP.

Cracker Barrel is represented by Richard J. DeFortuna --
rdefortuna@paisnerlitvin.com -- of Paisner Litvin LLP, Elizabeth
M. Rodriguez -- erodriguez@fordharrison.com -- Todd S. Aidman --
taidman@fordharrison.com -- and John E. Duval --
jduvall@fordharrison.com -- of FordHarrison LLP, and Julia N.
Sarnoff and Minh N. Vu of Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

The case is Heinzl V. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., case
number 2:14-cv-01455, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania. [GN]


CREDIT COLLECTION: Faces "Law" Suit in Southern Dist. of Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Collection
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Shakara Law, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Credit
Collection Services, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00225 (S.D. Ala., May
18, 2017).

Credit Collection is a professional full service debt recovery,
law firm and investigations company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gina DeRosier Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road No. 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826 5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961 5684
          E-mail: ggreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Philadelphia Workers File Suit for Fair Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Tawa at Philadelphia CBS Local reports the Host Committee
for the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia has paid
out nearly a million dollars to staff members, and local
institutions, from leftover money it raised to stage the event.

But, dozens of people who worked in the field elsewhere in the
country for Democrats feel shortchanged and are now part of a
class action federal lawsuit.

The bonuses ranged from $500 for interns to more than $300,000 for
the executive director.

"I think everyone's reaction is the same. It's obscene," says
Justin Swidler, a Cherry Hill-based attorney.

Swidler is pursuing a lawsuit on behalf of 40-to-50 "field
organizers" all over the country, whom he says were denied
overtime compensation.

"One of the arguments that the Democrats are making is that they
just don't have the money to pay overtime to their workers," said
Swidler.

The named defendants are the Democratic National Committee, the
Pennsylvania Democratic Party and five more state party
organizations.

"These workers were out there in a campaign that was promising $15
an hour minimum wage, and expanding the overtime rights of
workers," Swidler said.

Former Governor Ed Rendell, who served as chairman of the Host
Committee, points out those were "totally different operations."
He says none of the plaintiffs worked for the Host Committee, and
it was not named in the suit.

"In fact, we gave our interns, and our unpaid volunteers, bonuses
at the end," said Rendell.

Rendell notes when he hired Host Committee workers, he made it
clear, since they didn't know how much money would be raised,
salaries would be below market rates.

Rendell says because of a surplus, they were able to do "salary
adjustments and bonuses." Also, leftover money went to the School
District of Philadelphia ($750,000) and several non-profits
($10,000 each to the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, the Food
Trust of Philadelphia, and the Committee of Seventy, and $25,000
each to Independence Visitor Center and Visit Philly).

One of the lead plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit is Bethany
Katz of Rosemont.

Swidler says she and others believed in the Democratic platform
and ideals, and put in 80-to-90-hours a week in the last stages of
the race to support Hillary Clinton.

"They got paid a flat salary of $3,000 a month, which isn't even
minimum wage for some of the hours that they were working," said
Swidler.

He says the lawsuit seeks "fair pay for fair work," and holding
the Democratic Party to the very ideals that it embraces. [GN]


DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Media Blacks Coverage of Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Blackhurst at Lifezette reports that while the mainstream
media have been doggedly and extensively covering any narrative
that casts President Donald Trump in a negative light, there is
one story the reporters and pundits largely have spurned: the
lawsuit looming over the Democratic National Committee, alleging
it favored former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton
over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

The DNC came under fire in June 2016 after damning evidence
surfaced from documents leaked by the hacker Guccifer 2.0 showing
that the party and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz heavily
favored Clinton over Sanders.

A class-action suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on June 28, 2016 by residents of 45
states against both the committee and Wasserman Schultz for
"intentional, willful, wanton, and malicious" conduct in violating
Article 5, Section 4 of the DNC Charter.

They represent three classes of plaintiffs: donors to the DNC,
donors to the Bernie Sanders campaign, and all registered
Democrats -- and they want their money back.

On April 25, the court held a hearing on a motion to dismiss, with
the DNC's lawyers arguing that the party has every right to pick
candidates in back rooms.

"There's no contractual obligation here . . . it's not a situation
where a promise has been made that is an enforceable promise," DNC
lawyer Bruce Spiva argued in court.

The major news organizations shunned the controversy and allowed
it to slip into near-oblivion as they hammered President Trump.

An article published on May 13 on the liberal progressive website
Salon notes that the mainstream media "almost completely blacked
out coverage of this lawsuit."

A writer for the Observer wrote on May 8: "In large part, the
mainstream media [have] not covered the lawsuit in the six months
between the court's initial hearings in October 2016 to its latest
hearing on April 25, 2017."

The revelation that the Democratic Party is fine with rigging
elections, and has no qualms about lying to its members and
pretending to be neutral, is certainly interesting news. But many
in the media apparently didn't want anyone to pay too much
attention to this.

"For Sanders supporters, the lawsuit provides an opportunity for
vindication for being cheated and attacked by the Democratic
establishment," Observer reporter Michael Sainato wrote. "Now, the
DNC is on record arguing that its voters have no reason to trust
it to maintain free and fair elections."

"Spiva's defense is blatant proof that despite the fact that the
DNC fashions itself as the party of the people, it is openly and
clearly an oligarchy -- a fact also made clear by its use of
superdelegates," Salon writer Sophia McClennen wrote.

A WikiLeaks document dump also revealed that former interim DNC
chair Donna Brazile appeared to favor Clinton when she leaked a
Democratic primary debate question to Clinton in an email. Sanders
supporters cried fowl. But the media largely spurned them in favor
of dogging Trump.

"The elephant in the room for the DNC isn't Trump or the GOP or
Bernie bros or Russian hackers; it is its own elitist,
corporatist, cronyist, corrupt system that consistently refuses to
listen to the will of the people it hopes to represent," McClennen
wrote. "This all proves that the DNC has a serious problem not
only with the democratic process but also with the very idea of
representing the will of its constituents." [GN]


DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Faces Another Class Action Over Bonuses
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Sainato, writing for Observer, reports that the Democratic
National Committee and former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz
are currently facing a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
Bernie Sanders supporters in federal court for rigging the
Democratic primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton.

On May 12, CBS reported another class action lawsuit was filed
against the DNC for stiffing dozens of field organizers all over
the country for overtime work during the 2016 election while the
DNC gave out $1 million in bonuses, including more than $300,000
to Democratic National Convention Host Committee Executive
Director Kevin Washo.  The lawsuit was filed by Justin Swidler of
Cherry Hill, N.J. on behalf of 40 to 50 field organizers against
the DNC, Pennsylvania state Democrats, and five other state
Democratic Parties.  "These workers were out there in a campaign
that was promising $15 an hour minimum wage and expanding the
overtime rights of workers," Mr. Swidler told CBS.  He added the
lawsuit seeks "fair pay for fair work" and to hold the Democratic
Party accountable to the ideals it markets itself with.

Chair of the Democratic National Convention Host Committee and
former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell alleged that the Democratic
National Convention was separate from the operations noted in the
lawsuit.  Many of the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit
worked 80 to 90 hours a week for Hillary Clinton's campaign and
were compensated only $3,000 a month.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that although Rendell claimed
the large bonus to the Executive Director Kevin Washo was in part
due to volunteer work before the convention, they found that
Washo, who was vice president of the political consulting firm New
Partners, was paid $243,000 to help Philadelphia win the bid to
host the Democratic National Convention.  At the same time, Washo
was paid a salary by the consulting firm and received a monthly
salary of $13,000 from the Democratic National Committee. "We
might have double-paid him. I'll have to check into it. That's
interesting," Rendell told the publication on May 12. He also
claimed that no Democratic Party donors should be upset over the
bonuses.  "No donor did this out of the kindness of their heart.
They all wanted access," he said.  "They got exactly what they
donated for.  No donor should feel cheated."

Congressman Robert Brady, chairman of the Philadelphia Democratic
Party, told the Pittsburgh Gazette he was surprised there was any
money left over from the convention at all and was unaware bonuses
were given out until a reporter called him to ask questions about
them.

The Democratic National Convention Host Committee faced
controversy in their initial refusal to disclose donors until FEC
rules obligated so at the end of September 2016. The New
Republic's David Dayen dubbed the convention "one big corporate
bribe."  The Intercept reported in May 2016 that then-DNC Chair
Debbie Wasserman Schultz planned the convention with several anti-
Obamacare lobbyists and donors who have traditionally supported
Republicans, such as the Host Committee's finance chair Daniel
Hilferty, a health insurance CEO who gave around $40,000 to
Republicans in 2016.  In response to the bonuses, Pennsylvania
State Senate ranking member Joe Scarnati requested an audit by
Pennsylvania's independent auditor general, as the Democratic
National Convention Host Committee used a $10 million grant in
state funds to win the convention bid and host it. [GN]


DENVER, CO: Court Certifies Homeless Citizens Class
---------------------------------------------------
Emma Gannon, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in Denver granted a groundbreaking class
certification for all homeless Denver citizens who claim the city
wrongfully seized or destroyed their property.

The Denver Homeless Out Loud, a nonprofit, wrote on its website
that the ruling established "one of the largest class actions of
poor and dispossessed persons in U.S. history," with at least
3,000 homeless people in the class.

The Aug. 25, 2016, lawsuit from lead plaintiff Raymond Lyall
claims the City of Denver, its police force, the Department of
Public Works and Denver County Jail work-release inmates seized
and destroyed blankets, tents, and sentimental items in mass
"homeless sweeps" meant to push the homeless out of the city.

The sweeps started after the City Council passed an urban camping
ban in May 2012, which prohibited homeless people from sleeping in
city parks, on sidewalks, and along the South Platte River.

The original six homeless plaintiffs said in the complaint that
the sweeps could "only be described as cruel."

"These sweeps that have been ratified and implemented by
defendants not only violate plaintiffs' rights, but our concept of
a just society," according to the complaint.

Denver filed a response in October 2016, saying the class was not
adequately defined and should not be certified.

"Plaintiffs' proposed class definition is impermissibly broad,
vague, and indefinite,"  the response said. "It does not define a
particular group, harmed at a particular time and location, in a
particular way. Instead, contending that Denver has a policy of
'seizing and summarily destroying' the property of homeless people
in Denver, plaintiffs seek to certify a class that would contain
every person now homeless in Denver and anyone who may in future
become homeless, without any objective criteria to identify the
class members whose personal belongings have been or will be taken
by Denver employees."

But U.S. District Judge William Martinez found that the class
could prevail on its claims.

"Denver may succeed in proving that all of the alleged sweeps were
different and that no homeless person's belongings were
confiscated and discarded in an unconstitutional manner," the
April 27 order says.

"But plaintiffs claim to the contrary, and a number of them have
submitted declarations attesting that they personally witnessed
the conduct that they allege."

Martinez did not buy the city's argument that the class numbers
are insufficient for certification.

"The homeless population in Denver is likewise 'shifting,' and the
Court is satisfied that it exists in sufficient numbers to
reasonably infer that a sufficiently numerous subset have been and
will be exposed to enforcement of the camping ban in a way that
plaintiffs claim is unconstitutional," the order states.

The plaintiffs estimate that of the 5,500 homeless people in the
Denver Metro area, at least 3,000 have been mistreated during the
sweeps.

Martinez, however, denied the plaintiffs' proposed formula to
determine each class member's damages. While the plaintiffs
proposed a means of calculating the average loss experienced by
each member through the seizure of belongings, the destruction of
priceless items and mental and emotional suffering, Martinez said
the court could not reduce the damages "to some sort of average
per class member," as it would "depriv(e) Denver of the
opportunity to challenge any particular class member's claim."

The class is represented by Jason Flores-Williams of Santa Fe, New
Mexico.

The case is captioned, RAYMOND LYALL, GARRY ANDERSON, THOMAS
PETERSON, FREDRICK JACKSON, BRIAN COOKS, and WILLIAM PEPPER,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF DENVER, a municipal corporation,
Defendant., Case 1:16-cv-02155-WJM-CBS (D. Colo.).  Judge William
J. Martinez presides over the case.


DICK'S SPORTING: July 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. ("Dick's" or the
"Company") (NYSE:DKS) and certain of its officers.   The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-03680, is on behalf of a
class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Dick's securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused
by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Dick's securities between
March 7, 2017 and May 15, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have
until July 17, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and number of shares purchased.

Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is a sporting goods retailer that
offers a broad selection of brand name sporting goods equipment,
apparel, and footwear.  The Company owns and operates Golf Galaxy,
Inc., Field & Stream and other specialty chain stores.

Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) Dick's had overstated its
adjusted EBITDA amounts; (ii) accordingly, the Company lacked
effective internal controls; and (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, Dick's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On May 12, 2017, Dick's issued a Current Report filed on Form 8-
K/A with the Securities and Exchange Commission, reporting that a
"computation error resulted in a $23.4 million overstatement of
Adjusted EBITDA amounts for both the 13 weeks and 52 weeks ended
January 28, 2017".

On this news, Dick's share price fell $2.62 or 5.22%, over the
following two trading days, to close at $47.57 on May 15, 2017.

On May 16, 2017, Dick's announced that sales at its existing
stores in the first quarter of 2016 had fallen short of forecasts
and advised investors that the Company planned to scale back new
store openings in 2018 and 2019.

On this news, Dick's share price fell as much as $6.82, or 14.34%,
during intraday trading on May 16, 2017.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. [GN]


EASYSAVER: Rewards Litigation Settlement Challenged
---------------------------------------------------
Ted Frank and Adam Schulman of Competitive Enterprise Institute
state that "Academics don't often have the opportunity to publish
an article opining on the correctness of a pending appeal, but our
appeal in EasySaver Rewards Litigation, challenging a settlement
that pays attorneys nearly $9 million and the class only $225,000
and nearly worthless coupons, is one such case.  The wheels of
justice turn slowly in the Ninth Circuit, which is unfairly
overwhelmed with thousands of appeals a year.  But even for the
Ninth Circuit, this case is remarkable.  What began as a
straightforward objection in 2012 to an absurdly bad settlement is
now entering its fifth year of litigation and second appeal at the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; we filed our twelfth brief in the
case May 1.  The first Ninth Circuit appeal ended in 2015 with the
Court asking the district court to take a second look instead of
simply striking down the settlement.  The hint was strong that the
original approval was wrong, and that the Court was providing the
district court a face-saving device to evaluate the settlement
again under more recent precedent and avoid a published decision
criticizing its reasoning.  But on remand, the district court came
to the same result, even in the face of new evidence of the
coupons' worthlessness, so we're back before the Ninth Circuit to
get the opinion we should have gotten the first time around."

"When we filed our opening merits brief in this second go-round
earlier this month, we had the privilege of citing Fordham
University Law Professor Howard Erichson's cutting-edge article
not merely for its astute but abstract legal principles, but also
because Erichson singled out this very settlement as a poster-
child of class action settlement abuse.  He wondered explicitly
'how class counsel could straight-facedly ask a judge' to value
this settlement as it did, 'or how a district court could agree to
do so.'

"Professor Erichson is alluding to how to value $20-off coupons
redeemable for bouquets of flowers and other sundry overpriced
gifts on the defendant's websites such as Proflowers.com.  Class
counsel went to the court and said all you have to do is multiply
the $20 face value with the 1.3 class members that will be
receiving the coupon via email, and ta-da! . . . you have a value
of nearly $26 million. And so, by the way, don't feel bad about
awarding us the nearly $9 million in fees that we are asking for.

"But wait . . . the coupons expire in a year? You say the coupons
can't be redeemed during Christmas? Or Mother's Day? Or
Valentine's Day? And wait . . . you say the defendant already
continuously offers 20%-off coupons to the general public that
cannot be combined with these coupons? But wait . . . you say
similar coupons from the defendant sell at discounts of 93% to
face value on Ebay? And what, you also say there's a provision in
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 that requires the court to
wait to value the coupons until it sees how many are actually
redeemed? Maybe it's not a $26 million benefit after all. In fact,
it's probably not even a $1 million benefit.

"Nevertheless, the district court has twice preferred class
counsel's face-value methodology, prompting both Professor
Erichson's criticism and our two appeals.  See, if you call a
coupon an 'e-credit,' settling parties can magically wave their
hands and argue (again with the impressive straight face) that the
coupon isn't a "coupon" subject to statutory limitations on
settlements that provide for a recovery of coupons -- even when
the same instrument with fewer restrictions was called a 'coupon'
in the complaint.  We've previously spoken with the New York Times
about similar shenanigans in coupon settlements, and have won two
of the leading federal appellate cases on coupon settlement
abuses, Inkjet and Redman v. RadioShack.  And we're grateful that
a bipartisan coalition of thirteen state attorneys general have
weighed in on the coupon question on our side, a number that we're
reliably told will be larger if this issue somehow rises again.

"But remarkably, the shell game over coupons isn't even the only
fast one class counsel plays at the expense of their clients in
this case.  San Diego-area class counsel got the San Diego federal
judge to let them use the settlement to double-dip at the class's
expense by giving away nearly $3 million of nationwide class
members' money to San Diego area universities and law schools in
the name of 'cy pres,' even though 99.8% of class members are
getting no cash from the settlement at all.  It just so happens
that lead class counsel's alma mater is University of San Diego
Law School, one of the three recipients. Adding insult to injury,
the class's contributions to those universities will be used to
endow professorships named after the defendant.

"Isn't that just what a class member in the 99% of the country
that doesn't live in San Diego would want? First, scam him out of
eighteen bucks a month by enrolling him in a bogus online rewards
program and then redress that injury by boosting the San Diego
economy so California kids can learn the wisdom of the ProFlowers
Distinguished Professor of Internet Studies.  There's a reason
courts regularly bemoan the coincidence of a nationwide class's
money going to a geographically local set of charities in the
district court's backyard.  Hey, we won one of the leading
appellate cases on the question of whether money that can go to
the class should instead go to a local charity, too, but the
district court decided the intervening precedent while the appeal
was pending wasn't to be considered at all.

"Professor Erichson is right that this settlement doesn't pass the
laugh test.  Of the actual $12.5 million of real money changing
hands in this settlement, somehow only $225,000 is making its way
to the class members for whose benefit the case was brought in the
first place.  Few settlements this large are worse and so
transparently constructed to benefit the attorneys at the expense
of their clients." [GN]


EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Loses Bid to Moot TCPA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq., of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article
for Lexology, wrote that on May 8, 2017, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a
ruling rejecting Educational Testing Service's ("ETS") attempt to
moot a class action brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") through an offer of judgment.  The TCPA
fax class action complaint alleges that ETS sent out over 17,000
unsolicited and solicited fax advertisements without including
proper statutory opt-out language.  The class representative
received one fax advertisement from ETS which, as alleged by the
plaintiff, violated the TCPA in six separate ways.  Prior to the
Court deciding the plaintiff's motion for class certification, ETS
sent the plaintiff a certified check for $10,000, which defendant
believed was the maximum relief that the named plaintiff could
obtain.  Plaintiff's counsel, however, rejected the payment, and
stated that the maximum relief that the plaintiff could recover
would be $10,500.  Thereafter, ETS filed a motion with the Court,
seeking to deposit $10,500 with the Court, and requesting that the
Court enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against ETS,
with injunctive relief, thus dismissing the entire TCPA fax class
action.  The Court painstakingly analyzed a morass of legal
precedent in an attempt to answer whether or not ETS's actions
were significant enough to moot the named plaintiff's claims and,
thereby, warrant dismissal of the entire action.  After a thorough
analysis, the Court exercised its discretion and denied ETS's
motion.

Why Was ETS's Offer of Judgment Insufficient to Defeat the TCPA
Fax Class Action?

In arriving at its decision to deny ETS's motion, the Court
reviewed several Supreme Court and Second Circuit decisions.  The
Court relied heavily on a United States Supreme Court decision
which considered whether it had appellate jurisdiction to review a
lower court's denial of class certification after the defendant at
issue had tendered complete individual relief to the plaintiff
following denial of class certification.  In that case, the
Supreme Court reasoned that it did possess such jurisdiction
because the plaintiff still retained an "economic interest in
class certification," specifically, the "desire to shift part of
the costs of litigation to those who will share in its benefits if
the class is certified and ultimately prevails."

Early last year, we blogged about the United States Supreme
Court's ruling that an unaccepted offer of judgment cannot nullify
a purported class action.  Since that decision, defendants in TCPA
class action cases have attempted to rely on dicta and the dissent
in that case to find ways to successfully moot a putative
plaintiff's claims.  Although some attempts have been successful,
courts throughout the country have largely held that unaccepted
offers of judgment cannot defeat a class action lawsuit. [GN]


ESKIMO INSULATION: Faces "Molina" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR MOLINA, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ESKIMO INSULATION, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01430 (S.D. Tex., May 9, 2017),
alleges that Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked
over 40 hours per week and Defendant failed to properly compensate
said employees for hours worked over 40 hours per week at a rate
of time-and-a-half their regular rate.

Defendant operates a spray foam insulation company in Houston,
Texas. Defendant employed Plaintiff as a driver.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
     KENNARD RICHARD P.C.
     2603 Augusta Dr., 14th Floor
     Houston, TX 77057
     Phone: (713) 742-0900
     Fax: (713) 742-0951
     E-mail: alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com

        - and -

     Jose E. Galvan, Esq.
     KENNARD RICHARD P.C.
     2603 Augusta Dr., Ste. 1450
     Houston, TX 77057
     Phone: (713) 742-0900
     Fax: (713) 742-0951
     E-mail: jose.galvan@kennardlaw.com


EXXON MOBIL: Manko Gold Comments on 8th Circuit's Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Diana A. Silva, Esq. -- dsilva@mankogold.com -- of Manko Gold
Katcher & Fox, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district
court's ruling to decertify a class action filed by landowners for
releases from Exxon's 850-mile Pegasus Pipeline that crosses four
states from Texas to Illinois.  The case, Webb, et al. v. Exxon
Mobil Corp., et al., Dkt. No. 15-2879 (8th Cir., May 11, 2017),
was filed by a group of landowners who claimed that Exxon
materially breached the terms of their right-of-way easement
agreements by allegedly failing to inspect, maintain, repair, and
replace the pipeline, which was originally installed in the mid-
1940s.  At various times since the 1980s, the pipeline had
releases in Texas, Arkansas, and Missouri, which the plaintiffs
claim resulted in damage to their properties.  The plaintiffs
sought to rescind their right-of-way easement agreements and force
Exxon to remove or replace the entire pipeline, or in the
alternative, to be paid damages for breach of contract and
diminution in property value.

A prerequisite to any class action is that the class satisfies
four elements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a):  (1)
the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impractical ("numerosity"); (2) questions of law or fact are
common to the class ("commonality"); (3) claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of
the class ("typicality"); and, (4) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class
("adequacy").  In addition to these four elements, here,
plaintiffs sought class certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which
further requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that "questions of law
or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members," the so-called "predominance"
test.

Despite initially certifying the class, at the summary judgment
stage the district court reversed its decision and decertified the
class.  The district court determined that the nature of the
plaintiffs' claims against Exxon were "more nuanced" than
originally presented, and that plaintiffs' claims could not
satisfy the commonality element because Exxon's actions on each
individual plaintiff's property would "necessarily devolve into a
parcel-by-parcel analysis of whether Exxon breached the individual
easement."

The Eighth Circuit agreed and rejected plaintiffs' arguments that
the commonality element was satisfied because the same right-of-
way easement agreements governed the entire length of the pipeline
or because Exxon operated the pipeline as "one continuous unit."
Rather, the Court found that determining whether Exxon breached
its contractual obligations to each individual plaintiff
necessarily would vary based on each property's location, the
location of the pipeline, and the effect of any releases that may
have occurred on each property.  As the Circuit court noted,
"[e]ven if Exxon's decisions concerning the transportation of
contents throughout the 850-mile pipeline can be considered
uniform, the effect is not."  The Eighth Circuit also held that
the plaintiffs could not meet the predominance requirement of Rule
23(b)(3), because too many individual issues -- such as each
property's unique features and condition, the presence of
groundwater, and real estate valuation -- would predominate over
any issues common to the entire class.  Finally, certification was
rejected because the proposed class asserted claims sounding in
contract, property, and tort law, which would require the court to
apply and interpret law from four different states -- Arkansas,
Illinois, Texas, and Missouri -- which could lead to potential
conflicts among each state's laws.

Obtaining class certification in an environmental spill or
disposal case is difficult under the best of circumstances, with
issues of plume delineation and the extent of injuries posing
significant hurdles for plaintiffs' counsel.  Thus, the plaintiffs
in Webb took an ambitious position from the start, one that was
only temporarily successful.  The Eighth Circuit's decision will
certainly give counsel in future actions some pause before rushing
headlong into seeking certification of a large, diverse, and
potentially unwieldy class. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Review of Denial to Dismiss "Brickman" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Facebook, Inc., filed an appeal from an order denying
its motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled COLIN R. BRICKMAN,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals v. FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-00751-TEH, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The appellate case is captioned as Colin Brickman v. Facebook,
Inc., Case No. 17-80080, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

The questions presented to the Ninth Circuit are:

   (a) Does the TCPA definition of an ATDS require a plaintiff to
       show that a defendant used "equipment which has the
       capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be
       called, using a random or sequential number generator," or
       merely equipment that can dial a number from a list with a
        computer software program?

   (b) Does the content-based TCPA survive strict scrutiny on its
       face or as applied to the birthday reminder text message
       at issue here?

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District
Judge Thelton E. Henderson denied Facebook's motion to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint in the case.

Facebook owns and operates the online social networking service,
http://www.facebook.com/. Facebook employed computer software to
send Birthday Announcement Texts to users.  On December 15, 2015,
Facebook, through its short code SMS number 32665033, texted Mr.
Brickman's cell phone number an unsolicited Birthday Announcement
Text stating "Today is Jim Stewart's birthday."  Although Mr.
Brickman supplied Facebook his cell phone number, which is
associated to his Facebook page, he indicated in the Notification
Settings of his Facebook account, prior to receiving the text
message, that he did not want to receive any text messages from
Facebook, and also did not activate text messaging for his cell
phone.

In his order, Judge Henderson opined that the Court finds that Mr.
Brickman has sufficiently alleged a violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and that the TCPA is constitutional.
Accordingly Facebook's Motion to Dismiss was denied.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent Colin R. Brickman is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Kristen Law Sagafi, Esq.
          Martin D. Quinones, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: ksagafi@tzlegal.com
                  mquinones@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

Defendant-Petitioner Facebook, Inc., is represented by:

          Andrew B. Clubok, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4800
          E-mail: andrew.clubok@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Susan E. Engel, Esq.
          Devin S. Anderson, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 Fifteenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5000
          E-mail: susan.engel@kirkland.com
                  devin.anderson@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth L. Deeley, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 439-1400
          E-mail: elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com

Intervenor The United States of America is represented by:

          Michael Raab, Esq.
          Nicolas Y. Riley, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          CIVIL DIVISION, APPELLATE STAFF
          950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-4053
          Facsimile: (202) 514-9405
          E-mail: michael.raab@usdoj.gov


FEDEX: Workers File Class Action of Pension Calculation Errors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that two FedEx
mechanics have accused the shipping company of short-changing
thousands of its workers nationwide who took military leave to
serve in the National Guard and reserves by contributing less to
their pensions than they were entitled to.

In a proposed class action filed in federal court in Nashville,
Tennessee on May 12, Clifton Cunningham and Don Teed claimed that
FedEx did not apply the right formula to calculate their pension
contributions as required by the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), a law governing civilian
employers' duties to uniformed service members. [GN]


FEDERAL EXPRES: Outten Golden Leads Veterans' Pension Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two mechanics employed by Federal Express Corp. (FedEx) filed a
nationwide class action lawsuit alleging that the international
logistics and transportation company violated the pension rights
of thousands of its employees who took military leave to serve in
the National Guard and Reserves, according to Outten & Golden LLP
and the Law Office of Joe Napiltonia.

The lawsuit comes just days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit held that the formula FedEx applied to make
pension contributions for employees who take military leave is "at
odds" with federal law.  The Sixth Circuit case is Savage v.
Federal Express Corp. et al, No. 16-5244 (6th Cir. 2017).

The class action complaint filed on May 16 alleges that since 2002
FedEx mechanics and other employees who regularly earn overtime
pay have been deprived of pension contributions mandated by the
federal Uniformed Services Employment & Reemployment Rights Act
(USERRA).

The lead plaintiffs are Clifton Cunningham, a FedEx mechanic who
works in Tennessee, and Don Teed, a FedEx mechanic who works in
Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs and proposed class are represented by Peter Romer-
Friedman of Outten & Golden LLP, a law firm that represents
workers in class action litigation, and Joseph Napiltonia of the
Law Office of Joseph Napiltonia, a firm owned and operated by a
former Navy SEAL.

Peter Romer-Friedman of Outten & Golden LLP's Washington, D.C.
office said, "Service members deserve to receive the full pension
benefits they have earned. Through this lawsuit, we hope to
deliver justice for thousands of reservists who honorably served
in the military."

Joseph Napiltonia of the Law Office of Joe Napiltonia, in
Franklin, Tenn., said "I applaud Clif Cunningham and Don Teed for
having the courage to stand up for their fellow veterans and co-
workers."

The case is Cunningham v. Federal Express Corp. et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-00845 (M.D. Tenn.). [GN]


FERNANDEZ BROTHERS: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that employees have filed a class-action lawsuit against Fernandez
Brothers Inc., citing alleged unpaid wages and violation of
minimum wage and workers' compensation laws.

Regina Gonzales Gomez and Fidel Guerrero Comofort filed a
complaint on April 4 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging that the defendants failed to pay
them fair wages.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they
suffered damages from not being paid minimum wages and from not
being paid all wages upon termination. The plaintiffs hold the
defendants responsible for allegedly failing to provide adequate
meals and rest breaks to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek damages for unpaid
minimum wages, liquidated damages, unpaid rest period wages,
unpaid premium wages, restitution, penalties for inaccurate wage
statements, unpaid wages, actual damages, statutory damages,
interest, all legal fees and any other relief as the court deems
just.  They are represented by Gregory N. Karasik --
greg@karasiklawfirm.com -- of Karasik Law Firm in Los Angeles.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 5:17-cv-01863-HRL [GN]


FERRING PHARMACEUTICALS: More Plaintiffs Added in Bravelle Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deb Hipp, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
attorneys representing plaintiffs in a class action against
Ferring Pharmaceuticals concerning its infertility drug Bravelle
have added more plaintiffs to the lawsuit, including an
organization providing medical benefits and prescription drugs to
Philadelphia city workers.

On April 11, 2017, plaintiff attorneys in the class action Nicole
Keith et al v. Ferring Pharmaceuticals et al, Case No. 1:15-cv-
10381, US District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division filed a third amended petition, adding five individual
plaintiffs along with the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, District Council 47 Health and Welfare Fund,
which provides health insurance benefits to employees of the City
of Philadelphia.

The class action was filed in November 2015 by 13 plaintiffs just
a month after Ferring voluntarily recalled all lots of the
infertility medication Bravelle, the brand name version of the
generic drug urofollitropin, which was sold in the US between
March 2014 and October 2015.

Bravelle stimulates egg maturation and multiple follicular
development in women who are unable to produce and release eggs.
Bravelle is often used in intrauterine insemination and in vitro
fertilization, which are reproductive technologies.

Class plaintiffs claimed that Ferring failed to take necessary
steps to make sure that recalled lots met the pharmaceutical
company's potency representations for Bravelle.  In addition, the
class seeks damages for out-of-pocket expenses to buy the drug and
payments for fertility treatments using Bravelle.

Following its Bravelle recall, Ferring is offering reimbursement
for out-of-pocket expenses to purchase Bravelle but not for costs
of fertility treatments.  Among class plaintiffs, out-of-pocket
costs ranged from $2,500 to as much as $35,000 each.

"Had plaintiffs known prior to purchase that the Bravelle they
bought suffered from sub-potency issues, or even that it had the
potential to suffer from sub-potency issues, they would not have
purchased the drug and would not have paid the costs associated
with the related medical treatment of which Bravelle was an
integral part," according to the lawsuit.

Judge St. Eve also extended the deadline to May 12, 2017 for
Ferring Pharmaceuticals to amend pleadings and join parties to the
class action. [GN]


FESTIVA DEVELOPMENT: "Mey" Suit Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA MEY, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons
and entities similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FESTIVA
DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., and ALLEN MARKETING GROUP, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00058-FPS (N.D.W.Va, May 8, 2017),
seeks to permanently enjoin the Defendants from engaging in or
relying upon telemarketing, or, alternatively, from engaging in or
relying upon telemarketing that violates the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

The Plaintiff brings this action under the TCPA, a federal statute
enacted in response to widespread public outrage about the
proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices.

The Defendant sent Ms. Mey and other putative class members
automated telemarketing calls without prior express written
consent. The Defendant placed the calls under an agreement with
Defendant Festiva Development Group, Inc., who hired Allen
Marketing to generate new business through telemarketing. Because
the call to Ms. Mey was transmitted using technology capable of
generating thousands of similar calls per day, Ms. Mey sues on
behalf of a proposed nationwide class of persons who received
illegal telephone calls from Allen Marketing.

Festiva connects travelers with interval ownership resorts for
luxurious vacations at destination getaways in the United States
and Caribbean.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Barrett, Esq.
          Ryan McCune Donovan, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345 6555
          E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
                  rodonovan@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
          99 High St., Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (508) 221 1510
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
                  anthony@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655 1415
          Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Antista" Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is titled as LYNN ANTISTA, On behalf of
herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL
RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1 TO
10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03567-WJM-MF (D.N.J., May 18,
2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William J. Martini.

Financial Recovery offers collection services to mid-size
companies across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl.
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273 7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273 7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


FORTY NINERS: Bid to Dismiss ADA Class Action Challenged
--------------------------------------------------------
Fola Akinnibi, writing for Law360, reports that a married couple
suing the San Francisco 49ers and the city of Santa Clara,
California, for alleged violations of disability discrimination
laws asked a federal judge not to toss their suit, arguing on
May 15 that a nondisabled person has standing to bring claims for
injuries suffered while helping a disabled person.

Husband and wife Abdul and Priscilla Nevarez asked a California
federal judge not to dismiss their proposed class action claims,
arguing that the Americans with Disabilities Act offers standing
for nondisabled individuals who are assisting disabled
individuals, according to the opposition motion.  The couple is
suing the National Football League, the city and the Santa Clara
Stadium Authority over the configuration and ticket policies at
Levi's Stadium, which serves primarily as the home of the 49ers,
do not provide full and equal access as required by ADA and
California civil rights laws.

While accompanying her husband to the game, Mrs. Nevarez was
excluded from various areas of the stadium, physical fatigue from
the insufficient facilities and emotional distress. All of these
claims fall within the purview of the ADA, because she was harmed
while assisting a disabled person, the opposition said.

"Here, Ms. Nevarez alleges that she was denied full and equal
enjoyment of Levi's Stadium and of events that she wanted to
attend at Levi's because of being forced to struggle with barriers
and assist her disabled husband with overcoming those barriers,"
the opposition said.  "Accordingly, Ms. Nevarez has suffered
cognizable injuries and stated a valid claim against defendants
for associational discrimination under the ADA."

Representatives for both parties did not immediately respond on
May 16 to requests for comment.

This comes a few months after the defendants moved to dismiss the
case, arguing that Priscilla Nevarez does not have standing to
bring ADA and similar claims on the basis that she "assisted" or
"supported" Mr. Nevarez.  They argued that even if her claims were
looked at as retaliation or interference claims, the allegations
are insufficient.

The Nevarez's complaint alleged they were unable to purchase
wheelchair-accessible seats to 49ers football games over the phone
and that they did not have access to parking lots close to the
stadium. They said they were able to obtain tickets from friends
who had season tickets -- who were able to exchange them for
accessible seats -- but then had to make an onerous trip to the
box office to pick them up, forcing them to miss out on tailgates
and suffer several other inconveniences, in part due to the
configuration of the parking lots.

The Nevarezes are represented by Catherine Cabalo and Adam Wolf --
awolf@prwlegal.com -- of Peiffer Rosca Wolf Abdullah Carr & Kane;
Linda Dardarian -- ldardarian@gbdhlegal.com -- and Andrew Lee --
alee@gbdhlegal.com -- of Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho; Guy
Wallace -- gwallace@schneiderwallace.com -- Sarah Colby and
Jennifer Uhrowczik of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns
LLP.

The 49ers, the City of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara Stadium
Authority are represented by Matthew S. Conant, Maria M. Lampasona
-- mlampasona@llcllp.com -- and Alexei N. Offill-Klein --
aoffillklein@llcllp.com -- of Lombardi Loper & Conant LLP

The case is Abdul Nevarez v. Forty Niners Football Co. LLC, case
number 5:16-cv-07013, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. [GN]


FRESNO, CA: Residents Sue over Contaminated Water
-------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
eight Fresno, California, residents claim their water is
contaminated with almost three times more lead found in the Flint,
Michigan, crisis, because water from a treatment facility is
corroding their pipelines.

Northeast Fresno homeowners Jackie Flannery, Guadalupe Meza, Ronda
Rafidi, Shann Conner, Marirose Larkin, Patricia Wallace-Rixman,
Harry Rixman and Kelly Unruh filed a class action in Fresno,
Calif., state court against the city of Fresno, Vulcan
Construction & Maintenance, and Measurement Control Systems on May
17, claiming conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of contract,
and negligence.

"This case shines a spotlight on how the city, rather than
protecting its residents from the dangers of lead in its drinking
water, actively promoted, designed and approved changes to its
water supply systems that it knew would likely lead to the risk of
corrosion and leaching of metals in its piping, including the
introduction of iron and lead into residents' drinking water," the
38-page complaint states.

Though only a few homeowners are named as plaintiffs, the lawsuit
is on behalf of all residents of Northeast Fresno, plaintiff's
attorney Brian Kabatek told Courthouse News.  He likened the issue
to eminent domain, where the government can legally take property
for projects like highways. But here, the taking was illegal, he
said.

"The government engaged in a constitutional violation. Its conduct
is depriving people of their right to the water they're paying for
and is damaging their pipes and plumbing," Kabatek said.

"If people have galvanized pipes in homes that were built before
the water composition changed, those pipes were used to [that]
chemical balance. Changing it harmed them," he added.

Fresno officials did not immediately return emailed requests for
comment.

In the past, Fresno got its drinking water only from wells. But
pervasive drought conditions and expansive population growth
forced it to consider adding new water sources to prevent
overdrafting its groundwater reserves.

To that end, it brought the Northeast Surface Water Treatment
Facility online in 2004. The facility treats water from the Kings
and San Joaquin rivers received through the Enterprise Canal,
distributing 20 million gallons of water each day to thousands of
homes in Northeast Fresno.

In contrast to the hard, heavily mineralized groundwater from the
wells, surface water from the Enterprise Canal is softer and has
lower mineral, chloride, and sulfide content.

The residents claim that the city knew as far back as 1998 that
mixing the two was a bad idea.

Before building the facility, Fresno hired a consultant to analyze
the consequences of blending groundwater with surface water. The
consultant concluded changing the water chemistry would likely
strip the zinc lining from galvanized pipes, causing water
discoloration and contamination from lead and other toxic metals.

Despite knowing that over 50 percent of Fresno households were
equipped with galvanized piping, Fresno greenlighted the facility.
Almost immediately residents began complaining about water quality
problems, but the city swept them under the rug, denying
responsibility and claiming the water was safe, the plaintiffs
say.

Nevertheless, the city has "provide[d] a select and favored number
of residents" with safe bottled water to drink and use for cooking
and showering since 2005 -- an offer it did not extend or even
mention to the plaintiffs, they say.

After years of ignoring residents' complaints, Fresno finally
launched an investigation in 2016. Testing revealed that water
numerous homes, including those belonging to the plaintiffs, had
levels of lead far above the allowable limits, according to the
complaint.

Further analysis from city consultants confirmed treated surface
water from the facility was to blame.

When these results went public, Fresno feigned surprise and
claimed it had only learned about the problem that January,
according to the complaint. The plaintiffs claim this is a bald-
faced lie.

"The city ignored irrefutable evidence, before Jan. 16, that the
water supplied to residents of Northeast Fresno was not and is not
potable or safe, and exposed and continues to expose these
residents, including plaintiffs and class members, to toxic metals
such as lead, which caused and continues to cause residents to
suffer property damage, other economic losses, and the risk of
serious health hazards," the complaint states.

Attorney Kabatek said many people thought Fresno would step up and
take responsibility after the test results came in, but those
hopes were soundly dashed.

"Frankly, we thought the city would do the right thing and make an
offer of repair. But since last year, they've dug in their heels.
I think it mushroomed, and became a bigger problem than they
thought," he said.

Kabatek said the ultimate goal of the lawsuit is to make the city
pay for all class members to have their homes re-piped and
repaired.  He doesn't know how many people are affected, but
estimates it's in the thousands.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution,
disgorgement, and an injunction preventing the city from
continuing to mix surface water into groundwater supplies for
Northeast Fresno residents.

Kabatek is a partner at Kabatek Brown Kellner of Los Angeles.

The case is captioned, JACKIE FLANNERY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated; GUADALUPE MEZA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated; RONDA RAFIDI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; SHANN
CONNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; MARIROSE LARKINS, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated; PATRICIA WALLACE-RIXMAN aka PATTY WALLACE-
RIXMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; HARRY RIXMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; KELLY UNRUH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF FRESNO, a
municipal corporation; VULCAN CONSTRUCTION X MAINTENANCE, INC., a
California corporation; MEASUREMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS, a California
corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No:
17CECG01724, in the Superior Court of the State Of California, for
the County of Fresno, May 17, 2017.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
Christopher B. Noyes, Esq.
Joana Fang, Esq.
KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
644 S. Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 217-5000
Facsimile: (213) 217-5010
E-mail: bsk@kbk1awyers.com
        cn@kbk1awyers.corn
        jf@kbklawyers.com

     - and -

Frank M. Pitre, Esq.
Julie L. Fieber, Esq.
John P. Thyken, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: fpitre@cpmlegal.com
        jfieber@cpmlegal.com
        jthyken@cpmlegal.com

     - and -

Michael E. Gatto, Esq.
VAN BLOIS & ASSOCIATES
7677 Oakport Street, Suite 565
Oakland, CA 94621
Telephone: (510) 635-1284
Facsimile: (510) 635-1516
E-mail: mgatto@vanbloislaw.com


FYRE MEDIA: Faces "Daly" Lawsuit Alleging Misrepresentation
-----------------------------------------------------------
SEAN DALY, EDWARD IVEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BILLY MCFARLAND, an individual;
JEFFREY ATKINS p/k/a JA RULE, an individual; FYRE MEDIA, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive;
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03461 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2017),
alleges that the Defendants extensively promoted their "Fyre
Festival" as an "once-in-a-lifetime musical experience" and "the
cultural experience of the decade," to take place on a private
island in the Bahamas once owned by Pablo Escobar. Unfortunately
none of those representations were true and Plaintiffs and the
thousands of other festival-goers who arrived on the island were
instead trapped in a massive disaster area.

The case raises allegations of negligent misrepresentation, breach
of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, unjust enrichment, and violation of the New York General
Business Law.

Fyre Media, Inc. is in the entertainment business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920
     New York, NY 10168
     Phone: 212 682 5340
     Fax: 212 884 0988
     E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

        - and -

     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Marc L. Godino, Esq.
     Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Fax: (310) 201-9160
     Email: mgodino@glancylaw.com


FYRE MEDIA: Looks for Miracle Amidst Suits Over Cancelled Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Parisi at Variety reports Fyre Festival co-founder Billy
McFarland has initiated talks with a crisis management team at FTI
Consulting about managing his battered public image, which took
another hit on May 11 with a sixth class action suit filed in New
York. That brings the total number of claims against the Bahamian
music fest to ten. Between that pricey gambit and the need for
legal representation it appears thwarted festival goers may wind
up footing their antagonist's costly tactical response with coin
from ticket purchases.

Although reports of missed payments to vendors and staff are
rampant, and McFarland looks to be on shaky financial footing, as
a reputation manager at a competing firm put it, "They sold
several thousand tickets at $500 to $2,000 each. Somebody has some
money." Although Fyre never issued a figure for tickets sold, the
Wall Street Journal reported that 7,000 people were expected to
attend. At a median price of $1,250 per ticket, that's $8.75
million.

They will need every cent they can get their hands on; services
such as FTI's don't come cheap. With nearly 5,000 employees in 29
countries, they have a combat-readiness up to and including defcon
1, "nuclear war imminent."  The best crisis client is someone who
"is not getting a fair shake, or needs help getting their side of
the story out," an exec at a competing firm says. The worst?
"Someone who actually has screwed up badly. In that case, the only
thing to do is apologize and make good to everyone hurt. Between
the comments in Rolling Stone and Ja Rule tweeting out 'I'm not
responsible,' the 'Fyre team' as they tout themselves in their
sizzle deck, don't seem ready to do that," this observer notes.

Reputation Management Consultants CEO Eric Schiffer advises "the
best path is the truth. Brand yourself with transparency. The
public can be forgiving when you're accountable and show what
you've learned."  Screwing up is one thing. Intentional double-
dealing, as alleged in the ten lawsuits, is quite another.
Plaintiffs accuse the Fyre principals of deliberately concealing
the deteriorating state of things. Andrew Petrozziello's May 3
suit says ticket prices increased as the fest approached, even as
it became clear things were falling apart. Litigants Kenneth and
Emily Reel noticed changes to the website as early as March 28:
"No longer were the terms 'private flights' to be found as they
were replaced with the words 'complimentary round trip ticket.'"

Right now, all complaints are civil, but credible allegations of
large-scale consumer fraud open the door to an FBI investigation
and, potentially, criminal charges and an indictment.
Knowledgeable observers say that given the monies in question and
the visibility of the case, it's a foregone conclusion the feds
will eventually check in. "The FBI and the U.S. Attorney's office
have considerable discretion as to who and what to prosecute. They
will gather the evidence, they will evaluate it, and then they
will decide whether there's merit to bringing the charges," says
Nathan Hochman, a former federal prosecutor and partner at the
international law firm Morgan Lewis & Bockius.

It's unknown whether McFarland has secured an attorney (attempts
to reach him have been unsuccessful), but lawyers and image
management firms alike will be concerned about whether and how he
will pay. "Typically, when you have defendants like this, who are
likely to file bankruptcy, anyone who works with them will want
their money upfront," says a knowledgeable source.

The latest class action lawsuit was filed on May 11 in a Manhattan
federal court by Ritu Jutla, who purchased a $1,940 ticket and put
$600 on her currency wrist-band in addition to spending $930 on
round trip airfare to Florida.

When the plaintiff arrived on Fyre Island on April 27, she was
distressed that rather than luxury accommodations, she and other
guests found hundreds of tents that could "barely protect them
from the wind and rain." Jutla's suit goes on to describe
something that sounds like indigents with their noses against the
glass at a Skull and Bones frat party: "The tents were all
arranged around a huge villa filled with what appeared to be
wealthy white men, possibly organizers of the Festival, who would
not help Plaintiff or any of the other scared and confused Fyre
Festival attendees."

As an image, it is almost as iconic as the cafeteria sandwich
picture that went viral. "The thing everybody's going to remember
is those two sad pieces of cheese in the Styrofoam box. That and
the thatched-roof concierge desk," LiveStyle CEO Randy Phillips
tells Variety. He helped launch Coachella during his days as chief
executive at AEG and now produces some of the most lavish and
successful dance music festivals in the world. Phillips says the
first thing he thought when he heard about the Fyre debacle was,
"Why would anyone want to fly to see Ja Rule and Blink-182? Blink
is a fun band, but you can see them in your home town."

Schiffer said the event was only incidentally about the music,
that it was more stagecraft conjured by McFarland, who "understood
the mindset of a striving millennial that wants to reach a certain
level of self-regard. In promoting this event, he painted a
picture that allowed them to think they would get there." Ja Rule,
the celebrity in his circle, "gave him credibility."

Although from 2011 to 2013, Ja Rule served a three years
concurrent prison sentence for tax evasion and gun possession,
Schiffer sees him as an unwitting dupe in this situation. "I
suspect he was seduced, and thought it would all get handled,
because he's certainly not an operations guy. His role,
theoretically, was to promote and be part of it and enjoy it. I
doubt he expected it to be apocalyptic."

Whether or not McFarland did is something that will have to be
proven in court. "He had T-Rex-sized arrogance, you start with
that," Schiffer said. "He was reckless with promises and the
inability to deliver."

On May 12, TMZ and the New York Post both reported two additional
suits. One was filed by Oleg Itkin who claims to have lent the
Fyre founders $700,000 between January and April based on a
balance sheet documenting $31 million in assets as of January,
which he attached to his complaint. The second, from EHL Funding,
states a loan of $3 million was made on April 18. Of that,
$900,000 was reported returned in weekly installments, as agreed,
before Fyre failed to make payments beginning April 21.

"Was this systematic fraud or a guy who didn't take his
medication? A guy who truly believed he was going to pull it all
off and became unhinged?  In any of those scenarios his reputation
is in cinders," Schiffer said. "In some ways trying to be a Bill
Graham Productions, and in other ways a Gatsby, the difference
being Gatsby had the bank account. This guy didn't." [GN]


FYRE MEDIA: Social Media Influencers Could be Dragged Into Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Dickey at Mashable reports that with great influence comes
great accountability.

Mark Geragos, Esq. -- mark@geragos.com -- of Geragos & Geragos,
the Los Angeles-based power attorney behind the leading class
action suit against organizers of the infamous Fyre Festival, now
says his firm is investigating whether social media "influencers"
who hyped the disastrous event could be dragged into the ever-
expanding web of lawsuits.

"One of the things we're toying with is going after social
influencers who didn't comply with [Federal Trade Commission]
stuff so, that may be the next wave," Geragos said on The Adam
Carolla Show, where he's a regular guest.

A handful of models and socialites posted to Instagram and Twitter
about the festival -- or appeared in its bougier-than-thou
promotional video -- reportedly in exchange for free tickets and
other expected VIP treatment that, as we now know, never
materialized.

Geragos didn't name names, but by now we've all seen the posts
from a number of potential targets, including Hailey Rhode
Baldwin, Bella Hadid, Elsa Hosk, Amanda Riley and Emily
Ratajkowski.

According to Geragos, they didn't make it clear that they were
being compensated for their endorsement -- and that's where he
sees an opening.

"Social influencers  . . . .  end up getting paid to hype an
event; but if you're doing that, there's FTC rules as to what
you're supposed to disclose and not disclose. And I don't think
anybody did. So I've looked at that and wondered if that's an area
to go into but, we're still talking about that currently," he
said.

The notoriously bombastic Geragos could may just be saber-
rattling; it's not as if Fyre was some great windfall for the
influencers who believed the hype.

Riley (above) told The Hollywood Reporter that she was offered an
all-expenses-paid Fyre experience for "a couple of posts to help
them with marketing," but it didn't work out that way -- she was
stranded in Miami and never made it to the Bahamas.

"I got lucky since I didn't pay upfront for anything," she told
THR. "Worst case, I have to buy one flight back to New York. ...
I'm staying out of it because I'm kind of complete with it. My
friends and family are safe. And I didn't pay for anything. So I
just don't want anything to do with that company anymore or deal
with these people."

If Geragos pushes ahead with this, however, she may have no
choice.

Hey, at least she'll have plenty of company. [GN]


GOPRO INC: California Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that on
May 1, 2017, Judge Jon Tigar of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative
securities fraud class action against GoPro, Inc. ("GoPro" or the
"Company") and certain executives, in which plaintiffs alleged
that defendants made material misrepresentations about the
strength of GoPro's camera sales. Bodri v. GoPro, Inc., No. 16-cv-
00232-JST (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2017). The Court dismissed the claims,
stating that plaintiffs had taken defendants' statements out of
context and failed to point to any facts that made the statements
false, and that certain of the statements were non-actionable
"corporate puffery."  This decision adds to the body of cases that
caution against taking statements out of context and serves as a
reminder that conclusory allegations of falsity without supporting
facts will not survive dismissal.

GoPro is a consumer electronics company that develops mountable
and wearable cameras and related accessories for consumers to
capture footage while engaged in activities.  In July 2015, GoPro
introduced the Hero4 Session camera ("Session"). According to
plaintiffs, defendants allegedly made several false statements
regarding Session, including the "momentum" of its launch, its
sales trajectory, and its pricing stability that were not
consistent with GoPro's internal projections.

The Court rejected each of the claims. First, the Court found that
references to "terrific momentum" related to more products than
just Session and, in any event, that the specific reference to
Session's "momentum" was non-actionable corporate puffery.  The
Court also held that statements that Session's sales were "going
really well" and "improving" were not misleading because they were
tempered by cautionary statements, including the statement that
"it's a little hard for little old Session here, because it's
competing against the top two selling cameras in the world" and
statements that certain positive sales information was based on a
"small data set."  The Court also rejected allegations that
positive statements about sales were inconsistent with internal
sales forecasts because the complaint did not include sufficient
detail regarding the internal sales reports, such as who prepared
the reports or how specifically the sales deviated from the
reports.  The Court also held that statements relating to GoPro's
pricing stability were not false or misleading because (i) GoPro
was open about its pricing challenges with Session; (ii) the
specific, allegedly misleading statements regarding pricing
stability referred to the entire line of products and not just to
Session; and (iii) statements about past and present average
selling price could not be interpreted to be an "objective
assurance of future [pricing] stability." Lastly, with respect to
allegations that defendants issued false revenue guidance without
a reasonable basis and without meaningful cautionary language, the
Court found that (i) plaintiffs failed to allege facts that showed
that defendants had knowledge of the falsity of the guidance, and
(ii) the projections fell within the safe harbor for forward-
looking statements under the PSLRA because they were accompanied
by sufficient cautionary language.

The Court also concluded that plaintiffs failed to plead scienter
sufficiently because, when viewed holistically, the allegations in
the complaint did not overcome competing inferences that the
Company had simply miscalculated the demand for its new product.
In particular, the Court noted that GoPro had completed share
buybacks during the Class Period, which negated any inference of
intent. The Court granted GoPro's motion to dismiss without
prejudice, granting plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint
within 21 days. [GN]


GRAIN PROCESSING: Miner Barnhill Achieves Landmark Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a landmark environmental law ruling in Freeman v. Grain
Processing Corporation, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously upheld
class certification of Iowa state law nuisance, negligence and
trespass claims against a Muscatine corn wet mill.  This is the
second unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court since the case was
filed. (In 2014, the Court unanimously rejected the Company's
defense that the plaintiffs were preempted by the federal Clean
Air Act, holding that Iowa citizens had a right to pursue their
traditional Iowa claims in state court.)

Lead counsel for the class, Sarah Siskind -- ssiskind@lawmbg.com -
- and Scott Entin -- sentin@lawmbg.com -- of Miner, Barnhill &
Galland, P.C. (MBG), joined the Larew Law Office on the case in
2012 on behalf of eight named plaintiffs and thousands of their
neighbors.  The plaintiffs claim that persistent smoke, odor and
haze from the Grain Processing Corporation (GPC) plant interfered,
for years, with their ability to use and enjoy their properties.
The Supreme Court ruling allows them, finally, to move their case
to a classwide trial.

The plaintiffs' claims are based on Iowa law, which authorizes
private money damages for lost use and enjoyment of property.  The
class, originally certified by Muscatine County Judge Thomas
Reidel in 2015, includes nearly 2,000 households within 1.5 miles
from the plant, or roughly 4,000 neighbors.

"The ruling gives the Muscatine neighbors the green light they've
been waiting for to get their claims to trial," Ms. Siskind
explained. "It also demonstrates, for citizens everywhere, the
effectiveness of the class action as a tool for social justice."

Ms. Siskind said, "By allowing the neighbors to combine claims and
combine resources, the class action allows them to do what they
likely could not do alone -- use representative witnesses and
scientific evidence to prove neighborhood-wide harms, and proffer
formulaic methods for measuring damages."

On May 15, the Supreme Court sent the case back to Judge Reidel,
who will set the timetable for preparing the case for trial.

Siskind and Entin of MBG, with James Larew and Claire Diallo of
the Larew Law Office, are the residents' class counsel.

          About Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. (MBG)

Founded in 1971, MBG represents a broad range of individual,
government, non-profit and corporate clients with offices in
Chicago, Ill., and Madison, Wis. MBG has been fighting for the
public interest since its founding.  It is nationally known for
its class action practice in civil rights, employment rights,
voting rights, predatory lending, and more, as well as for its
complex litigation practice against government fraud.  The firm's
growing environmental practice includes individual and
organizational representations, regulatory enforcement, and
private law class actions to protect the environment, people and
their property from corporate polluters.

Distinguished MBG alumni include a MacArthur Foundation fellow,
several law professors at leading American universities, and
President Barack Obama. [GN]


HARVARD PILGRIM: Sued Over Wilderness Therapy Program Coverage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Harvard
Pilgrim Health Care Insurance Co. is the latest insurer to be sued
for allegedly failing to cover wilderness therapy programs for
troubled teens (Vorpahl v. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Ins. Co.,
D. Mass., No. 1:17-cv-10844-DJC, complaint filed 5/12/17).

The proposed class action, filed May 12 in a Massachusetts federal
court, argues that Harvard Pilgrim's failure to cover wilderness
therapy programs violates the federal mental health parity law,
which generally requires insurers to cover mental health
treatments on the same terms that they cover medical and surgical
care.  As a result of this violation, a Harvard Pilgrim plan
participant was forced to pay more than $16,000 out of pocket for
her teenage son's monthlong stay at Red Cliff Ascent in Utah, the
lawsuit alleges.

Wilderness therapy seeks to treat young people with behavioral or
substance abuse issues by combining traditional therapy methods
with outdoor activities such as hiking and camping -- often at a
cost of more than $500 per day for weekslong or monthslong treks.
This is the sixth proposed class action involving wilderness
therapy to be filed in the past year. Lawsuits are pending against
Cigna Corp., Oxford Health Insurance, Empire HealthChoice
Assurance and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts.  Anthem
Health Plans of Kentucky privately settled a similar lawsuit in
December.

Like the lawsuits against Cigna and Blue Cross, the case against
Harvard Pilgrim challenges an alleged blanket exclusion in the
insurer's health plan for wilderness therapy.  By contrast, Oxford
is accused of denying coverage for wilderness therapy under a plan
provision excluding treatments that aren't "evidence-based."

A spokeswoman for Harvard Pilgrim declined to comment on the
lawsuit, citing a general rule against discussing litigation
matters.

Jordan Lewis PA and Whatley Kallas LLP represent the health plan
participant who filed suit against Harvard Pilgrim. Jordan Lewis
has filed each of the five other proposed class actions seeking
coverage for wilderness therapy, and Whatley Kallas is involved in
the lawsuits against Cigna, Oxford and Blue Cross. [GN]


HIGHVELD SYNDICATION: Georgiou to Appeal Class Action Rulings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryk van Niekerk, writing for Moneyweb, reports that property
magnate Nic Georgiou has asked for leave to appeal against two
High Court judgments that found he not only acted unethically, but
also tried to abuse the court process to scuttle the class action
application by members of the Highveld Syndication Action Group
(HSAG).

The judgments were scathing of Mr. Georgiou's conduct, which saw
him secretly settle the claims of the six applicants who
represented 7 000 HSAG members in an application for certification
of the class action.

Several conditions were evidently attached to the secretive
settlements, including that the six applicants must appoint new
attorneys and withdraw their original application for a class
action certification -- a step that would in effect bring an end
to the class action application.

All of this was done without notifying the HSAG legal team.

In the application for leave to appeal, Mr. Georgiou sets out
several technical arguments as to why these judgments were
erroneous and that another court could come to another conclusion.
These technical arguments include that Theron & Partners did not
have a mandate to represent HSAG investors and that the law firm
did not comply with discovery notices to expose the identity and
financial contributions of HSAG members to Georgiou and
Orthotouch.

In the two judgments, Judge Mohamed Ismail of the South Gauteng
High Court said Mr. Georgiou's conduct was nothing more than "an
act to sabotage the claim of the other investors" while Judge
Murphy of the North Gauteng High Court said Georgiou abused the
court process to leave the other members of the class action "high
and dry".

Jacques Theron, legal representative of the HSAG, described the
application as a further delaying tactic to "to frustrate the
class action which increases the costs of the matters."  He added
that Mr. Georgiou and Orthotouch did "everything in their power to
delay matters to appeal, in one year filing six interlocutory
applications of which two were already dismissed by the Supreme
Court of Appeal."

Offers on the table

Mr. Georgiou also failed to settle the claims of around 800 of the
7 000 HSAG investors who accepted his 50% settlement offer. He
offered to repay 50% of the investors' original investments in ten
instalments over three-and-a-half years.

Georgiou has not provided reasons for not doing so and did not
respond to a Moneyweb request that he explain his decision.

HSAG steering committee member Johan Stander recently wrote a
letter to Georgiou regarding this development and stated that not
only did Georgiou not sign the agreements, he also reneged on a
commitment to table an improved offer by the end of April. Stander
confirmed that the HSAG had suspended further negotiations.

The offer was made to non-HSAG members too, but it is uncertain
how many investors were actually settled.  In a statement issued
on March 31, Orthotouch markets the offer but does not state what
the uptake is.

Individual settlements

Moneyweb has confirmed that Georgiou continues to target and
selectively settle the claims of individuals -- especially those
that publicly criticise him and Orthotouch.  For example:
Elna Visagie, a former HSAG Steering Committee member, who
actively promoted the class action to investors, supports
Mr. Georgiou after Orthotouch had offered her employment.

Mr. Georgiou and Ms. Visagie visited an investor in her home in
Cape Town to settle her claim.  This investor, who wanted to stay
anonymous, is a stern supporter of the HSAG and actively
criticises Georgiou and Orthotouch on social media platforms.

During this meeting, both Mr. Georgiou and Visagie offered to
settle her claim if she undertook to discontinue her public
criticism of Georgiou and Orthotouch.  The investor also said that
Georgiou and Ms. Visagie were extremely disparaging about the HSAG
and Mr. Theron and accused Mr. Theron of financially exploiting
HSAG members.

The investor alleges that Mr. Georgiou said he did not sign the
800 HSAG settlement agreements due to Theron & Partners "moving
the goalposts" by demanding that he pay exorbitant legal fees.

Jacques Theron rejected these allegations as false and misleading.
In a statement, the HSAG states: "The contribution for costs
requested so far is nominal and merely a fraction of the R4.8
billion case against Mr Nic Georgiou and others.  Thanks to the
size of the HSAG, and since August 2014, the HSAG has requested
less than R1 per syndication, per day from its members as
contribution towards legal costs.

Unfortunately, because most members are elderly people (with an
average age of 75) who invested all their life savings in the HS
Companies, a large number of them were unable to make such a
nominal contribution."

Mr. Theron also referred to Ms. Visagie and other former
supporters of the HSAG "who were either bought by Mr Nic Georgiou
or employed by him/Orthotouch.  These people operate actively on
social media to create unnecessary suspicion and confusion among
the HSAG members, of which the majority is frail and vulnerable."

Settlement offers

From discussions with investors, the HSAG and Ms. Visagie it seems
as if investors have the following options:

   -- Investors can continue to receive income of 2% per annum and
receive the full capital repayment in 2024, as per the scheme of
arrangement;

   -- Investors can accept 50% of their original capital
investment and receive the money in ten instalments over a period
of three-and-a-half years;

   -- Investors who elected the 40% option at the inception of the
scheme of arrangement have been repaid their 40% capital.
Investors who elected this option may now elect to also receive
the 50% option as it wasn't available when they elected the 40%
option. (Some investors have also claimed that they have not been
paid in full in terms of this option.)

   -- Investors can also approach Georgiou directly to negotiate a
settlement;

   -- Investors can join or continue to support the HSAG to
participate in the class action to claim their capital, interest
and costs Mr. Georgiou did not respond to several requests to
answer specific questions or to respond to a draft version of this
article. [GN]


HOBBY LOBBY: "Chase" Suit Alleges Phantom Discounts
---------------------------------------------------
Robert Khan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action in San Diego, accuses Hobby Lobby Stores of
deceptively advertising "discounts" based on phony original
prices.

The case is titled as Christina Chase, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hobby Lobby
Stores, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00881-GPC-BLM (S.D.
Cal., May 1, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gonzalo
P. Curiel.

Hobby Lobby is a private for-profit, closely held corporation, and
an American chain of retail arts and crafts stores based in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, formerly called Hobby Lobby Creative
Centers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756 6994
          Facsimile: (619) 756 6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com


HOME DEPOT: High Court Refuses to Hear Class Action Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Diana Novak Jones, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court declined on May 15 to hear Home Depot's appeal of a
Seventh Circuit decision that affirmed the removal of a proposed
class action against the company from federal to state court,
leaving in place the lower court's finding that counterclaim
defendants can't move cases.

The dispute began as a collection suit filed by a water system
retailer against Illinois couple Stacey and Michael Bauer but
later grew to include Home Depot USA Inc. when the Bauers filed a
proposed class countersuit that added the hardware giant as a
defendant.  Home Depot moved the countersuit to federal court, but
the district court and then the Seventh Circuit found that the
Class Action Fairness Act doesn't allow for parties who were not
original defendants to remove cases.

The Supreme Court allowed the Product Liability Advisory Council
Inc. and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to file amicus briefs in the
case but in the end rejected Home Depot's April 5 petition for
certiorari.

The decision lets stand the Seventh Circuit's January ruling on
the issue, which relied on a decades-old Supreme Court case and
its own precedent.  In a 1941 decision, the Supreme Court held
that the right to remove a case only belongs to a defendant
because the defendant is the party who did not pick the
jurisdiction where the suit was filed.

The Seventh Circuit drew on that decision, which was not altered
by the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act in 2005, in 2010
in holding that a plaintiff that later became a defendant in a
countersuit still doesn't have the right to change venues.  The
law does say that "any defendant" may remove a case, but the "any"
means that any single defendant can do it, not any type of
defendant, the court said.

In January, the Seventh Circuit said that is also true for totally
new parties to the litigation, like Home Depot.  Though the
company entered the dispute as a counterclaim defendant and was
never a plaintiff, Congress meant only original defendants when it
wrote the law, and two other circuits have ruled similarly, the
court said.

Representatives for Home Depot and the Bauers did not respond to
requests for comment on May 15.

The case began in Madison County, Illinois, court as retailer Tri-
State Water Treatment Inc. sued the Bauers, claiming the couple
hadn't paid for an in-home water treatment system it had
installed.  In 2015, the Bauers responded with the putative class
action filed against Tri-State and Home Depot, which also sold the
system, on behalf of consumers in six states.

The countersuit claimed the companies conned customers into
believing the system could detect contaminants when it could only
identify the water's mineral content.  Home Depot removed it to
federal court, but a district court judge remanded it after
finding that the Class Action Fairness Act didn't change who had
the right to move the suit.

Home Depot's April 5 Supreme Court petition said the court's
interpretation of the law would allow plaintiffs to trap
defendants in jurisdictions "that most frequently see frivolous
and abusive class actions -- including California, Illinois, and
West Virginia."

The Bauers are represented by Michael Reese of Reese LLP, Sean
Cronin of Donovan Rose Nester PC and Troy Walton of Walton Telken
Foster LLC.

Home Depot is represented by S. Stewart Haskins, Merritt McAlister
and Zheyao Li of King & Spalding LLP.

The case is Home Depot USA Inc. v. Bauer et al., case number 16-
1205, in the Supreme Court of the United States. [GN]


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Gentry Appeals W.D. Va. Ruling to Fourth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs John William Gentry, Linda Ruth Scott, Danielle Kay
Gilleland, Joseph Bowe and Michael Desouto filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit titled John Gentry v. Hyundai Motor
America, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-00030-NKM-RSB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Virginia at
Charlottesville.

The appellate case is captioned as John Gentry v. Hyundai Motor
America, Inc., Case No. 17-1611, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the cases
captioned JOHN WILLIAM GENTRY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI
MOTOR AMERICA, INC., Defendant. ALIM ABDURAHMAN, ET AL.,
Plaintiff, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., ET AL., Defendants.
JIHAD ABDUL-MUMIT, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,
INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case Nos. 3:13-cv-00030, 3:14 cv-00002,
3:14-cv-00005 (W.D. Va.), involve allegations that Hyundai Motor
America, Inc., misstated or misrepresented the gas mileage
obtained by Hyundai Elantras.  Gentry is a class action against a
single defendant, HMA.  The cases previously were stayed,
transferred to MDL 2424, and then partially remanded by the MDL
back to the Court in September 2015.  Each case contains a claim
under the Virginia Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act (Lemon
Law); the Virginia Consumer Protection Act of 1977; and for false
or misleading advertising.

Judge Norman K. Moon of the District Court concluded that aspects
of the Lemon Law claim in Gentry based on the on-board mileage
calculator may proceed.  But the aspect to the Lemon Law claim
based on fuel economy, as well as Mr. Gentry's VCPA and false
advertising claims, will be dismissed because those counts do not
state a claim.

As for Abdul-Mumit and Abdurahman, the Court finds that it has
jurisdiction based on the Class Action Fairness Act.  In addition
to sharing some shortcomings with the Gentry complaint, the
complaints in Abdul-Mumit and Abdurahman are devoid of facts
pertaining to any of the hundreds of named plaintiffs or to any
Defendant other than HMA, said the Court.

Accordingly, Judge Moon denied the motions to remand the
Abdurahman and Abdul-Mumit cases, dismissed those cases, and
partially granted the motion to dismiss the Gentry case.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOHN WILLIAM GENTRY, individually and on
behalf of all other Virginia owners similarly situated, LINDA RUTH
SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all other Virginia owners
similarly situated, DANIELLE KAY GILLELAND, JOSEPH BOWE and
MICHAEL DESOUTO are represented by:

          James B. Feinman, Esq.
          JAMES B. FEINMAN & ASSOCIATES
          203 9th Street
          P. O. Box 697
          Lynchburg, VA 24505-0000
          Telephone: (434) 846-7603
          Facsimile: (434) 846-0158
          E-mail: jb@jfeinman.com

Defendant-Appellee HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INCORPORATED, is
represented by:

          James F. Neale, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          P. O. Box 1288
          Charlottesville, VA 22902-0000
          Telephone: (434) 977-2582
          E-mail: jneale@mcguirewoods.com


IHS ACQUISITION: Faces "Obare" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA OBARE ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
PLAINTIFF v. IHS ACQUISITION NO. 129, INC. D/B/A HERITAGE MANOR
HEALTHCARE CENTER, DEFENDANT, Case No. 3:17-cv-01248-L (N.D. Tex.,
May 9, 2017), alleges that Defendants willfully committed
widespread violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing
to pay their Field Licensed Vocational Nurses an overtime premium
for overtime hours worked in excess of forty hours per week.

Defendants provide home health services to individuals in Texas.
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated were known as Field
Licensed Vocational Nurses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
     DUNHAM & JONES, P.C.
     1800 Guadalupe Street
     Austin, TX 78701
     Phone: (512) 777-7777
     Fax: (512) 340-4051
     E-Mail: doug@dunhamlaw.com

        - and -

     Scotty Jones, Esq.
     DUNHAM & JONES, P.C.
     1110 E. Weatherford Street
     Fort Worth, TX 76102
     Phone: (817) 339-1185
     Fax: (817) 810-0050
     E-mail: sjones@dunhamlaw.com


IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., on May 15 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired ImmunoCellular
Therapeutics Ltd. (NYSE: IMUC) securities between May 1, 2012 and
December 11, 2013 (the "Class Period").  Investors have until June
30, 2017 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff
in the lawsuit.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that ImmunoCellular retained Lidingo Holdings, LLC to
publish promotional articles designed to unlawfully promote the
Company.  As a result of this misconduct, the market was led to
believe that ImmunoCellular's clinical studies for its product
candidate ICT-107 were going well, and the Company's share price
was artificially inflated.

On April 10, 2017, the Securities & Exchange Commission announced
enforcement actions against numerous individuals and entities,
including ImmunoCellular, which had engaged in stock promotion
schemes.  Following this news, ImmunoCellular shares fell $0.13,
or over 4.8%, to close at $2.57 on April 11, 2017.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired ImmunoCellular securities
during the Class Period or continue to hold shares purchased prior
to the Class Period, have information, would like to learn more
about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by
email at [email protected], or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a
New York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities
litigation.  [GN]


INTRA-CELLULAR THERAPIES: July 11 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on May 15 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc.
("Intra-Cellular" or the "Company") (NASDAQ symbol:ITCI) in United
States District Court on behalf of a class consisting of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired Intra-Cellular securities
between August 12, 2014 and April 28, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Intra-Cellular made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose: that findings related to toxicity in animals
treated with lumateperone (ITI-007) were observed; that these
findings posed an additional safety concern regarding
lumateperone; and that as a result of the above, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On August 4, 2016, Intra-Cellular's CEO Sharon Mates touted the
"efficacy and safety of ITI-007 for the treatment of
schizophrenia."  On May 1, 2017, Intra-Cellular disclosed that the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration requested information from the
Company in order to verify whether or not there are safety risks
associated with long term exposure of ITI-007 to patients. When
this information was released, Intra-Cellular's stock price
lowered materially, which harmed investors according to the
Complaint.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 11, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via
e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.[GN]


IRONFX: Continued Ops Could Pose Danger to Clients & Reputation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Saks-Mcleod at Finance Feeds reports IronFX's continued
operations without any substantial regulatory censuring despite
non-payment of $176 million in client funds, class action lawsuits
and a 1.6 million euro outstanding tax liability is beyond
reproach. FCA regulated subsidiary 8Safe also has liabilities in
excess of its ability to cover, and employs only three people. Why
do European regulators tolerate such danger to client funds and
the FX industry's reputation?

According to extensive research conducted by FinanceFeeds back in
May 2016, IronFX UK had established a new division of the company
in the name of 8safe, and has changed the name of its UK entity
from IronFX UK to 8safe, as well as having transferred shares. The
transfer of shares was conducted in the early part of 2016,
although 8safe was incorporated in 2013.

The new company is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority
(FCA) under the registration number 585561, with the responsible
person being Harsh Anavadia, who is Compliance & AML Officer at
IronFX Global UK Limited.

8safe, according to the FCA register, is located at 55 Old Broad
Street, London EC2M 1RX and the contact email address is
compliance@ironfx.co.uk

As astonishing as it may be that IronFX, a company whose copybook
is blotted with a litany of high profile activities that range
from the non-payment of the company's Chinese IB network in 2014
which resulted in national television coverage across China, a
police raid on the company's office in Shanghai and ultimately an
exodus from the market leaving Chinese IBs and their customers
high and dry, to a global withdrawal impossibility, in which over
$176 million is owed and an outstanding tax liability of over 1.6
million Euros is continually overlooked by the Cypriot government
whilst IronFX continues to brazenly operate.

n February 19 this year, mainstream Cyprus news source 24h.com.cy
issued a detailed report which concentrated on the current
regulatory (or absence thereof) interest in the activities of
notorious FX brokerage IronFX.

The expose, which focused on the company's large and high profile
standing in Cyprus, which has been the source of disdain among
Cyprus' highly well organized FX industry over the past few years,
as well as introducing brokers and customers around the world that
have continually alleged that the company unlawfully withheld
client funds and the withdrawal of such funds across many regions
of the world, included a soundbyte interview with CySec Chair
Demetra Kalogerou, who has, all the while, appeared powerless to
even instruct the suspension of IronFX's license.

Astonishingly, despite government-level concern that resulted in
AKEL party presidential candidate Andros Kyprianou having sent a
letter to the EU Parliament and subsequently addressed the
continental government regarding his views on IronFX's business
practice, the Cypriot media has interviewed the CySEC, which made
some revelations about the Cypriot forex industry and specifically
IronFX.

IronFx must have lost 200,000 clients in early 2015 (in the
financial statements 2014 the company reported having 400,000
clients), therefore it is entirely plausible that the firm is
insolvent, yet is allowed to continue its business operations.
Additionally, the firm owes unpaid taxes to the Cyprus government
amounting to over $1.6 million, and is subject to a vast lawsuit
from Chinese customers, yet no attempt to seize assets or wind up
operations has been made when other firms have been subject to
license suspensions for far less heinous infringements.

As far as regulatory apathy is concerned, CySEC received 1700
complaints concerning IronFX in total, but has thus far pretended
that most of them were false, double, and produced by an organized
campaign. Currently, according to our research, at least 1,512
clients have filed disputes against IronFx with the Cyprus
Financial Ombudsman, which is the arbitration body for all matters
financial in Cyprus. The Cypriot newspaper reports that 300 cases
have been decided, but none of them have been made public
information.

This is remarkable as it took place after FinanceFeeds reported
the institutional levels of corruption at CySec which provided
clear information that demonstrates that the CySec investigation
into 1,000 complaints about the missing $176 million in client
funds was not conducted by independent body but instead by an
IronFX UK lawyer, and that only 20 cases were used as a sample.
The conflict of interest renders the entire audit null and void.

Also, as FinanceFeeds commits substantial resources to research
across China, we can assure everyone that IronFX's reputation
across the entire Chinese FX industry -- probably the most
important in the world -- is absolutely catastrophic.

Now, another villain of the peace has come to light, that being
the glaring reality that 8Safe, IronFX's FCA regulated co-brand,
has only three employees, and is responsible for handling EUR17
million in liabilities (which could include client money), yet the
FCA allows the firm to continue to be registered despite its
dramatic decrease in revenues and its quite clearly odious
activities pretty much everywhere in the world.

By looking at 8Safe's financial statements of 2016, it is possible
to see that IronFX has a substantial number of subsidiaries in
offshore jurisdictions.

With IronFX CEO Markos Kashiouris as principal director of 8Safe,
the entity recorded a loss of $240,229 for 2016, compared to a
profit of $276,509 for 2015, bearing in mind that the transfer of
shares had taken place between those two periods.

Surely a company with only three employees and a client asset
responsibility of 17 million Euros, with a loss of almost a
quarter of a million dollars, especially with a previous history
as chequered as that of IronFX, would be a red flag for the FCA?
Apparently not.

As long as the impotence of the regulators across the European
Union, including ESMA, and the perceived covering up continues in
Cyprus, IronFX will continue to cast its shadow over the genuine
and bona fide firms that operate in Cyprus, a nation that has
matured to become a comprehensive hub for the entire FX industry,
hence it is everybody's professional responsibility to ensure that
these matters are dealt with accordingly. [GN]


KAISER FOUNDATION: Moura Sues over Health Care Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a man with an acute eating
disorder has filed a class action in San Francisco against Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan, accusing the health care giant of refusing
to cover his medically necessary residential treatment program as
it does for other types of mental illness.

The case is captioned, IAN MOURA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH
PLAN, INC., Defendant, Case 3:17-cv-02475-JCS (N.D. Cal., May 1,
2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff Ian Moura, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated:

Lisa S. Kantor Esq.
J. David Oswalt Esq.
KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91324
Telephone: (818) 886-2525
Facsimile:  (818) 350-6272
E-mail: lkantor@kantorlaw.net
        doswalt@kantorlaw.net

     - and -

Kathryn M. Trepinski, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KATHRYN M. TREPINSKI
A Law Corporation
8840 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 333
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 201-0022
Facsimile:  (866) 201-2251
E-mail: ktrepinski@trepinskilaw.com


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Merger Class Action Tossed
------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco, on May 9, dismissed with
prejudice a class action claiming educational toymaker Leapfrog's
board of directors misled investors to push through a $72 million
merger with VTech.

U.S. District William Orrick III found lead plaintiff Pete Manger
failed to identify anything false or misleading in a March 2016
statement recommending the deal to shareholders.

Manger claimed the board misled investors about how soon the
company would face a liquidity crisis and lose its ability to
borrow money, so it could reject a better offer by L&M
Acquisitions of $1.10 per share, rather than the $1 a share offer
from VTech.

"Manger's real complaint -- in essence -- is that the board was
wrong to push the VTech tender offer after the L&M offer came in,
and the board should have put the brakes on VTech and at least
pursued the L&M offer," Orrick wrote. "But this case is not about
the board making wrong or imprudent business decisions. Manger's
case is about a false or misleading recommendation statement."

Because Leapfrog had disclosed that sales of its Epic tablet
product exceeded projections, failing to mention that in its
recommendation statement did not make the document false or
misleading, Orrick said.  He also rejected claims that Morgan
Stanley, which prepared the recommendation statement, did not
disclose its conflict of interest for receiving a $4 million fee,
contingent on the merger closing.

Orrick found Morgan Stanley did disclose that a "significant
portion" of its $4 million fee was contingent on the closing,
giving shareholders sufficient notice to "evaluate the role the
fee might have played" in its recommendation.

The VTech merger was completed on April 4, 2016.

Leapfrog attorney Mark Foster said this and Orrick's previous
rulings in the case "underscore there are high pleading standards
in federal court for disclosure claims for mergers and tender
offers."

As more merger litigation migrates from state to federal courts,
Foster said, this ruling "sends a clear signal to plaintiffs' bar
that merger litigation doesn't fare any better in federal courts
now than they did in state courts."

"It will help defendants defend against future suits and will be
particularly a useful decision in the Northern District of
California," Foster said. "It's a big boost to Silicon Valley
companies, I think, or any that are potential acquisition
targets."

Foster is with Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco.

Class attorney Barbara Ann Rohr, with Faruqi and Faruqi in Los
Angeles, declined to comment on the ruling on May 9.

Leapfrog faces a separate class action, filed in January 2015,
accusing it of misleading investors about dwindling prospects for
its educational toys.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in February dismissed some claims
against Leapfrog in that case, but refused to dismiss allegations
based on the company's failure to take a write-off for long-lived
asset impairment in the third quarter of 2014.

The case is captioned, PETE J. MANGER, Plaintiff, v. LEAPFROG
ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants. Case 3:16-cv-01161-WHO(N.D.
Cal., May 9, 2017).


LENOVO: Loses Bid to Dismiss Adware Program Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael McKiernan, writing for Law Times, reports that a proposed
class action against computer manufacturer Lenovo will move on to
a certification hearing after the company failed in an attempt to
have the case dismissed.

The plaintiff in Bennett v. Lenovo alleges the laptop he purchased
online came preinstalled with Virtual Discovery, an adware program
supplied by a third party that he claims affects the computer's
performance and leaves users' privacy exposed.

Lenovo moved to have the entire claim dismissed, arguing that none
of the causes of action advanced by the plaintiff stood any chance
of success.

But in his Feb. 17 decision, Ontario Superior Court Justice Edward
Belobaba sided with the customer, dismissing just one of the four
claims made on his behalf.

Adrienne Boudreau -- aboudreau@sotosllp.com -- a class action
lawyer with Toronto firm Sotos LLP who acted for the plaintiff,
says she was pleased with the result.

"This is not like the traditional privacy-breach claims we have
seen before.  It's a novel case for consumers, and the court
recognized that it needs to go forward and get a hearing on its
merits," she says.  "It's a wake-up call for companies that are
considering pre-installing this type of software on their devices
that there are possible remedies for consumers."

Lenovo's lawyers declined an opportunity to comment, but since the
decision was not appealed, the case now proceeds to a
certification hearing later this year.  If the action clears that
hurdle, it would set the stage for a full trial to decide the
merits of the remaining claims.

Daniel Bennett, the plaintiff in the case, is a St. John's lawyer
who hopes to act as a representative plaintiff for all Canadian
purchasers of Lenovo laptops that came pre-installed with VD.
According to Justice Belobaba's decision, Mr. Bennett only
discovered the program's presence after taking delivery of his new
laptop.

Mr. Bennett's statement of claim, which has not been proven in
court, alleges the program intercepts users' Internet connections
and causes the display of unauthorized advertisements in their web
browsers.  The claim also alleges VD slows the computer's
performance and depletes battery power, while allowing hackers
access to users' confidential personal and financial information.

Lenovo argued Mr. Bennett's claim that the installation breached
the implied term of merchantability under Ontario's Consumer
Protection Act should be dismissed because products with multiple
uses can cross the "merchantable" threshold if they are still
usable even with the defect for just one of their purposes. An
activity such as offline word processing would fit the bill in its
case, Lenovo claimed.

However, Justice Belobaba allowed the claim to go forward after
concluding the "law is not settled" in the "context of computer
technology."

"It's a great decision for consumers, because it reiterates the
strength of the protections available to them under the Consumer
Protection Act," says Ms. Boudreau's co-counsel on the motion,
Sabrina Callaway, who was also excited by the court's refusal to
dismiss Bennett's intrusion upon seclusion claim.

"It shows the court is open to the possibility that the tort can
be applied in a class action and also in a different and less
traditional context than it has been considered elsewhere," she
adds.

Only a few years on from the Court of Appeal's landmark decision
recognizing the tort in Jones v. Tsige, Justice Belobaba said it
was "just evolving."

"Its scope and content have not yet been fully determined.  I am
therefore not persuaded that it is plain and obvious and beyond
doubt that, on the facts as pleaded, this particular privacy claim
has no chance of success and is doomed to fail," the judge added.

The claim also alleges VD's installation violates a number of
provincial privacy laws across the country.  Again, Justice
Belobaba found that the "evolving" scope and content of the laws
made it impossible for him to conclude that these claims were
certain to fail, despite Lenovo's argument that they were doomed
by the lack of an allegation that any users were actually hacked
as a result of VD's presence.

The only claim Justice Belobaba agreed to dismiss at this
preliminary stage was Bennett's allegation that Lenovo breached an
implied term of the sales agreement that the laptop would come
without any defects.

Justice Belobaba's decision said that when he clicked his
acceptance of the sales agreement online, Bennett agreed to be
sold a product that was offered "without warranties or conditions
of any kind."

Chad Finkelstein -- cfinkelstein@dalelessmann.com -- a partner in
the corporate commercial practice group at Toronto firm Dale &
Lessmann LLP, says the decision should serve as a warning to the
growing number of technology companies that preload software on
their devices.

"Anyone who's a manufacturer or vendor of products that include
some kind of application installed by a third party will want to
think about how they go about disclosing them to the end user," he
says.

"You could potentially be found vicariously liable for any privacy
violations."

Lisa Danay -- ldanay@dww.com -- a lawyer with Deeth Williams Wall
in Toronto, says the decision is a notable one, despite its
preliminary nature and the fact it settles little in terms of the
current state of the law.

"Technology is constantly changing and this decision points to the
need for law to evolve alongside the world of innovation," she
says. [GN]


LEPRINO FOODS: "Perez" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to E.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled John Perez, and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff v. Leprino
Foods Company, A Colorado Corporation, and Leprino Foods Dairy
Products Company, A Colorado Corporation, the Defendants, , Case
No. 17C0106, was removed on May 18, 2017 from the Kings County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California - (Fresno). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00686-DAD-SAB to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Dale A. Drozd.

Leprino Foods is an American company with headquarters in Denver,
Colorado that produces cheese, lactose, whey protein and sweet
whey. It is the world's largest maker of mozzarella cheese.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cory Lee, Esq.
          THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (213) 291 3333
          Facsimile: (610) 813 4579
          E-mail: downeyjusticelee@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sandra L. Rappaport, Esq.
          Kyle Aaron Mabe, Esq.
          Lisa M. Pooley, Esq.
          HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
          425 Market Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 995 5053
          Facsimile: (415) 541 9366
          E-mail: srappaport@hansonbridgett.com
                  kmabe@hansonbridgett.com
                  lpooley@hansonbridgett.com


MACY'S CREDIT: Seeks Dismissal of Robocall Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Steven Trader and Joyce Hanson, writing for Law360, report that
Macy's has called for the dismissal of claims that it harassed
consumers with unauthorized robocalls in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, telling a Florida federal judge
on May 15 the consumer leading a proposed class action hasn't
suffered a concrete injury under the U.S. Supreme Court's Spokeo
precedent.

The department store chain contended in its dismissal brief on May
15 that Deborah Clark has failed to establish that she suffered an
injury in fact that is concrete and particular, fairly traceable
to Macy's conduct and likely to be redressed by a favorable
judicial decision, three requirements established by the high
court in its landmark Spokeo v. Robins ruling last June for
Article III standing to sue.

Ms. Clark first sued Macy's over the calls in September 2016 but
voluntarily dismissed her complaint in March, only to file a
second proposed class action in April.  But neither the first or
second complaint even alleged how many calls were placed to her
cell phone, instead guessing that it was somewhere between one and
50, Macy's noted on May 15.

"The complaint admits plaintiff is unaware of the number of calls
made and requires a fishing expedition during discovery to learn
whether, and to what extent, she was allegedly injured," the
retailer wrote.  "The absence of 'concrete' injury cannot be made
more apparent than through plaintiff's estimations and
approximations of calls."

What's more, Macy's argued that Ms. Clark had not established a
particularized harm that was fairly traceable to its conduct,
pointing out that her complaint merely lists such injuries as
being annoyed and having her cell phone battery depleted. Other
than the first call in November 2014, Ms. Clark never even alleges
to have answered any other call, the retailer wrote.

Ms. Clark is also unlikely to be redressed by any favorable
judicial verdict, given that the allegedly offending phone calls
occurred nearly two years ago, and she's not argued that they've
continued or are likely to continue in the future, Macy's
contended.

"These arguments have been shopped around and there are very few
buyers," William Howard of The Consumer Protection Firm, an
attorney for Clark, told Law360 on May 16.  "We have stated her
real and concrete damages and the vast majority of courts are
ruling against these weak assertions made by the robocalling
industry."

Ms. Clark launched her proposed class action on April 18, alleging
that Macy's Credit and Customer Service Inc. used an automated
telephone dialing system with a prerecorded message to call her
phone repeatedly since November 2014, in violation of the TCPA.

Ms. Clark contended she first received a robocall seeking to
recover a credit card debt that she did not owe, but which
allegedly belonged to her daughter. Shortly after receiving the
first call, Clark answered another one and explained that she did
not owe the store money and asked for the calls to stop, but they
did not.

Ms. Clark sought an injunction against Macy's, as well as
statutory damages of $500 for every call that violated the TCPA,
according to the complaint.

Macy's is represented by Ryan C. Reinert --
RReinert@shutts.com -- and Christopher W. Prusaski --
CPrusaski@shutts.com -- of Shutts & Bowen LLP.

Ms. Clark is represented by William "Billy" Peerce Howard and
Amanda J. Allen of The Consumer Protection Firm PLLC.

The case is Clark v. Macy's Credit and Customer Services Inc.,
case number 6:17-cv-00692, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida. [GN]


MCDONALD'S CORP: Sept. 7 Fairness Hearing on "Salazar" Case Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Seeborg will hold a Fairness Hearing on Sept. 7,
2017, at 1:30 p.m. on the settlement in the case, Salazar et al v.
McDonald's Corp. et al.

Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in San Francisco preliminarily approved a class
action settlement between a McDonald's franchisee and more than
100 current and former employees for California labor law
violations.

The $235,000 settlement should net each class member roughly $150,
according to a motion to approve it. All current and future
employees will also be paid overtime premiums, and franchise owner
Bobby Haynes agreed to review payroll records and pay an
additional one hour's wages to each employee for every day he or
she was not allowed meal or rest breaks.

Cashiers Guadalupe Salazar, Genoveva Lopez and Judith Zarate sued
McDonald's and Haynes in March 2014, claiming they were denied
meal and rest breaks and that McDonald's miscalculated their wages
through a flawed computerized payroll system.

The Haynes Partnership has owned eight franchises in Oakland and
San Leandro since 2010.

Ruling on McDonald's motion for summary judgment in August 2016,
U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg noted that the Haynes
Partnership controlled hiring, firing, discipline, wage-setting
and working conditions, and that McDonald's was not a joint
employer because it did not make direct personnel decisions.

The workers then tried to proceed on an "ostensible agency"
theory, whereby a franchisee can be believed by the employee to be
acting on behalf of the parent company.

But in January, Seeborg denied class certification, finding
insufficient evidence to show a common set of circumstances
classwide. The class has appealed that ruling to the Ninth
Circuit.

Ruling from the bench on May 4, Seeborg said he would approve the
settlement, but denied Haynes' request to keep employees' contact
information away from the plaintiffs' attorneys.

The settlement requires that Haynes turn over a putative class
list.

"The Haynes' position is their business decision to settle is not
carte blanche for plaintiffs' counsel to engage in a fishing
expedition and an attempt to contact Haynes' employees," Haynes
Partnership's attorney Katarzyna Nowak told Seeborg. "Employees
have a right to be left alone free of contact from plaintiffs'
counsel."

Seeborg rejected that, saying he did not believe the plaintiffs'
attorneys would misuse the information. "I'm going to leave the
status quo," he said.

The case is captioned, GUADALUPE SALAZAR, et al., on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs.
MCDONALD'S CORP., et al., Defendants. Case 3:14-cv-02096-RS (N.D.
Cal.).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

Michael Rubin Esq.
Barbara J. Chisholm Esq.
P. Casey Pitts Esq.
Matthew J. Murray Esq.
Raphael N. Rajendra Esq.
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 421-7151
Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
E-mail:  mrubin@altber.com
         bchisholm@altber.com
         cpitts@altber.com
         mmurray@altber.com
         rrajendra@altber.com

     - and -

Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
Miriam R. Nemeth, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail:  jsellers@cohenmilstein.com
         mnemeth@cohenmilstein.com


MDL 2773: "Hadnett" Anticompetitive Suit Sent to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned ALICIA HADNETT, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
Defendant, Case. No. 3:17-cv-00197, (S.D. Cal., February 1, 2017),
was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California under Case No. 5:17-cv-02167 pursuant to
MDL No. 2773, according to a docket entry dated April 25, 2017.

The case accuses Defendant of an anticompetitive conduct which
resulted in the acquisition and maintenance of its monopoly over
the modem chipset market by abusing intellectual property rights
underlying this technology, and charging excessive and unlawful
royalty rates on cellular phones or devices incorporating these
patents. The end result of Qualcomm's anticompetitive and unlawful
conduct is that each end-user purchaser of such phones or devices
pays an inflated price.

Qualcomm Inc. was one of the earliest developers of cellular
technology. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq.
     Fatima G. Brizuela, Esq.
     KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
     600 B Street, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 398-4340
     E-mail: bgralewski@kmllp.com

        - and -

     Daniel Hume, Esq.
     KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
     825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 371-6600

        - and -

     Michael E. Jacobs, Esq.
     HINKLE SHANOR LLP
     218 Montezuma Avenue
     Santa Fe, NM 87501
     Phone: (505) 982-4554

Defendant(s) is represented by:

     Asim M. Bhansali, Esq.
     KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
     633 Battery Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
     Phone: (415) 391-5400
     Fax: (415) 397-7188
     E-mail: abhansali@keker.com

        - and -

     David W. Rizk, Esq.
     KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
     633 Battery Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
     Phone: (415) 391-5400
     Fax: (415) 397-7188
     E-mail: drizk@kvn.com

        - and -

     Eugene Morris Paige, Esq.
     KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
     633 Battery Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
     Phone: (415) 391-5400
     Fax: (415) 397-7188
     E-mail: EMP@kvn.com

        - and -

     Justina Kahn Sessions, Esq.
     KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
     633 Battery Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
     Phone: (415) 391-5400
     Fax: (415) 397-7188
     E-mail: jsessions@keker.com

        - and -

     Robert A. Van Nest, Esq.
     KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
     633 Battery Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
     Phone: (415) 391-5400
     Fax: (415) 397-7188
     E-mail: rvannest@keker.com


MDL 2773: "Herrera" Antitrust Suit Sent to N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Armando Herrera on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00273 (S.D. Cal., February 10, 2017)
was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California under Case No. 5:17-cv-02170 pursuant to
MDL No. 2773, according to a docket entry dated April 25, 2017.

The case alleges that Defendant has not adhered to its fair,
reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) commitments, and has
taken advantage of the standard-setting process to acquire and
maintain monopoly control of the modern chipset market.  The suit
is an antitrust class action brought against Qualcomm pursuant to
the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, California's Cartwright Act,
California's Unfair Competition Law, the Utah Antitrust Act and
the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act.

Qualcomm Inc. is a developer of cellular technology. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     Symphony Towers
     750 B Street, Suite 2770
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 239-4599
     Fax: (619) 234-4599
     E-mail: rickert@whafh.com

        - and -

     Betsy Carol Manifold, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ
     Symphony Towers
     750 B Street Suite 2770
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 239-4599
     E-mail: manifold@whafh.com


Defendant(s) is represented by:

     Asim M. Bhansali, Esq.
     KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
     633 Battery Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
     Phone: (415) 391-5400
     Fax: (415) 397-7188
     E-mail: abhansali@keker.com

        - and -

     David W. Rizk, Esq.
     KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
     633 Battery Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
     Phone: (415) 391-5400
     Fax: (415) 397-7188
     E-mail: drizk@kvn.com

        - and -

     Eugene Morris Paige, Esq.
     KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
     633 Battery Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
     Phone: (415) 391-5400
     Fax: (415) 397-7188
     E-mail: EMP@kvn.com

        - and -

     Justina Kahn Sessions, Esq.
     KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
     633 Battery Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
     Phone: (415) 391-5400
     Fax: (415) 397-7188
     E-mail: jsessions@keker.com

        - and -

     Robert A. Van Nest, Esq.
     KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
     633 Battery Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
     Phone: (415) 391-5400
     Fax: (415) 397-7188
     E-mail: rvannest@keker.com


MDL 2773: "Frederick" Anticompetitive Suit Sent to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Scott Frederick, Charles Poon, Andrea Hogan,
Tina Heim, Monica Morrow, Mark Cardillo, and Allison Shipp, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. Qualcomm Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-
cv-00377(S.D. Cal., February 24, 2017), was removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
under Case No. 5:17-cv-02171 pursuant to MDL No. 2773, according
to a docket entry dated April 25, 2017.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
     Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
     Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP
     550 West C StreetSuite 1750
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: 619-400-5825
     Fax:   619-400-5832
     E-mail: hartley@ stuevesiegel.com
           lindner@stuevesiegel.com

         - and -

     Garrett D. Balnchfield, Jr., Esq.
     Brant D. Penney, Esq.
     REINHARDT WENDORF BLANCHFIELD
     E-1250 First National Bank Building
     332 Minnesota Street
     St. Paul, MN 55101
     Phone: 651-287-2100
     Fax: 651-287-2103
     Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
            b.penney@rwblawfirm.com

Qualcomm Incorporated is represented by:

   Asim M. Bhansali, Esq.
   Eugene Morris Paige, Esq.
   David W Rizk, Esq.
   Justina Kahn Sessions, Esq.
   Robert A. Van Nest, Esq.
   Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP
   633 Battery Street
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Phone: 415-391-5400
   E-mail: abhansali@keker.com
           drizk@keker.com
           jsessions@keker.com
           rvannest@keker.com


MENTZCO SOLUTIONS: Judge Confirms Chemotherapy Drug Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McKiernan, writing for Law Times, reports that an Ontario
judge has confirmed a class action settlement involving diluted
doses of chemotherapy drugs despite the objections of nearly 50
patients in a case that highlights the imperfections in the class
proceedings system, according to one expert.

Around 1,200 affected class members will receive $1,500 each as
part of the agreement, reached after alleged mistakes in the
preparation and administration of cancer treatments resulted in
them receiving lower concentrations of drugs than prescribed by
their doctors.

The $2.4-million settlement in Hunt v. Mezentco Solutions Inc.,
approved by Ontario Superior Court Justice Gregory Verbeem on
April 7, came in well below the $25-million damages originally
sought, and it involved no admissions of liability on the part of
Mezentco or Medbuy Corporation, the drug supply and bulk
purchasing companies who were defendants in the suit.

But class counsel -- a team combining members of southwestern
Ontario firms McKenzie Lake Lawyers and Sutts Strosberg LLP --
said the settlement was an excellent one, considering the law was
against the plaintiffs, and claimed the proceeding was "doomed" if
the litigation continued any further.

Jasminka Kalajdzic, a professor on the law faculty at the
University of Windsor, was in the courtroom for the approval
hearing, and she saw many of the objectors take the stand to voice
their concerns about the settlement.

"For class members who may be looking for more than just a
settlement cheque, the class action model definitely has its
limitations," says Ms. Kalajdzic, who spent a decade in private
practice working in the class actions field before joining the
university.

"The model is such that class counsel have hundreds or thousands
of 'clients' with whom they have, in some instances, virtually no
relationship whatsoever.  That's not ideal for class members who
may want answers to hard questions or better information about how
the whole process works -- or who just want to have their day in
court.  I can certainly understand how frustrating it is for
ordinary people who just want justice," she adds.

According to Justice Verbeem's decision, the under-dosing problem
occurred between February 2012 and April 2013, when the powdered
drugs ended up combined in liquids containing too much saline
solution.

An investigation launched by the provincial government soon after
found that the average concentration of the two chemotherapy drugs
administered was between seven- and 10-per-cent lower than
indicated on packages.

However, crucially, the inquiry concluded that there was only a
small chance the mistakes would have a serious effect on patients'
outcomes and noted that physicians had not changed their treatment
plans in response to the uncovering of the dosage problems.

In his decision, Justice Verbeem wrote that it was easy to see how
"patients affected by the dosing incident, and others, could
intuitively arrive at a sincerely held subjective conclusion that
the administration of diluted chemotherapy drugs, on a repeated
basis, resulted in a negative impact on the outcome of their
treatment."

However, "while such reasoning is understandable, it does not form
the legal basis upon which the plaintiffs' claims are to be
determined, on the merits," Justice Verbeem went on.  Instead, he
explained that class members would have to prove that they had
suffered a form of injury or loss that is compensable in law and
was caused by the defendants.

The judge accepted class counsel's claims that, despite
"exhaustive efforts" to develop supportive evidence, they had been
unable to build a case that the dosing incident had impacted
patient outcomes.

In addition, while many patients had suffered distress and anxiety
since finding out about the drug dilution, the judge noted the
vast majority of cases would not rise to the level of
psychological harm needed to warrant compensatory damages. Exiting
case law, he said, requires proof of a recognized psychiatric
illness, something very few patients would be able to demonstrate.

Although 49 class members opposed the settlement, just seven
exercised their right to opt out, allowing them the opportunity to
continue the case alone. One of those was later allowed back in to
claim the settlement damages after a change of mind.

Still, Justice Verbeem credited all of the objectors for the
"commitment, thought, attention and heartfelt candour" they put
into their submissions, as well as the "courage, poise and
eloquence" of those who appeared in person at the hearing.

"Anyone who was present in the courtroom while the objectors spoke
was undoubtedly moved by what they heard," he added.

Despite that, Justice Verbeem concluded that class counsel had
acted in their clients' interest throughout.

"I am satisfied that, through their factum and submissions,
together with the evidence on this motion, Class Counsel have
adequately explained why the terms of the proposed settlement
'fall within the zone of reasonableness' . . ." he wrote,
approving the deal.

The judge also approved class counsel's requested fees of
$400,000, noting that the actual value of their time and
disbursements came out well in excess of $500,000, while the
contingency fee agreement in the case allowed them to claim closer
to $600,000.

Justice Verbeem also noted that he remained "mindful that 40 of
the patients affected by the Dosing Incident were minors, at the
time of their treatment."

"However, the Office of the Children's Lawyer received all of the
material filed on the settlement approval motion and it does not
oppose the relief requested, including approval and I am otherwise
satisfied by the materials and submissions before me, that
settlement of the minor Class Members' claims ought to be approved
. . ." he said.

Michael Peerless, a partner at McKenzie Lake who acted for the
class, say he's "very proud" of the settlement, considering all
the circumstances, adding that most of the class members were
pleased with the result.

"It's easy to say more would be better, but it's not how Canadian
law works," he says.  "Sometimes, the legal system can be
confusing.  Class actions attempt to open it up and make it less
so, but it can be hard to explain concepts like standard of care
and causation to laypeople."

Craig Lockwood -- clockwood@osler.com -- a litigation partner at
Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP who was not involved in the case, says
while objections are fairly routine in class action settlements,
its rarer to see such vocal opposition from within a class
membership.

"It was a very sympathetic and emotional class, which makes it
very difficult, but on the other hand, it sounds to me like they
were done a service by their lawyer considering the evidentiary
hurdles," Mr. Lockwood says.  "Part of the difficulty with these
cases is that they come out of the gate with a dollar value that's
typically unrealistic. If that's your benchmark, it can feel like
your claim has lost most of its value."

Eric Hoaken, who acted for Medbuy, says his clients were confident
the case law was on their side had the litigation gone any
further.

"Having said that, they wanted to be responsible and to find a way
to pay some compensation to the class.  They could have taken a
harder line, but expressly chose not to," he says. [GN]


MERCK & CO: Settles "Pay-for-Delay" Drug Class Action for $60.2MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that Merck & Co Inc and
Upsher-Smith Laboratories Inc have agreed to pay $60.2 million to
resolve a lawsuit that said they entered into a deal to unlawfully
delay the availability of generic versions of potassium supplement
K-Dur.

The settlement, disclosed in papers filed in federal court in
Newark, New Jersey on May 15, came in a class action filed in 2001
arising out of a settlement in patent litigation between Upsher-
Smith and Schering-Plough Corp, now owned by Merck.

That patent deal, plaintiffs in the antitrust class action said,
was an example of a "pay-for-delay" settlement, in which brand-
name drug makers pay generic companies to keep their products off
the market for a longer period.

Both companies continued to deny wrongdoing as part of the
settlement, according to court papers. The settlement is subject
to court approval.

Neither Merck nor Upsher-Smith immediately responded to requests
for comment on May 16.

The lawsuit stemmed from a settlement between the companies in
1998 that resolved patent litigation in which Schering-Plough
sought to block Upsher-Smith from marketing a planned generic
version of K-Dur until a patent expired in 2006.

Under that settlement, Upsher-Smith agreed not to market a generic
version before 2001, at which point Schering would grant it a
license, and Schering agreed to pay Upsher-Smith at least $60
million, according to court papers.

The class action lawsuit, by direct purchasers of K-Dur including
drug wholesalers and hospitals, said the companies violated
antitrust laws through the unlawful delay of generic K-Dur.

Trump budget poised to slash healthcare for poor, other programs
Trump administration asks for time to weigh Obamacare subsidies
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission had also sued Schering-Plough in
2011 over payments to rivals to delay generic versions of K-Dur.
The FTC ultimately lost that case.

The case is In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court,
District of New Jersey, No. 01-cv-01652. [GN]


MICHIGAN: Faces Suit over Suspension of Driver's Licenses
---------------------------------------------------------
David Wells, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Michigan's practice of suspending driver's licenses for unpaid
court fees is unconstitutional and traps low-income residents into
a cycle of poverty, citizens claim in a class action in Flint,
Michigan.

According to the complaint filed on May 4, in Flint federal court,
the state has collected over $40 million in "driver
responsibility" fees in the last three years and has suspended
over 100,000 licenses since 2010, in a practice the lawsuit calls
an "unconstitutional wealth-based suspension scheme."

Michigan law requires that its state department suspend the
licenses of residents who have unpaid court fees.

This practice unduly harms residents who simply cannot pay their
court costs, as being unable to drive hampers their ability to
earn a living and thus pay their fees, the lawsuit says.

"Without driver's licenses, people already facing the harsh
realities of owing court debt while living in poverty face
additional hurdles of being unable to drive to and from work, get
their children to daycare, keep medical appointments, and care for
their family members," the complaint states.

The class-action lawsuit lists Michigan Secretary of State Ruth
Johnson as the lone defendant, and seeks to have the license
suspending practice deemed unconditional.

One of the named plaintiffs, 31-year-old Adrian Fowler, owes
$2,121 to courts in Ferndale, Eastpointe and Oak Park.

Fowler says her license was suspended in 2012 for unpaid Georgia
traffic tickets that she had been unable to pay prior to moving to
Michigan.  The next year, Fowler was cited for driving on a
suspended license after being pulled over by an officer while she
was trying to rush her young daughter to the hospital during
inclement weather, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit claims that the officer was sympathetic to Fowler's
plight and let her continue to the hospital despite her suspended
license, but not before writing a $600 ticket.

"When Ms. Fowler went to the Ferndale courthouse to tell them that
she would not be able to pay the $600, she was told that if she
did not return in three weeks with the full amount, a warrant
would be issued for her arrest," the complaint states.

The other named plaintiff, 25-year-old Kitia Harris, says she was
charged with a $150 traffic ticket that she can't afford to pay on
her disability income.

After she did not pay the fee, Harris' license was suspended and
she now owes the courts a total of $276, according to the
complaint.

Fowler and Harris seek to represent a class of Michigan residents
whose driver's licenses are suspended, or will be suspended, based
solely on their inability to pay court debts.

They are represented by Phil Telfeyan and other attorneys with
Equal Justice Under Law in Washington, D.C., and by John Philo
with Maurice & Jane Sugar Law Center for Economic & Social Justice
in Detroit.

While not commenting directly on the pending litigation, Michigan
Secretary of State spokesperson Fred Woodhams told Courthouse News
that "the department does suspend a person's driver's license as
required by state law after a court notifies it that a traffic
ticket was not paid. Traffic tickets are paid to the local court
district."

Michigan is not the only state facing such a challenge.

In Virginia, a similar lawsuit was filed last summer by the
nonprofit Legal Aid Justice Center, and also claimed that drivers
were unfairly losing their licenses due to unpaid court courts.

The United States Department of Justice weighed in on the Virginia
lawsuit in November, siding with the affected drivers.

"Suspending the driver's licenses of those who fail to pay fines
or fees without inquiring into whether that failure to pay was
willful or instead the result of an inability to pay may result in
penalizing indigent individuals solely because of their poverty,
in violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of
the Fourteenth Amendment," the DOJ wrote in a statement of
interest in the case.

However, despite the vote of confidence from the federal
government, the Virginia case is mired in court proceedings after
U.S. District Judge Norman Moon dismissed the case for lack of
jurisdiction in March. According to the Richmond-Times Dispatch,
the plaintiffs appealed Moon's dismissal in April.

The case is captioned, ADRIAN FOWLER and KITIA HARRIS, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RUTH
JOHNSON, in her official capacity as Secretary of State of the
Michigan Department of State Defendant, 4:17-cv-11441-LVP-MKM
(E.D. Mich., May 4, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

Phil Telfeyan, Esq.
Catherine Sevcenko, Esq.
Rebecca Ramaswamy, Esq.
EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
400 7th Street NW, Suite 602
Washington, D.C. 20004
Tel: (202) 505-2058
E-mail: ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
        catherine@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
        rramaswamy@equaljusticeunderlaw.org

     - and -

John C. Philo, Esq.
MAURICE & JANE SUGAR
   LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC & SOCIAL JUSTICE
4605 Cass Avenue
Detroit, MI 48201
Tel: (313) 993-4505
E-mail: jphilo@sugarlaw.org


MURRAY GOULBURN: Federal Court New Venue for Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
John Durie, writing for The Australian, reports that the ACCC will
push ahead with its legal actions against former Murray Goulburn
executives and the co-op despite the recent decision to forgive
the debt at the centre of the case.

The regulator is alleging unconscionable conduct and misleading
statements by the co-op and former chief Gary Helou and former
finance chief Brad Hingle.

The ACCC is not seeking damages against the co-op because this
would only hurt the farmers it is trying to help.  And now the co-
op has reversed the decision under attack, arguably there is no
need for the action.

The case is being managed in the Federal Court by Competition
Tribunal chief John Middleton.

The Federal Court will also now be the venue for a class action
brought on behalf of shareholders and unit holders.

This was previously scheduled to be heard in the Victorian Supreme
Court.

ASIC is also still pursuing a potential case against the co-op on
behalf of unit holders alleging misleading statements.

The court moves come as Murray Goulburn has denied competitor
claims that it has refused to consider selling its proposed closed
plants to rivals.

Earlier this month it said it would shut three of its plants, in
Rochester and Kiewa in Victoria and Edith Creek in Tasmania.

The Rochester Plant near Echuca is considered the most desirable
option but the view within MG is it wants to rationalise
production plants in the region so handing the facility onto a
competitor would negate that effect.

Arguably a competitor sale would maximise returns to dairy farmer
members.

Rochester is a cheese and dryer facility and MG says it is first
looking to see whether the plant can be used elsewhere before it
decides what to do with the land.

The Tasmanian Government is considering what alternate uses may be
possible for the Edith Creek facility

ACCC action is aimed as deterrence to the entity involved and also
to other companies, which explains why it is pursuing the case
even though the policy has changed.

It is also seeking court declarations that the behaviour in
question was unacceptable if that is how the court decides.

The ACCC is seeking penalties against the former executives. [GN]


MYLAN INC: Rochester Drug Alleges Price Fixing of Benazepril HCTZ
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC. and FWK HOLDINGS, L.L.C., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MYLAN, INC., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and
SANDOZ, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02137-CMR (E.D. Pa.,
May 9, 2017), seeks treble damages arising out of the Defendants'
alleged unlawful scheme to fix, maintain, and stabilize the
prices, rig bids, and allocate customers for generic benazepril
HCTZ tablets.   Defendants' scheme allegedly violates Section 1 of
the Sherman Act.

The case is part of In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing
Antitrust Litigation MDL 2724 16-MD-2724 Benazepril HCTZ.
This document relates to: Direct Purchaser Actions.

Mylan Inc. is a global healthcare company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Diane M. Nast, Esq.
     ERIC C. Burns, Esq.
     NASTLAW LLC
     1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Phone: 215 923 9300
            215 923 9302
     E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
             eburns@nastlaw.com

        - and -

     Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
     David S. Nalven, Esq.
     Lauren Guth Barnes, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
     Cambridge, MA 02142
     Tel: (617) 482-3700
     Fax: (617) 482-3003
     E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
             davidn@hbsslaw.com
             lauren@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

     Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
     Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-7292
     Fax: (206) 623-0594
     E-mail: barbaram@hbsslaw.com
             jerrodp@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

     Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
     David P. Germaine, Esq.
     VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI, P.C.
     55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 224-1500
     E-mail: jvanek@vaneklaw.com
             dgermaine@vaneklaw.com

        - and -

     David F. Sorensen, Esq.
     Zachary D. Caplan, Esq.
     Christina M. Black, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 875-3000
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
             zcaplan@bm.net
             cblack@bm.net

        - and -

     Peter Kohn, Esq.
     Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
     Jenkintown, PA 19046
     Phone: 215 277 5770
            215 277 5771
     E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
             jlukens@faruqilaw.com

        - and -

     Barry. Taus, Esq.
     Kevin Landau, Esq.
     TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
     Archana Tamoshunas
     80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
     New York, NY 10038
     Phone: 212 931 0704
     E-mail: btaus@tcllaw.com
             klandau@tcllaw.com
             atamoshunas@tcllaw.com

        - and -

     John D. Radice, Esq.
     April D. Lambert, Esq.
     A. Luke Smith, Esq.
     RADICE LAW FIRM
     34 Sunset Blvd.
     Long Beach, NJ 08008
     Phone: (646) 245-8502
     Fax: (609) 385-0745
     E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com

        - and -

     Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
     Donna M. Evans, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 838 7797
            (212) 838 7745
     E-mail: srobertson@cohenmilstein.com
             devans@cohenmilstein.com


NASSAU, NY: "Falk" Suit Sues Over Excessive Tax Map Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY P. FALK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NASSAU COUNTY and NASSAU COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, the Defendants, Case No. 600868/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 8, 2017), seeks declaratory judgment that
Defendants' imposition of fees associated with providing a tax map
certification letters (TMCL) is excessive and not reasonably
necessary to accomplish Defendants responsibility to maintain the
County's registry.

This is a class action against Defendants arising from their
charging of excessive fees and/or an unlawful tax pursuant to
Section 6-33.0 of the Nassau County Administrative Code (NCAC)
requiring that TMCL be purchased and filed with certain real
property documents presented for recording at the Nassau County
Clerk, including deeds, mortgages or satisfactions, or any
modifications or consolidations of the foregoing. These fees are
excessive and not reasonably necessary to maintain the County's
real property registry and bear no correlation to the benefits
conferred upon those people making the payments. Moreover, the
fees constitute an unlawful tax as they are exacted for general
revenue purposes.

Effective January 14, 2015, Defendants began assessing a fee for
TMCL. The initial fee for the TMCL was $75. That fee was then
increased by 200% on January 1, 2016 when Defendants began
charging $225 for the exact same service it had provided just one
year previously. Finally, on January 1, 2017, Defendants again
raised the TMCL fee by $130 and now charge $355 for a TMCL. These
fees were and are charged for each real property documents
presented for recording at the Nassau County Clerk, including
deeds, mortgages or satisfactions, or any modifications or
consolidations of the foregoing as each such document requires a
TMCL or the clerk will not record the documents.

Nassau County is a suburban county on Long Island in the U.S.
state of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
          Wade C. Wilkinson, Esq.
          McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
          260 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212)448 1100

The Defendant is represented by:

          NASSAU COUNTY ATTORNEY
          1 West Street Executive Bldg.
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 571-3056


NEW PENN FINANCIAL: Faces "Williams" Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Penn Financial,
LLC. The case is captioned as Joyce Fudge Williams, Individually
and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. New Penn Financial, LLC, doing business as
Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-
cv-00570-MMH-JRK (M.D. Fla., May 18, 2017). The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Marcia Morales Howard.

New Penn offers mortgage products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, PA
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753 8600
          Facsimile: (352) 753 8606
          E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                  jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

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


NORDSTROM INC: Rest Day Case Provides No Rest for Calif Employers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher T. Scanlan, Esq., David J. Reis, Esq., and Dipanwita
Deb Amar, Esq., at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, in an article
for Mondaq, wrote that on May 8, 2017, the California Supreme
Court issued its opinion in Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc. The case
interprets the state Labor Code's "day of rest" provision, which
guarantees employees one day off in seven. In its technical
aspects, the opinion largely favors employers. But it also makes
clear that employers who violate the statute and "cause" their
employees to work without a day of rest will face civil penalties
-- and even criminal prosecution.

Mendoza offers a stark reminder that, when it comes to wage-and-
hour law, California doesn't just follow a slightly enhanced
version of federal law. Instead, California marches to the beat of
its own drum, creating significant risks of non-compliance for
companies who follow one-size-fits-all nationwide policies when
hiring workers in the Golden State. To assist our clients in
assessing these risks, we are including a summary of some of the
most important differences between federal and California law in
this area.

Mendoza v. Nordstrom and Its Legal Holdings

Mendoza is a class-action lawsuit pending in the US District Court
for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs assert
violations of California Labor Code sections 551 and 552, which
respectively provide that: every employee in California is
"entitled" to "one day's rest [from labor] in seven"; and, no
employer may "cause" its employees "to work more than six days in
seven." For good measure, Labor Code section 553 provides that a
violation of the foregoing sections is a misdemeanor.

The Mendoza plaintiffs, who are hourly retail workers, allege that
supervisors and co-workers asked them to pick up previously
unscheduled shifts, which they then worked, causing them to work
more than seven days in a row. Important to note, the plaintiffs
did not complain that they were denied overtime pay for their
seventh-day work; instead, they alleged that the very fact that
they worked seven days without a day off violated the Labor Code.
Because sections 551 and 552 do not provide for financial
penalties, the plaintiffs sought penalties under the catch-all
provisions of the state Private Attorney Generals Act, which
mandates a penalty of up to $200 per employee for each pay period
in which a Labor Code violation occurs.

Given a dearth of case law on the subject, several unresolved
legal issues surrounding the interpretation of sections 551 and
552 emerged. After an order awarding summary judgment to the
employer, the plaintiffs appealed to US Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. Rather than interpret novel questions of California
law, the Ninth Circuit certified the key legal questions to the
California Supreme Court. The newly published Mendoza opinion
provides the answers.

Defining Six Days in Seven: The Workweek Test

The first question addressed by the Court was whether the
prohibition against working "more than six days in seven" is to be
interpreted on a rolling or "workweek" basis. In other words, do
any seven consecutive days of work, even if they cross two
workweeks, violate the seventh-day protection, or is it sufficient
for the employer to give one day off in each workweek, even if it
results in more than six consecutive days?

The Court adopted a "workweek" test. Although the language of the
statute could be read literally to regulate any rolling period of
seven days' work, the Court reasoned that such an interpretation
conflicted with the purpose of the statute which was to protect
one day a week for rest. The Court also noted the difficulty of
harmonizing a rolling seven-day requirement with other provisions
of the Labor Code, such as those that award premium pay for work
on the sixth or seventh day of a given workweek. And, the Court
noted, Wage Orders issued by the state's Industrial Welfare
Commission had always read the provision as applying on a workweek
basis. As a result of this holding, California employers do not
have to provide the same day of rest each week (e.g., every
Sunday) to employees. Indeed, an employer with a typical Sunday-
Saturday workweek could even satisfy the day of rest by scheduling
a back-to-back weekend every other week.

Permit, Require, or Something Else: Defining "Cause"

Another issue decided in Mendoza is the degree to which an
employer must require or otherwise induce an employee to work a
seventh day before it violates the rule that it may not "cause" an
employee to miss his or her day off. The Court rejected the
plaintiffs' interpretation that simply permitting an employee to
work all seven days in a week violated the statute. But it also
rejected an interpretation advanced by the defendant and industry
groups, which was that only an express requirement to work the
seventh day would violate the statute.

Instead, the Court announced a middle-ground rule: "an employer's
obligation is to apprise employees of their entitlement to a day
of rest and thereafter to maintain absolute neutrality as to the
exercise of that right. An employer may not encourage its
employees to forgo rest or conceal the entitlement to rest, but is
not liable simply because an employee chooses to work a seventh
day."

Expanding on that interpretation later in its decision, the Court
stated that an employer cannot expressly or even "implicitly"
attempt to influence employees to work a seventh day. This holding
apparently extends not simply to reprisals or threats, but even to
positive inducements. (The only exception the Court acknowledged
was the legal requirement to pay overtime, which, the Court held,
is not an impermissible inducement since it is obligatory.)

The Numbers Game: The 30/6 Rule

The remaining issue that Mendoza resolves is the scope of an
exception to the seventh-day rule provided in Labor Code section
556. That statute provides that an employer does not violate
sections 551 and 552 when "the total hours of employment do not
exceed 30 hours in any week or six hours in any one day thereof."

The double-negative wording of section 556 caused a fair amount of
head-scratching in the federal proceedings. The California Supreme
resolved the dispute with an interpretation favorable to the
plaintiffs. Specifically, the Court held that the exemption
afforded by section 556 applies only if both of its conditions are
satisfied: (1) the employee's total hours worked in the workweek
do not exceed 30; and (2) the employee's hours worked on each and
every day of that workweek do not exceed six (6). Thus, an
employee who works four hours each and every day of the week is
not entitled to a day of rest, because the employee has worked
only 28 hours in the week and only four (4) hours on each day. But
if an employee works every day in a week but one of those days
included a shift of 6.5 hours, the section 556 exemption does not
apply whether or not the employee has also worked 30 hours in the
week.

Complying with the "Day of Rest" Rules After Mendoza

The most immediate measure required by Mendoza is dictated by the
opinion itself: Employers must notify employees of their statutory
entitlement to a day of rest. A well-drafted and appropriately
acknowledged provision in an employee handbook could satisfy this
requirement. Employers may wish to communicate this information
more immediately through a memorandum.

In industries where seven-day-a-week operations are common (such
as manufacturing, retail, or health care), managers and scheduling
personnel should receive training on the subject. Some employers
already have employees working a seventh day fill out an
acknowledgment that they are voluntarily working the full
workweek. Such acknowledgments may help document compliance with
the law, although it should be remembered that employees cannot
generally waive the protections of the Labor Code.

Taking the broader view, employers should also assure that they
are complying with Mendoza's command not to unduly influence an
employee's decision to work shifts that violate the seventh-day
rule. This may include deciding whether and under what
circumstances employees should be pre-scheduled for a seventh day,
and reviewing the use of incentive programs that reward employees
for working extra shifts. And, of course, there would be few
circumstances where it would be appropriate to terminate an
employee for refusing to work a seventh day.

At the same time, employers can continue to avail themselves of
exemptions from the seventh-day rule, although they should consult
with counsel before doing so. In addition to the 30/6 rule in
section 556, Labor Code section 554(a) permits employers to
"accumulate" days of rest on a monthly basis "when the nature of
the employment reasonably requires the employee to work seven (7)
or more consecutive days." The same code section also exempts
railroad operations, workers in certain agricultural occupations
(as specified in Wage Order 14), and extreme emergency situations.
Collective bargaining agreements may waive sections 551 and 552,
but only if they do so "expressly." Individual employers may also
be eligible for exemptions directly from the California Labor
Commissioner, under Labor Code section 554(b), if granting the
exemption will avoid "hardship."

Finally, Mendoza arose in a case filed by non-exempt (hourly)
workers, and nothing in Mendoza suggests that its holding extends
to exempt employees (such as white-collar administrative,
professional, or executive employees). To the contrary, the
Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Orders have always made clear
that the seventh-day rest requirement applies only to hourly
workers. However, the interplay of exemptions provided in the
state's Wage Orders with the provisions of the Labor Code is a
complex subject that gives rise to periodic legal challenges.
While employers should be able to continue relying on the Wage
Order exemption, they should maintain awareness of emerging
developments in this field.

The Bigger Picture: California Law and Federal Law

As emphasized at the beginning of this Advisory, the seventh-day
rule is just one example of California's unique approach.
Employers should also consider a host of other unique features of
California wage-and-hour law (particularly for non-exempt
employees) when reviewing their compliance and assessing their
risks:

Daily and special overtime. California overtime rules apply on a
daily basis (typically eight (8) hours in a day, more in some
situations). Employees wishing to devise "alternative work
schedules" (for example, four (4) 10-hour shifts a week, must
comply with cumbersome election procedures. California law also
imposes special overtime liability on work performed on the sixth
and seventh days of the workweek.

Meal and rest periods. Employees are entitled to unpaid meal
breaks and/or paid rest periods depending on the length of their
work day. New case law requires that employees in most industries
must be relieved of all duties (and even the obligation to respond
to calls) during their rest breaks.

Business expense reimbursement. Employees are entitled to
reimbursement of all reasonable and necessary business expenses.

"Nonproductive" time for piece-rate and potentially other workers
receiving variable compensation. California law requires that
piece-rate workers be paid a separate, time-based rate of pay for
time that does not directly contribute to their piece rate (such
as time waiting for work and time spent in rest breaks). A related
body of case law is developing that potentially extends these
rules to commissioned employees and other employees receiving
variable compensation.

Calculation of overtime. The California Supreme Court has accepted
review in Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of California,
previously reported at 243 Cal. App. 4th 1200 (2016), which
addresses arguments that state law must pay greater overtime than
federal law to hourly workers who also receive bonuses.

"De minimis" wage violations. The California Supreme Court has
accepted review in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., a pending Ninth
Circuit appeal with certified questions about the availability of
a "de minimis" defense to state-law wage violations, which is
available under federal law.

Private recovery of penalties. The California Private Attorney
Generals Act (PAGA) authorizes recovery of penalties for Labor
Code violations even (in fact, especially) when the provision at
issue does not specify a penalty. For instance, the claims in
Mendoza would not have been possible without PAGA. (Before PAGA,
the State Labor Commissioner could have cited the employer for
violating the law, but there would be no potential civil recovery
by affected employees.) Making matters more difficult for
employers, PAGA relief can be pursued on a group basis with easier
procedural requirements than a class action, and representative
PAGA claims have largely been shielded from arbitration.

Differing definition of "commissions" and required written plan.
Like federal law, California law provides certain exemptions for
commissioned workers. However, California defines what a
"commission" is much more narrowly than does federal law, and also
requires employers to provide written commission plans to (and
obtain a signed receipt from) all employees whose compensation
involves commissions.

Broader jurisdiction to resolve wage disputes. The California
Labor Code converts virtually any contractual compensation dispute
(such as a dispute over unpaid bonuses or commissions) into a
statutory Labor Code claim. By contrast, federal laws and the laws
of most other states only allow recovery of unpaid minimum wage
and/or statutory overtime.

Penalties for independent-contractor misclassification. California
law directly penalizes the misclassification of employees as
independent contractors. Federal and most other state laws only
penalize the practice if it results in a violation of a particular
labor statute (e.g., failure to pay minimum wage).

White-collar exemptions. California, like federal law, recognizes
exemptions for certain types of "white collar" work such as
executive, administrative, and professional occupations, as well
as a computer-programmer exemption. In most situations, these
exemptions are much more restrictively applied under California
than federal law. For example, the salary required to be exempt is
higher under California law and exempt duties must occupy more
than 50% of the employee's time. In addition, California continues
to follow defunct federal regulations (last published in 2004) to
guide its analysis of worker classification.

Pay-stub rules. California imposes numerous, highly technical
requirements on the formatting of employee pay stubs. In addition,
courts have endorsed the theory that minor or unintentional
violations of state wage payment rules can lead an employee's
paystub to be inaccurate. For example, if an employee is
misclassified as overtime-exempt, a court may determine that each
and every paycheck the employee received was inaccurate because it
did not include the employee's overtime hours. This can lead to a
"stacking" phenomenon where an employer is exposed to much greater
penalties than the employee's actual economic loss.

Vacation pay. California considers accrued vacation or paid time
off (PTO) a type of earned wages that cannot be forfeited under a
"use-it-or-lose-it" policy. Employees must be allowed to carry
over their accrued but unused vacation from year to year and must
be paid for it at their final rate of pay when their employment
ends.

Wage deductions. California severely limits the ability of
employers to deduct from an employee's wages debts owed by or
damages caused by the employee. Employers cannot deduct from an
employee's wages amounts for loss or damage caused by the
employee's simple negligence. Nor can employers deduct from an
employee's final check amounts to pay off an employee's debt
unless the employee specifically agrees in writing to the
deduction at the time of termination.

Triple jurisdiction. In addition to statutory provisions in the
Labor Code, California employers must also comply with Wage Orders
issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission, as well as
regulations and other guidance from the State Labor Commissioner.
Conflicts among these sources of authority can leave employers in
limbo about the best course of action.

Unfortunately, these are only examples. The bottom line is that
nationwide employers doing business in California cannot assume
that nationwide compliance is adequate for California. Instead,
almost as if they were setting up shop in a foreign country, they
must assure compliance with a completely unique set of rules. [GN]


NRRM LLC: Faces Class Action Over DPPA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Chow, Esq. -- kchow@reedsmith.com -- and Jason W. Gordon,
Esq. -- jgordon@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith, in an article for
Mondaq, wrote that a class action filed this month alleges that
car warranty company NRRM LLC used information obtained from
Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") records to market to
consumers in violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act
("DPPA").

The complaint alleges that NRRM's third-party data suppliers
provide it with personal information about drivers and their cars
that they receive from state DMVs.  NRRM then markets automobile
service and repair warranties to these drivers using this
information.

The DPPA restricts the uses that can be made of personal
information derived from motor vehicle records.  Permissible uses
include use in the normal course of business by a legitimate
business, but only to verify the accuracy of personal information
or to correct information.  Such information can also be used when
written consent of the individual is provided, among other
exceptions.  The alleged advertising at the core of this lawsuit
would not have fallen within any of the DPPA's exceptions.

Takeaway: When using consumer information to target advertising,
advertisers should always ask how the information was obtained and
where it came from.  Importantly, in the case of the DPPA, even if
an advertiser itself did not obtain personal information from
motor vehicle records, it can still be held accountable for
prohibited uses if its third-party data supplier did. [GN]


OAKLAND RAIDERS: Settles Cheerleaders' Class Action for $1.25MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Bacellieri writing for Deadspin reports that a $1.25 million
settlement was distributed to 90 former Oakland Raiders
cheerleaders as part of a class-action suit for fair pay.

The cheerleaders alleged that they were paid less than minimum
wage, along with being denied overtime pay and not being
reimbursed for necessary business expenses. When the suit was
filed in January 2014, it was the first of its type, but
cheerleaders for the Bengals, Jets, Buccaneers and Bills have
since taken similar legal action.

The settlement was originally reached in September 2014, but the
legal battle only recently came to a full stop -- thereby allowing
the cheerleaders to receive the money this week, according to the
San Francisco Chronicle. One of the cheerleaders' attorneys told
the Chronicle that while the settlement was a small victory,
getting paid only minimum wage years after the fact shouldn't be
considered nearly enough:

"Our clients have now been paid the equivalent of minimum wage for
all of the hours they worked and have been reimbursed for their
out-of-pocket expenses," attorney Sharon Vinick said in a
statement. "It is important to note that paying these women
minimum wage doesn't represent the value that these hard-working
women bring to the Game Day Experience."

The suit noted that the women were paid just $125 per game, with a
strict system of fines that meant pay deductions for infractions
ranging from wearing the wrong shade of nail polish to bringing
incorrect pom-poms to practice. Each game meant a nine-hour
workday with no designated lunch or rest break, and the
cheerleaders were not paid at all until the end of the season.

As a result of the suit, Raiderettes will now receive $9 an hour
plus overtime -- increasing their individual yearly income from
$1,250 to an estimated $3,200 for their part in a billion-dollar
industry that regularly uses them for marketing and publishes
photo galleries of what the league deems the "best" cheerleaders
and promises that, really, it respects women. [GN]


OCWEN LOAN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Chavez" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
ALVARO CHAVEZ, the Plaintiff, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC
AND OCWEN MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-
cv-01233-B (N.D. Tex., May 8, 2017), seeks to recover actual
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest under Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act.

This action for damages is brought by an individual plaintiff in
response to Defendants' violations of the TCPA, with regard to
attempts by Defendants to unlawfully and abusively collect a debt
allegedly owed by Plaintiff, and this conduct caused Plaintiff
damages.

All of these injuries are particularized and specific to
plaintiff, and will be the same injuries suffered by each member
of the putative class.

Ocwen Financial is a mortgage servicing company.[BN]

Attorneys for Alvero Chavez:

          Anthony Chester, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 14155
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (952) 225 5333
          Facsimile: (800) 635 6425
          E-mail: tony@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Ave, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400 6808 Ext. 2
          Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com


PCL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Johnson" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. PCL MANAGEMENT LLC and PLATINUM CORRAL
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00399-GCS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, May 9,
2017), alleges that Defendants required Plaintiff and other
Associate Managers to work more than 40 hours per workweek and did
not pay them overtime compensation for hours worked beyond 40 in
any workweek.  Defendants allegedly misclassified Plaintiff and
other AMs as exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate approximately 26 franchise locations of the
Golden Corral Buffet-Grill restaurant chain.

The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation for
Plaintiff and his similarly situated co-workers who have worked
for Defendants PCL Management LLC and Platinum Corral LLC in the
United States as exempt-classified Kitchen Associate Managers and
Hospitality/Service Managers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Drew Legando, Esq.
     LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
     1360 West Ninth Street, Suite 200
     Cleveland, OH 44107
     Phone: (216) 522-9000

        - and -

     Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
     Melissa L. Stewart, Esq.
     Christopher M. McNerney, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 245-1000

        - and -

     Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
     Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP P.A.
     1515 S. Federal Hwy, Suite 404
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Tel: (561) 447-8888
     Fax: (561) 447-8831
     Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

     Michael Palitz, Esq.
     830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (800) 616-4000


PEABODY ENERGY: Lynn Appeals Dismissal of Suit to Eighth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Lori J. Lynn and Javier Gonzalez filed an appeal from a
memorandum & order and order of dismissal both dated March 30,
2017, entered in their lawsuit styled Lori Lynn, et al. v. Gregory
H. Boyce, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00916-AGF, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis.

Gregory H. Boyce is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Peabody Energy.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District
Judge Audrey G. Fleissig granted a motion to dismiss the case.
The putative class action is brought under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 claiming breach of fiduciary duties by
the Defendants, the fiduciaries of three ERISA-governed Employee
Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) made available to employees of Peabody
Energy Corporation (Peabody) as retirement investment options.

The appellate case is captioned as Lori Lynn, et al. v. Gregory H.
Boyce, et al., Case No. 17-2020, 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 June 20, 2017;

   -- Appendix is due on June 30, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellants Javier Gonzalez and Lori J. Lynn is due
      on June 30, 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]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Lori J. Lynn, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and Javier Gonzalez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          James Maro, Esq.
          KESSLER & TOPAZ
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087-0000
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: mkgyandoh@ktmc.com
                  jamaro@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Don R. Lolli, Esq.
          DYSART & TAYLOR
          4420 Madison Avenue, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64111-0000
          Telephone: (816) 931-2700
          E-mail: dlolli@dysarttaylor.com

Plaintiff-Appellant Lori J. Lynn is also represented by:

          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq.
          Julie E. Siebert-Johnson, Esq.
          KESSLER & TOPAZ
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087-0000
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: eciolko@ktmc.com
                  dmoffa@ktmc.com
                  jsjohnson@ktmc.com

Defendants-Appellees Gregory H. Boyce, Michael C. Crews, Sharon D.
Fiehler, Eric Ford, Jeanne L. Hull, Andrew P. Slentz, Board of
Directors of Peabody Investment Corp., George J. Schuller, Jr., D.
L. Lobb, Walter L. Hawkins, Jr., Patrick J. Forkin and Does 1-10
are represented by:

          James F. Bennett, Esq.
          DOWD BENNETT LLP
          7733 Forsyth, Suite 1900
          Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000
          Telephone: (314) 889-7300
          E-mail: jbennett@dowdbennett.com

Defendants-Appellee Gregory H. Boyce, Michael C. Crews, Sharon D.
Fiehler, Eric Ford, Patrick J. Forkin, Jeanne L. Hull, Andrew P.
Slentz and Does 1-10 are represented by:

          Martha B. Daniels, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 751-3200
          E-mail: mdaniels@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Darren A. Shuler, Esq.
          David Tetrick, Jr., Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          E-mail: dshuler@kslaw.com
                  dtetrick@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Sheena R. Hamilton, Esq.
          DOWD BENNETT, LLP
          7733 Forsyth, Suite 1900
          Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000
          Telephone: (314) 889-7300
          E-mail: shamilton@dowdbennett.com


PELLA CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Window Defect Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Cara Salvatore, writing for Law360, reports that window maker
Pella told an Illinois federal judge on May 15 that a class action
by buyers who say their windows leak also has gaps in it and can't
meet the requirements of Illinois state law.

The consumers say Pella's ProLine aluminum-clad-wood windows
allowed water in behind the aluminum cladding, resulting in wood
rot underneath, leaks and even building damage, and that Pell a
knew about the leakage but routinely blamed outside factors. Some
owners say they paid tens of thousands of dollars for repair and
replacement work that Pella had disavowed.

In a motion for summary judgment on May 15, Pella Corp. and Pella
Windows and Doors Inc. said three lead plaintiffs' claims under
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
fail to satisfy the law's five necessary elements, including
deceiving consumers and intending that the consumers rely on the
deception.

The company told U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman that
Jerry Davis, Ricky Falaschetti and Kenneth Hechtman have each
failed to meet the requirements, in a motion mostly touching on
interactions with Pella Windows and Doors.

"Davis never visited a PWD location, spoke with any PWD
representatives, or received any other oral communications from
PWD prior to purchasing his windows. . . . Mr. Hechtman's bald
allegation that he visited an alleged PWD location before buying
Pella windows is not supported by the undisputed facts," Pella
told Judge Coleman.

"Hechtman speculates that PWD operated the retail location he
visited" in Niles, Illinois, but "is mistaken," Pella said.  And
even if he did, it was in 2005, before Pella is alleged to have
been aware of the supposed issue in "2005 vintage" windows.

For Mr. Falaschetti's part, he visited a Pella store in Tinley
Park in 1997, before eventually buying his Pella windows from Home
Depot, Pella said.  But the store rep's statements about Pella
quality were just puffery, the company said, and
Mr. Falaschetti also later spoke to Home Depot employees, breaking
the chain of reliance.

"Falaschetti must, at the very least, establish some causal nexus
between PWD's actions and the alleged injury," but he "had
multiple pre-purchase conversations and viewed materials from
multiple different sources," the company said.

The suit also includes named plaintiffs from Iowa, Michigan,
New York, California, New Jersey and Florida.  Pella Windows and
Doors says its only area of operations is some counties in
Illinois and Indiana and that it does no marketing at all.

The consumers suggest the roots of the issue were the two layers
of sealant, one connecting the aluminum cladding to the glass and
one connecting the wood underneath the aluminum to the glass,
saying these had been applied haphazardly.

Also on May 15, the consumers asked Judge Coleman to exclude the
testimony of a number of Pella's expert witnesses, including
engineers Ian Chin and David Deress, who were going to testify on
condensation's effects on wood; window tester Will Smith, who the
consumers say did no window testing; and Pella designer Andy
Middleswart, whose testimony they say is based on guesswork.

The motion references an internal email in which a Pella employee
says that 71 percent of ProLine casement "R&A" -- returns and
allowances -- are due to wood degradation.

And Pella on May 15 filed its own motion to get rid of an expert
witness, the consumers' Jerrold Winandy, who is planning to
testify on, among other topics, "end-grain retention thresholds
set by Pella's wood preservative supplier" for use in Pella's
wood-treatment dip tanks.

U.S. District Judge James Zagel, who was in charge of the case
before taking senior status, approved a $90 million settlement in
April 2013.  But the Seventh Circuit halted the deal in 2014,
calling it grossly overestimated, and also ordered the replacement
of the buyers' lawyers due to a conflict of interest.

The consumers filed their seventh amended complaint in January
2016, and that May Judge Zagel denied a motion to decertify a
nationwide class.

The parties have been in sporadic settlement talks for some time,
but just days ago mediator M. David Weisman reported that for the
most part these appear to have stalled out.

The consumers are represented by Shannon McNulty and Robert
Clifford of Clifford Law Offices, George Lang of Lang Law Office,
John Yanchunis and Marcio Valladares of Morgan & Morgan PA, Edward
Moor of Moor Law Office PC and Joel Rhine of Rhine Law Firm PC.

Pella is represented by John Roberts -- john.roberts@FaegreBD.com
-- John Mandler -- john.mandler@FaegreBD.com -- James O'Neal and
Shane Anderson -- shane.anderson@FaegreBD.com -- of Faegre Baker
Daniels.

The case is Kent Eubank et al. v. Pella Corp. et al., case number
1:06-cv-04481, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. [GN]


PETSMART INC: "Rodriguez" Suit Moved to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Andrew Rodriguez, Individually and
on behalf of all similarly-situated employees of Defendants in the
State of California, the Plaintiff, v. Petsmart, Inc. and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-02017-00010948-
CU-OE-CTL, was removed on May 18, 2017 from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01037-MMA-JLB to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael M. Anello.

PetSmart Inc. is an American retail chain operating in the United
States, Canada, and Puerto Rico engaged in the sale of specialty
pet supplies and services such as grooming and dog training, cat
and dog boarding facilities, and daycare.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Richard Short, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN R SHORT
          350 10th Ave., Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 272 0720
          Facsimile: (619) 839 3129
          E-mail: Brian@shortlegal.com

Petsmart, Inc. is represented by:

          Carrie Anne Gonell, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 830 0600
          Facsimile: (714) 830 0700
          E-mail: cgonell@morganlewis.com


PIZZA HUT: Allan Myers Represents Franchisees in Appeal Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Adele Ferguson, writing for The Australian Financial Review,
reports that the $170 billion franchise industry -- and its
lobbyists -- will nervously watch a court case about to be
unleashed in the Federal Court between Pizza Hut franchisees and
their former franchisor, US-based fast food giant Yum!

The appeal case, which was set to begin on May 15, comes as the
relationship between franchisors and franchisees is being
scrutinised by experts, regulators and politicians.

It is a topic that has been doing the rounds of senators in the
past few weeks after a Protecting Vulnerable Workers Bill was
introduced into parliament earlier this year.

The bill was designed to beef up penalties for wage fraud and make
franchisors jointly responsible for workplace abuses if they have
a "significant degree of influence or control" over the
franchisee's affairs.

The stakes are high.  There are more than 1000 franchise networks
and 79,000 franchisees creating more than 460,000 jobs.

Until now franchisors have enjoyed a disproportionate amount of
power, with some franchisees likening the relationship to
indentured slavery.

The relationship between franchisees and franchisors hit the
spotlight after a series of wage fraud scandals were exposed in
high profile franchise networks 7-Eleven, Domino's, Caltex, United
Petroleum, Pizza Hut and many others.

The scandals highlighted limitations in the law, which Minister
for Employment Michaelia Cash sought to fix in the new bill.

In 7-Eleven's case, the Fair Work Ombudsman found that the
franchisor "compounded" the problems of wage fraud by failing to
use systems and processes to detect or address deliberate worker
exploitation.

Nobody is suggesting franchisors should be automatically liable
for the wrongdoings of a franchisee, but if the business model
creates a situation that encourages wage fraud or the franchisor
knows, or should know, what is going on, they should be held
accountable.

However, not all franchisors see it that way.  The franchise
industry, most notably the Franchise Council of Australia, is
fighting to dilute the bill before it passes through the senate.

The industry is also studying the legal battle Pizza Hut
franchisees have launched against Yum!

The action was initiated by liquidator Bob Jacobs at Auxilium
Partners late last year.  Mr. Jacobs had witnessed the plight of
Pizza Hut franchisees when he became liquidator of eight stores in
2014.  The stores collapsed after the franchisor, Yum! rolled out
a "value strategy" that required its franchisees slash the prices
of a range of pizzas by 50 per cent.

More than 90 per cent of Pizza Hut franchisees joined the original
class action, alleging unconscionable conduct, losses and business
collapses as a direct consequence of the price war.

But the case was lost in 2016 and months later Yum! sold the Pizza
Hut business to private equity operator Allegro, which has
embarked on a strategy to reinvigorate demand and take on
Domino's.

Allegro went on to buy another franchised pizza chain Eagle Boys,
which got into strife due to fierce competition and questionable
strategies.

Jacobs decided to appeal the case, putting up $50,000 of his own
money to lodge the claim.

He then cleverly filed an application with the Australian Taxation
Office for an indemnity available to insolvency practitioners
under The Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.

Allan Myers, QC, will represent the franchisees.

Yum! is defending its actions.  In its outline of submissions to
the Federal Court it says the half-price pizza strategy was
designed to improve franchisee profitability and grow its own
business and revenues.

At the end of the day, the court of appeal will make its own
decisions, but the appellant's outline of submissions captures the
current environment: "holding franchisors to account for the
adverse impact of the exercise of their powers has been the
subject of increased focus by policy makers."

It goes on to say "the proper application of an objective test of
reasonableness, rather than a subjective test of honesty, will
have significant social utility in ensuring competent decisions
are made by franchisors in the interests of the sector as a
whole."

There's a lot at stake for the franchise industry besides a
potential damages claim of tens of millions of dollars.

It is why the sector will be watching closely the legal action and
the final wording of Vulnerable Workers Bill legislation.

The bill attracted a number of submissions, including one from the
Franchise Council of Australia (FCA) which has been lobbying
senators that the legislation is heavy-handed and unnecessary
because accessorial liability provisions are working and in "heavy
use".

In its submission it wheels out the argument that the bill needs
to be amended to "avoid serious harm" to the franchise sector.  It
says if the bill is adopted in its current form it will reduce
franchising activity, growth and investment in Australia.

It also argues that the legislation currently catches all
franchise systems due to the breadth of the definition of
"responsible franchisor entity" and where there hasn't been any
evidence of systematic Fair Work Act contraventions.

However, in the past year there have been a multitude of cases of
systemic wage fraud in different franchise models and by small and
large franchisors.  For example, last year Paul Sadler Swimland, a
franchise network that runs 15 swimming schools, was caught
underpaying hundreds of young swimming instructors over six years.

In its submissions, the FCA suggests a number of amendments to the
wording of the bill.  It wants it changed from "the person has a
significant degree of influence or control over the franchisee
entity's affairs" to read "the person has a substantial degree of
control over the franchisee entity's workplace terms and
conditions".

Independent Contractors Australia has studied the FCA's suggested
wording changes and warns that if the senate adopts them, it would
make it meaningless.  These word changes would allow franchisors
to go to court and argue that they didn't have substantial control
over the workplace terms and conditions of the franchisee and
therefore shouldn't bear any responsibility or liability for wage
fraud across its network.

"These changes would essentially retain the status quo, where
franchisors could deliberately seek not to exercise any influence
over workplace terms and conditions and therefore avoid any
responsibility for worker underpayment," it says.

The ICA also rejects the assertion that the bill would create high
compliance costs.  "Remember that franchisors create, own and
control a business system . . . They require franchisees to comply
with strict marketing, product, pricing, shop design, purchasing,
supply chain and many other imposed private sector regulations,"
the ICA says.  The franchisors monitor and audit franchisees to
ensure compliance.

It also points out that franchisors must comply with regulations
such as food safety, workplace safety, competition laws, zoning
regulations and financial regulations.  In turn, franchisors must
ensure their franchisees comply with these regulations otherwise
the franchisor will be in breach.  "The business of franchisors is
to specialise in the running of their own private and government-
created regulations.  That is their expertise.  Yet when it comes
to the realm of worker wage rates the FCA seems to want
franchisors to avoid any exercise of that very expertise."

The ICA believes if the language of the bill is changed it will
become a legislative sham.  "The legislation would give the
appearance of doing something to prevent franchise wage fraud but
do essentially nothing to achieve that aim.  Parliament would have
been conned into conning Australians."

Between the class action and legislative reform, the franchise
industry has been under the microscope like never before.  There
have been some shocking cases of wage fraud across the franchise
sector, which has raised questions about the balance of power.
It's time this was properly dealt with. [GN]


PNC BANK: Dan-Harry Gets More Time to Respond to Dismissal Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan granted a motion for an
extension of plaintiff's time to respond to a Motion to Dismiss
for Failure to State a Claim filed in the class action captioned
Dawari Dan-Harry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PNC Bank, National Association, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00136, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Rhode Island, according to a docket entry dated May 19, 2017.

Plaintiff has until June 12, 2017, to file its response.

This case was originally filed in Providence County Superior
Court, with Case Number pc-2017-0985, and was transferred to the
District Court on April 6, 2016.

PNC Bank is a Pittsburgh-based financial services corporation.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

     Harris K. Weiner, Esq.
     Salter McGowan Sylvia & Leonard, Inc.
     The Heritage Building
     321 South Main Street, Suite 301
     Providence, RI 02903
     Tel. No:(401) 274-0300 x 228
     E-mail: hweiner@smsllaw.com


PORTLAND, OR: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hudson" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Frank Hudson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Frank Hudson v. Housing Authority of Portland, et
al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02364-BR, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon, Portland.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

The appellate case is captioned as Frank Hudson v. Housing
Authority of Portland, et al., Case No. 17-35400, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Frank Hudson's opening brief is due on August 17,
      2017;

   -- Appellees Michael Buonocore, Home Forward Board of
      Commissioners, Housing Authority of Portland, Rachael
      Russell and Jim Smith's answering brief is due on
      September 18, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant FRANK HUDSON, an individual; and all others
similarly situated, appears pro se.

Defendants-Appellees HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PORTLAND, a public,
municipal corporation, DBA Home Forward; MICHAEL BUONOCORE, Home
Forward Executive Director, in his official and personal capacity;
JIM SMITH, Chair, Home Forward Board of Commissioners, in his
official and personal capacity; and RACHAEL RUSSELL, Human
Resources Supervisor, in her official and personal capacity, are
represented by:

          Jeffery J. Matthews, Esq.
          HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK P.C.
          360 E. 10th Avenue
          Eugene, OR 97401-3273
          Telephone: (541) 485-0220
          Facsimile: (541) 686-6564
          E-mail: jeffery.j.matthews@harrang.com


PRINCIPAL LIFE: Must Face Class Action Over 401(k) Funds
--------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a lawsuit
accusing Principal Life Insurance Co. of reaping excessive profits
from the guaranteed investment products it sells to 401(k)
investors is moving forward as a class action (Rozo v. Principal
Life Ins. Co., S.D. Iowa, No. 4:14-cv-00463-JAJ-CFB, 5/12/17).

In certifying a proposed class of about 41,000 investors, a
federal judge in Iowa held on May 12 that the lawsuit involved
common issues related to Principal's conduct and potential status
as a fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Further, the dispute could be resolved through a formulaic damages
model, making class certification appropriate, the judge said.

The lawsuit attacks Principal's guaranteed interest funds, which
are low-risk 401(k) investments held for a contractually
determined period. The investors say that Principal reaps
unreasonable profits from these investments by paying investors
too small a portion of the returns Principal receives from the
underlying investments.

Several financial companies have been sued over the guaranteed
investments they offer, and many lawsuits have seen early success.
In recent months, judges have forced Principal, Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co., Prudential Retirement Insurance & Annuity Co. and
Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Co. to defend their guaranteed
investment products from proposed class action challenges.  A
similar case is pending against Massachusetts Mutual Life
Insurance Co.

By contrast, New York Life Insurance Co. saw more success in
defending its guaranteed investment products.  A proposed class
action making similar claims was voluntarily dismissed two days
after a federal judge expressed doubt that the investors suing New
York Life could proceed with their claims.

In this ruling against Principal, the judge said that the "core of
the case" centers on Principal's management of the challenged
guaranteed investment products, which was governed by a uniform
contract and standardized terms applicable to all investors.
Principal argued that calculating damages on a classwide basis
would be unworkable, but the judge disagreed, saying that damages
could be calculated by inputting the relevant figures into the
investors' proposed damages formula.

Chief Judge John A. Jarvey of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa wrote the decision.

The investors are represented by Zelle LLP, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky LLP and Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow LLP.
Principal is represented by Nyemaster Goode PC and Sidley Austin
LLP. [GN]


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
Open Minds reports that on April 6, 2017, lawsuits were filed
against Quest Diagnostics Inc. and Laboratory Corporation of
America Holdings (LabCorp) alleging that the two laboratories
charged consumers excessively high rates for diagnostic tests not
covered by the consumers' health plans.  The plaintiffs had no
agreement with the respective labs, and when their insurance
companies did not pay their claims, the labs unilaterally charged
the consumers excessive, non-market based rates.  No hearing date
has been set.  Both complaints seek class-action status.

The plaintiffs' attorney is Robert Finkel with the law firm Wolf
Popper LLP. [GN]


RANDOLPH COUNTY, AL: Faces Class Suit over Excessive Bail
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the sheriff and court system of Randolph County, Alabama, are the
latest to face a federal class action in Opelika, Alabama,
accusing them of jailing poor people arrested on minor charges for
long times merely because they cannot pay the bail.

The case is captioned, KANDACE KAY EDWARDS, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DAVID COFIELD, in
his official capacity as Randolph County Sheriff, CHRISTOPHER MAY,
in his official capacity as Circuit Clerk, JILL PUCKETT, in her
official capacity as Magistrate of the Randolph County District
Court, and CLAY TINNEY, in his official capacity as the District
Court Judge of the Randolph County District Court, Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00321-WKW-SRW (M.D. Ala., May 18, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

Samuel Brooke, Esq.
Micah West, Esq.
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
400 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, AL 36104
Tel: (334) 956-8200
Fax: (334)956-8481
E-mail: samuel.brookesplcenter.org
E-mail: micah.westsplcenter.org

     - and -

Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
Katherine Hubbard, Esq.
CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
910 17th Street NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 930-3835
E-mail: aleccivilrightscorps.org
E-mail: katherinecivilrightscorps.org

     - and -

Randall C. Marshall, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF ALABAMA, INC.
P.O. Box 6179
Montgomery, AL 36106-0179
Tel: (334)420-1741
E-mail: rmarshallaclualabama.org

     - and -

Brandon Buskey, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
CRIMINAL LAW REFORM PROJECT
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 549-2654
E-mail: bbuskey@aclu.org


REDDY ICE: Faces "Barnett" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
LEANDER BARNETT, on his own behalf and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. REDDY ICE CORPORATION, a Nevada Corporation, and
SCHADE ICE CORP., a Florida Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
0:17-cv-60919-FAM (S.D. Fla., May 9, 2017), alleges violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants have allegedly failed to comply with the requirements
of the Fair Labor Standards Act by, inter alia: (a) failing to
maintain accurate time records of the actual start times, stop
times, number of hours worked each day, and total hours worked
each week by Plaintiff and other similarly situated Delivery
Assistants, a/k/a Helpers; and (b) failing to pay the minimum
wages required by the FLSA and time and one-half wages for all of
the actual overtime hours worked by Plaintiff and other similarly
situated Delivery Assistants, a/k/a Helpers.

REDDY ICE CORPORATION has owned and operated manufacturing and
distributing facilities throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RETAILMENOT INC: Rigrodsky & Long Represents Scarantino
-------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case captioned Louis Scarantino, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Retailmenot, Inc., Thomas Ball, Jeff Crowe, Eric Korman, Jules
Maltz, Gokul Rajaram, Greg Santora, Brian Sharples, Tamar
Yehoshua, Cotter Cunningham, Harland Clarke Holdings Corp. and R
Acquisition Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00474, (D.
Del., April 26, 2017), is represented by:

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

            - and -

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

As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter on May 25,
2017, Mr. Scarantino, alleging himself to be a stockholder of
Retailmenot, filed a purported stockholder class action complaint,
or the Scarantino Complaint, in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware, against the Company, the Company's
Chief Executive Officer, all members of the Board, HCH and HCH's
wholly-owned acquisition subsidiary. Among other things, the
Scarantino Complaint criticizes the proposed transaction price of
$11.60 per share of Series 1 common stock as inadequate and
alleges that the solicitation/recommendation statement filed by
the Company on Schedule 14D-9 omits to state material information,
rendering it false and misleading, and in violation of the
Exchange Act and related regulations. The suit seeks, among other
things, an order enjoining consummation of the Merger, rescission
of the Merger if it has already been consummated or rescissory
damages, an order directing the Company to file a solicitation
statement that does not contain any untrue statement of fact and
states all material facts required in order to make the statements
contained therein not misleading, and an award of attorneys' fees,
experts' fees, and expenses.


ROBERT CARTER: "Hines" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Ind.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled James Hines, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Robert Carter, Jr., in his official capacity, the Defendant, Case
No. 46D03-1704-CT-0684, was removed on May 18, 2017 from the
LaPorte Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:17-cv-00388-PPS-MGG to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Philip P Simon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jefferson S. Garn, Esq.
          Sara T. Martin, Esq.
          INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE-IAG/302
          Indiana Government Center South
          302 W Washington St 5th Fl
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770
          Telephone: (317) 234 7119
          Facsimile: (317) 232 7979
          E-mail: Jefferson.Garn@atg.in.gov
                  Sara.Martin@atg.in.gov


ROGERS AGENCY: Settlor Had Standing to Assert Claims
----------------------------------------------------
David Fowler Johnson, Esq., at Winstead PC, in an article for JD
Supra, wrote that in Lee v. Rogers Agency, Lee purchased three
whole-life insurance policies in the 1980s where each had a face
value of $1,000,000. No. 06-15-00037, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 1069
(Tex. App. -- Texarkana February 8, 2017, pet. filed). It was
represented to Lee that the policies provided that Lee could
shorten the premium payment period by tendering payment in full.
Lee paid $238,188.15, which he understood would extinguish his
obligation to pay premiums on the policies. In 1991, Lee
transferred ownership of the policies an irrevocable insurance
trust for tax planning purposes, and the owner became the trustee
of the trust.

Later, a class action lawsuit was filed against the insurance
company based on allegations that misrepresentations were made
about whether a single prepayment would be sufficient to carry the
cost of the policies for the life of the insured. This suit was
settled with the insurer paying $2 billion to the class
plaintiffs. Allegedly, notice of this class action and settlement
was sent to the trustee of Lee's trust, but the trustee did not
request to be excluded from the class.

Later, Lee's policies lapsed for non-payment of premiums, and he
filed suit against the insurance company, an insurance agency, and
the agent for declaratory relief and damages for claims for
negligence, DTPA, insurance code, and breach of contract. The
insurance company filed a motion for summary judgment and argued
that Lee had no standing to litigate his claims or, in the
alternative, that his claims were barred by res judicata because
they had been fully litigated in the class action. The trial court
granted the motion for summary judgment, and Lee appealed.

The court of appeals first addressed whether Lee had standing. In
other words, the court determined whether Lee retained the right
to assert extra-contractual claims based on the policies or
whether those rights were transferred to the trust. The court set
forth the following standards for trust construction:

The meaning of a trust instrument is a question of law when there
is no ambiguity as to its terms. If the court is capable of giving
a definite legal meaning or interpretation to an instrument's
words, it is unambiguous, and the court may construe the
instrument as a matter of law. Only when the trust instrument's
language is uncertain or reasonably susceptible to more than one
meaning will it be considered ambiguous so that its interpretation
presents a fact issue precluding summary judgment. The overriding
principle to be observed in construing a trust instrument is to
ascertain the settlor's intent with the view of effectuating it.
"[I]t is the intention of the settlor at the time of the creation
of the trust that is determinative." We interpret trust
instruments the same way as we interpret wills, contracts, and
other legal documents. Thus, when interpreting a trust, a court
must "(1) [c]onstrue the agreement as a whole; (2) give each word
and phrase its plain, grammatical meaning unless it definitely
[*9]  appears that such meaning would defeat the parties' intent;
(3) construe the agreement, if possible, so as to give each
provision meaning and purpose so that no provision is rendered
meaningless or moot; (4) express terms are favored over implied
terms or subsequent conduct; and (5) surrounding circumstances may
be considered -- not to determine a party's subjective intent --
but to determine the appropriate meaning to ascribe to the
language chosen by the parties."

Moreover, when determining the parties' intent, the court must be
particularly wary of isolating individual words, phrases, or
clauses and reading them out of the context of the document as a
whole. For this reason, "we 'examine and consider the entire
writing in an effort to harmonize and give effect to all the
provisions of the contract so that none will be rendered
meaningless. No single provision taken alone will be given
controlling effect; rather, all the provisions must be considered
with reference to the whole instrument.'" Id. at * 8-9 (internal
citations omitted).

Among other provisions, the trust agreement stated:

The Trustee is hereby vested with all right, title, and interest
in and to such policies of insurance, and the Trustee is
authorized and empowered to exercise and enjoy, for the purposes
of the Trust herein created . . . The Settlor hereby relinquishes
all rights and powers in such policies of insurance which are not
assignable, and will, at the request of the Trustee, execute all
other instruments reasonably required to effectuate this
relinquishment. Id. at *10-12.

The court surmised that: "[T]he first question before us is
whether Lee's causes of action in this case are among those
'rights and powers in such policies' that Lee assigned or
relinquished when the policies were transferred to the Trust." Id.
The court held that the trust's provisions must be read in
conjunction with the purposes of the trust. "[T]he Trust's purpose
was to shield the Policies from estate taxes at Lee's death, and
to do that, Lee had to divest himself of all 'incidents of
ownership' in the Policies." Id. The court held that whether Lee
assigned or relinquished the extra-contractual causes of action at
issue turned on whether those causes of action were "incidents of
ownership" as defined by federal case law under Section 2042 of
the federal income tax code. The court concluded:

When interpreting the terms of the Trust Agreement in this case,
we must keep in mind that Lee's assignment and relinquishment of
the Policies was intended to be only as broad as was necessary to
divest himself of any "incidents of ownership." There is no
indication from the Trust language that he intended to convey
anything else. If his extra-contractual claims are "incidents of
ownership" in the Policies, then they were assigned or
relinquished, but if they are not "incidents of ownership," then
Lee retained those claims and has standing to assert them against
the Appellees. Id. at *19.

Federal law held that the phrase "incidents of ownership" was
defined as "the economic benefits of owning an insurance policy,"
including "the power to change the beneficiary, to surrender or
cancel the policy, to assign the policy or revoke an assignment,
to pledge the policy for a loan, or to obtain a loan from the
insurer for the surrender of the value of the policy." Id. at 19-
22. The court also noted that under federal law, when deciding
whether a decedent has retained any "incidents of ownership" of
life insurance for purposes of Section 2042, "the key question is
what power did decedent possess during his lifetime to control the
disposition of the policy or the proceeds?" Id. The court
concluded that the extra-contractual causes of action raised by
Lee were not "incidents of ownership" in the policies. Retaining
those claims did not allow Lee to change the disposition of the
policy proceeds in a manner contrary to the trust's terms, either
by redirecting those proceeds to himself or to some person other
than the named beneficiaries. Therefore, the court held that Lee
had standing to assert those claims in the litigation.

The court next addressed whether the class-action settlement
barred Lee's claim due to res judicata. One issue was whether Lee
was in privity with the trust and trustee such that a judgment
that barred suit by the trust also barred suit by the settlor,
Lee. After analyzing res judicata precedent, the court concluded
that "in order to determine whether Lee's claims are barred by res
judicata, we must decide whether Lee had a 'substantive legal
relationship' with the Trustee . . . , such that he was actually
represented by the Trustee in the [class action] litigation." Id.
at * 32.

The court looked at the relationship between a settlor, the trust,
and the trustee:

To begin with, a settlor who "[u]nder the terms of the . . . Trust
. . . do[es] not manage any of the aspects of the . . . Trust and
do[es] not stand to inherit any of the trust assets" is not an
"interested person" who has standing to bring an action against a
trustee or to bring other proceedings related to a trust under the
Texas Property Code. Likewise, a trustee does not have standing to
sue a settlor for breach of fiduciary duty.

Absent some assignment of duty to the settlor in the trust
instrument, a trustee has no cause of action to sue the settlor of
a trust for a breach of fiduciary duty to the trust beneficiaries.
A trust settlor has no fiduciary obligation to a trust beneficiary
once that trust is created, and control of the trust assets is
vested with the trustee. Accordingly, the few Texas cases
addressing the legal relationship between a settlor and a trustee
have concluded that neither has standing to sue the other, at
least where "[u]nder the terms of the . . . Trust . . . the
Settlor do[es] not manage any of the aspects of the . . . Trust
and do[es] not stand to inherit any of the trust assets."

This precedent is consistent with Section 200 of the Second
Restatement of Trusts, which states, "No one except a beneficiary
or one suing on his behalf can maintain a suit against the trustee
to enforce the trust or to enjoin or obtain redress for a breach
of trust." Comment b to that section goes on to state: "Settlor
and his successors in interest. Neither the settlor nor his heirs
or personal representatives, as such, can maintain a suit against
the trustee to enforce a trust or to enjoin or obtain redress for
a breach of trust. Where, however, the settlor retains an interest
in the trust property,[] he can of course maintain a suit against
the trustee to protect that interest. Thus, if the settlor is also
a beneficiary of the trust, or if he has an interest by way of
resulting trust, or if he has reserved power to revoke the trust,
he can maintain a suit against the trustee to protect his
interest. So also, if the settlor makes a contract with the
trustee, he can maintain an action on the contract with the
trustee. The trustee, however, merely by accepting the trust and
agreeing to perform his duties as trustee does not make a contract
with the settlor to perform the trust which the settlor could
enforce. Id. at *34-37.

The court then concluded:

Consequently, because (1) Lee, as settlor, is not an "interested
person" as defined by the Property Code; (2) Lee neither owed a
duty to the Trust nor was owed any duties by the trust; and (3) as
Settlor of a "private irrevocable trust . . . ., [he lost] the
possibility of modification or input on the Trust once the Trust
[was] created[,]" . . . then Lee and the trustee do not have a
"substantial legal relationship" with each other sufficient to
create privity for purposes of res judicata. Although there may be
an "incidental legal relationship" between them in the sense that
Lee created the Trust and the Trustee subsequently managed it,
there is not the "substantive legal relationship" necessary to
satisfy due process for purposes of binding Lee by the Willson
judgment.

Id. at *36-37. The court held that Lee did not have standing to
raise negligence and breach-of-contract claims, but did have
standing to assert the DTPA and insurance code claims against the
insurance company. The court reversed and remanded the summary
judgment to the trial court for further proceedings.

The insurance company has since filed a petition for review in
this case to the Texas Supreme Court. On April 28, 2017, the
Supreme Court requested that Lee file a response to the petition,
and the response is currently due on May 30, 2017. [GN]


RUTGERS UNIVERSITY: "Morris" Suit Alleges Gender & Race Bias
------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummel, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
former women's basketball coach at Rutgers University and several
student-athletes have hit the school with a class action in
Newark, N.J., saying two members of the school's athletic
department in Newark made discriminatory comments about women,
gays and blacks.

Filed on May 4 in Essex County Superior Court, the class action
says Kevin Morris was fired as basketball coach after complaining
about racist and homophobic comments by university Athletic
Director Mark Griffin.

Rutgers denied the allegations, saying it fired Morris because he
did not return to work after his 10-month medical leave. The
school says an internal investigation found no violations of its
policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment.

As laid out in the 25-page complaint, however, Griffin and the
university "engaged in a pattern and practice of harassment,
disparate treatment, discrimination, and retaliation."

The complaint accuses Griffin of calling a black female coach a
"double quota," telling the woman she was lucky to work with "so
many white guys." Griffin also told his staff they could say
whatever they wanted to student-athletes, according to the
complaint.

Seven student-athletes join Morris in the complaint, accusing the
school's Newark campus of fostering a discriminatory atmosphere in
its women's basketball program.

Rutgers has faced other allegations of discrimination in recent
years, most notably involving former men's basketball coach Mike
Rice, who was caught on camera in 2013 throwing basketballs at
players and using an anti-gay slur.

The school fired athletic director Julie Hermann and football
coach Kyle Flood in 2015 after other allegations, including that
Flood allowed players who failed drug tests to play.

And this past December, the National Collegiate Athletic
Association announced it was investigating the allegations that
Rutgers operated a faulty drug-testing program that allowed
players who tested positive for banned substances to compete.

A decade before these incidents, Rutgers men's basketball coach
Kevin Bannon was fired after it was revealed he forced players who
missed free throws during practice to run sprints naked.

Morris claims when news of Rice scandal broke, Griffin joked about
the fallout in a meeting with staff, claiming he could not coach
students without saying the word "fuck."

Saying the athletic director routinely made homophobic and racist
comments during staff meetings, the complaint says Griffin offered
a bizarre assurance to employees about the new Rutgers mascot.
"Don't worry, it won't be gay," Griffin is alleged to have said.

Morris claims to have reported Griffin's comments to Gerald
Massenburg, the university's assistant chancellor of student life,
but that nothing was done.

After Griffin threatened Morris and his staff, according to the
complaint, Morris filed a formal complaint with human resources
and went on medical leave in July 2014.

Morris claims he kept inquiring into Rutgers' internal
investigation into Griffin and the athletic program, eventually
receiving a letter in May 2015 that directed him to return to work
by a specific date. One week later, he was fired, the complaint
states.

Morris first brought the allegations to light in 2014, according
to an article in the Rutgers Observer that quotes Griffin as
having denied making discriminatory remarks during coaches'
meetings.

"I got nothing to hide," Griffin said in the article. "My goal and
the university's goal is what's in the best interest of the
student athletes and our institution as a whole."

The internal investigation into Griffin was never made public, but
the new class action contends that the probe was "incomplete,
flawed and biased," and that Rutgers had an "indifference to the
widespread discrimination."

Morris, who was hired in 2001, received a number of state athletic
awards during his more than 15 years as the university's women's
basketball coach.

No stranger to bias litigation, Morris sued Fordham University in
2003 while coaching the Bronx school's women's basketball team,
claiming he was paid less than the men's basketball coach and that
the women's program received inferior resources.

Morris says Rutgers found someone more in line with Griffin's
approach to take over coaching the women's basketball team in his
absence. The complaint quotes coach William Zasowski as calling
one female referee a "cunt" in front of players and calling his
female players "motherfuckers" when they made mistakes.

Zasowski allegedly referred to two of his senior players -- Sharee
Gordon and Jade Howard, both of whom are also plaintiffs in the
lawsuit -- as "dykes," and said black players looked like they
"combed their hair with firecrackers" and had a "nappy look."

Gordon claims Zasowski refused to start her in another game after
she complained and ordered her off a team bus. But the complaint
says the other women on the team backed up Gordon, threatening to
leave the bus as well if she was forced off.

Gordon says Griffin told her in response to the complaints that
Zasowski "could do whatever he wanted to do as head coach."

During a February 2016 meeting with Gordon and her mother,
according to the complaint, Griffin dismissed the complaints and
the bus incident, warning that pressing the issue would "affect
her enrollment at Rutgers."

The complaint also says the women's basketball team was treated
worse than the men's team at Rutgers, receiving less equipment and
having to pay more for travel to away games.

Rutgers lists its current women's basketball coach as Ashley
Cieplicki. The school noted in its statement that Zasowski is no
longer affiliated with the university, but had been hired "to fill
in owing to Morris' 10-month absence."

Morris and the student-athletes seek punitive damages, alleging
retaliation, hostile work environment and disparate treatment on
the basis of gender. They are represented by Kevin Barber with
Niedweske Barber Hager in Morristown, New Jersey.

The case is captioned, KEVIN MORRIS, JASMINE DANIELS, SHAREE
GORDON, JADE HOWARD, PIA MALCAMPO, ADA YSHIA MCKINNON, SARAH
SCHWARTZ AND ARIANNA WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RUTGERS-NEWARK UNIVERSITY,
GERALD MASSENBURG, MARK GRIFFIN AND WILLIAM ZASOWSKI, Defendants,
Case No. _____, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division - Essex
County, May 17, 2017.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

Kevin E. Barber, Esq.
NIEDWESKE BARBER HAGER, LLC
98 Washington Street
Morristown, NJ 07960
Tel: 973-401-0064
Fax: 973-401-0061


SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Class Action Alleges Wrongful Termination
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a DT&R
field specialist recently filed a class-action lawsuit against
Schlumberger Technology Corporation and Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company for alleged denial of benefits and wrongful
termination.

Jack Venable Jr. filed a complaint on September 22 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Lafayette
Division alleging that the defendants violated the Louisiana
Employment Discrimination Law.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he was
forced to take disability leave due to chronic ankle and back pain
on Sept. 23, 2015.  He immediately informed defendant MetLife and
made his claim for benefits.  Hours after he made the claim, he
was allegedly terminated without explanation.  The defendants'
alleged actions resulted in lost wages and employment benefits.
The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible for allegedly
rejecting his claim for benefits because his employment had
already ended.  It also denied his appeal on April 6, 2016 for the
same reason.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment against
each defendant for all disability benefits due, interest, attorney
fees, costs of suit and all other relief as the facts may provide.
He is represented by James F. Willeford and Reagan L. Toledano of
Willeford & Toledano in New Orleans.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
Lafayette Division Case number 6:16-cv-01336.[GN]


SEAR HOLDINGS: Misclassifies NY Drivers, "Kloppel" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Kloppel, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Sears Holdings Corporation,
Sears, Roebuck & Company, and HomeDeliveryLink, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-06296-FPG (W.D.N.Y., May 8, 2017),
seeks to recover damages declaratory and/or injunctive relief,
reimbursement of all charges, deductions and expenses, liquidated
damages and prejudgment interest, litigation costs and expenses
under the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

According to the complaint, although Defendants classified
Plaintiff, as well as the other New York Drivers, as independent
contractors, the control manifested over the New York Drivers by
HDL and Sears demonstrates that they are "employees" under NYLL.

Sears Holdings Corporation is an American holding company
headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago.
It is the owner of retail store brands Sears and Kmart, and was
founded after the latter purchased the former in 2005.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel A. Alba, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN & RANZENHOFER, P.C.
          74 Main St.
          P.O. Box 31
          Akron, NY 14001-0031
          Telephone: (716) 631 9999
          Facsimile: (716) 542 4090
          E-mail: sam@legalsurvival.com

               - and -

          Anthony S. Almeida, Esq.
          Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
          THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C.
          116 Village Boulevard, Suite 200
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 799 1266

               - and -

          Benjamin J. Weber, Esq.
          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Judge Rules in Favor of Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Sentinel reports that a federal judge has ruled in favor
of a Pinellas County man who sued SeaWorld Entertainment over
automatic renewal of passes purchased through its monthly EZPay
program.

Jason Herman sued SeaWorld in 2014 over the automatic renewal,
claiming a breach of contract. The contract does not remind
visitors of the automatic renewal toward the end of their first
annual passes.

The contract says the passes would renew automatically except for
any "paid in less than 12 months." Herman's lawsuit points out
that customers such as him actually do pay for the annual passes
in less than a full year. Herman, for example, made his first
payment on March 18, 2013, and his 12th one on Feb. 18, 2014.

"Plaintiffs bargained for a one-year pass, not a pass of
indefinite duration," Judge Mary Scriven said in her ruling last
month granting Herman's motion for summary judgment as to
liability against SeaWorld. Scriven also granted the plaintiff's
motion to make the lawsuit a class-action case.

Neither SeaWorld nor Herman's attorney would comment.

SeaWorld has filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit. SeaWorld disclosed the legal action in a
quarterly report it filed on May 9 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission. [GN]


SHASTA COUNTY, CA: Inmates' Lawsuit Granted Class Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
On April 5, 2017, a federal judge granted class-action status to a
lawsuit filed by inmates of the Shasta County Jail to protest the
jail's lack of accommodation for disabilities.  The class includes
all current and future detainees and prisoners at Shasta County
Jail with mobility disabilities who, because of their
disabilities, need appropriate accommodations, modifications,
services, and and/or physical access in accordance with federal
and state disability laws. A settlement conference is to take
place in May 2017.

The complaint, Jewett v. California Forensic Medical Group, et
al., was filed in 2016 by the inmates. [GN]


SIGNET JEWELERS: Ct. Consolidates "Mikolchak" With Related Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesse M. Furman issued an order in the case captioned Maria
Mikolchak, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. SIGNET JEWELERS LIMITED, MARK S. LIGHT
AND MICHAEL BARNES, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02846-UA,
consolidating the case under case number 16-CV-6728-JMF, according
to a docket entry dated May 12, 2017.

"As the above-captioned actions involve common questions of law
and fact and Plaintiffs agree that consolidation is appropriate,
it is hereby ordered that pursuant to Rule 42(a)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, they are consolidated under the case
number 16-CV-6728. Any motions to serve as lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel shall be filed by July 5, 2017. It is further ORDERED
that opposition to any motion for appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead counsel shall be filed by July 19, 2017. Plaintiffs
Irving Firemens Relief and Retirement System and Maria Mikolchak
shall promptly provide supplemental notice of the new deadline to
their purported classes. Finally, it is hereby ordered that a
conference shall be held on August 1, 2017, at 3 p.m. in Courtroom
1105 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New
York, New York, to consider any motions for appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel," Judge Furman opined.

The Clerk of court is directed to consolidate 16-CV-6728, 17-CV-
2845, and 17-CV-2846 under case number 16-CV-6728, and to close
17-CV-2845 and 17-CV-2846. Motions are due by July 5, 2017.
Responses are due by July 19, 2017.  Status Conference set for
August 1, 2017 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 1105, 40 Centre Street,
New York, NY 10007 before Judge Jesse M. Furman.

Mikolchak's case was originally filed in U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas under Case Number: 3:17-cv-00923
and was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, according to a docket entry dated April 20,
2017.

The case accuses Defendants of violating the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act by issuing statements that were materially false
and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants
allegedly made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) approximately 250 former employees of Sterling
Jewelers, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Signet, claimed in
sworn statements that Sterling executives presided over a
corporate culture that fostered rampant sexual harassment and
discrimination; (2) the current CEO of Signet, Defendant Mark
Light, was among those accused of having sex with female employees
and promoting women based upon how they responded to sexual
demands; (3) it was unlikely that Signet would be able to avoid
paying a sizable amount of damages in connection with the class
action lawsuit filed by Sterling employees; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond
jewelry, watches, and other products in the United States, Canada,
Puerto Rico, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, and the
Channel Islands. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Dean Gresham, Esq.
     STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN
     12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
     Dallas, TX 75230
     Phone: (972) 387-4040
     Fax: (972) 387-4041
     E-mail: dean@stecklerlaw.com

        - and -

     L Kirstine Rogers, Esq.
     STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN
     12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
     Dallas, TX 75230
     Phone: (972) 387-4040
     Fax: (972) 387-4041
     E-mail: krogers@stecklerlaw.com

        - and -

     Phillip C. Kim, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
     275 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com

Defendant(s) is represented by:

     Paul R. Genender, Esq.
     WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
     200 Crescent Court, Suite 300
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Phone: (214) 746-7700
     Fax: (214) 746-7777
     E-mail: paul.genender@weil.com


SPACEX: To Pay $4 Million in Worker Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Trevor Marshall at The Tech News reports that back in 2016, a
survey by PayScale revealed that SpaceX and Tesla, both owned by
billionaire Elon Musk, are paying the least amount of wages to its
employees in tech. A class-action lawsuit against Musk's space
corporation for not giving them legally mandated breaks. A total
of 4,100 took part in this lawsuit. But today both the company and
plaintiffs came to a decision and settled the case out of court
for $4 million.

Out of this $4 million, $1.3 million will go to the lawyers and
rest of the money will be divided amongst the plaintiffs. Most of
them will get $500 each and highest payout will be around $2,000.

If you take the company's $12+ billion valuations into account
that amount seems like chump change, so at least one of the
plaintiffs tried to block the deal from happening.

THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

The beginning of this class action lawsuit was back in 2016.
Firstly, several individuals separately filed for lawsuits then it
got this big. See, workers in California are entitled to a rest
period every four hours in addition to a lunch break. However,
shifts within the company are reportedly structured so that the
employees can't take those breaks. The plaintiffs said they
weren't compensated for those extra hours either, prompting them
to take the legal route. [GN]


SUNRUN: Faces Securities Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------
Tsvetomira Tsanova, writing for Renewables Now, reports that US
residential solar firm Sunrun is facing a class action lawsuit
related to recent reports that the company is being investigated
for inadequate disclosure of customer cancellations.

Pomerantz LLP said on May 12 the suit has been filed in United
States District Court, Northern District of California on behalf
of a class consisting of investors who acquired Sunrun securities
between September 16, 2015 and May 2, 2017.  They seek to recover
compensable damages in relation to the company's violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On May 3 the Wall Street Journal said, citing sources, that the
inadequate disclosure of customer cancellation numbers in the US
residential solar sector is the subject of a Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) probe.  It mentioned Sunrun and Tesla's
SolarCity as two companies being investigated.

The class complaint alleges that during the class period the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that (i) Sunrun did not adequately report the number
of customers that have canceled contracts; (ii) discovery of the
foregoing conduct would subject the company to heightened
regulatory scrutiny and potential civil sanctions; and (iii) that
Sunrun's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On May 3, following the WSJ report, the company's share price lost
8.83% and closed at EUR 4.75.  As of May 15 the price remains
below its May 2 level.

Presenting its financial results for the first quarter of 2017,
Sunrun said it deployed 73 MW of solar systems in the period,
marking a 21% increase from a year ago and above the company's
guidance.  It reiterated its forecast for 325 MW in deployments in
the full year. [GN]


TOWERCOMM LLC: Faces "Christian" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER CHRISTIAN, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TOWERCOMM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:17-
cv-00223-D (E.D.N.C., May 9, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff worked
for Defendant without being paid the correct overtime premium rate
of time and one-half his regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of forty (40) hours within a work week in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is an organization providing industrial/commercial and
government wireless telecommunications.  Plaintiffs performed
maintenance, repair and installation replacing light bulbs,
antennas and transmission lines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
     MORGAN &MORGAN, P.A.
     191 Peachtree Street, Suite 4200
     Post Office Box 57007
     Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
     Phone: (404) 496-7295
     Fax: (404) 496-7405
     Email: CLeach@forthepeople.com

        - and -

     Ralph K. Frasier, Jr., Esq.
     FRASIER & GRIFFIN, PLLC
     100 East Parrish Street, Suite 350
     Durham, NC 27701
     Phone: (919) 680-4039
            (919) 697-1174
     Fax: (919) 680-4390
     Web site: http://www.frasierandgriffin.com
     E-mail: ralphfrasier@frasierandgriffin.com

     Raleigh Office:
     4400 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 102
     Raleigh, NC 27609
     Phone: (919) 615-0252


UBER TECH: More Time to Respond to "Gonzalez" Suit Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Michael Gonzales, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Uber Technologies,
Inc., Uber USA, LLC, Raiser-CA and Does 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02264, (N.D. Cal., April 24, 2017), a
stipulation to extend time for the Uber Defendants to respond to
Plaintiff's class action complaint was filed with the Court,
according to a docket entry dated May 16, 2017.

This class action suit seeks injunctive relief and damages caused
by Defendants' unlawful invasion of privacy and interception of
electronic communications and images in violation of the Federal
Wiretap Act as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, and California Invasion of Privacy Act.  The lawsuit also
seeks common law damages for invasion of privacy.

Plaintiffs and the members of the Class were employed as drivers
for Lyft, a network transport system, Uber's main competitor in
the United States. Uber allegedly deployed spyware that allowed it
to gain unauthorized access to computer systems to track Lyft
drivers' locations over time.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Burton, Esq.
      Michael Mcshane, Esq.
      AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
      221 Main Street, Suite 1460
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Tel: (415) 568-2555
      Fax: (415) 568-2556
      Email: mburton@audetlaw.com
             mmcshane@audetlaw.com

             - and -

      Caleb Marker, Esq.
      Hannah P. Belknap, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
      2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
      Tel: (877) 500-8780
      Fax: (877) 500-8781
      Email: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
             hannah.belknap@zimmreed.com


UNITED STATES: Cleveland.com Seeks to Recover PACER Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that
Cleveland.com is part of a group of organizations seeking to
recover money from the federal courts system as part of a class-
action lawsuit that says the court's online docket system
overcharges users for access to documents.

The lawsuit was filed by three nonprofit groups in April 2016 in a
federal court in Washington, D.C.  It says the government is
violating the law by taking in more in fees from the Public Access
to Court Electronic Records system -- commonly known as PACER --
than is what is necessary to keep the electronic records system up
and running. It also says millions of dollars that users pay in
fees every year go to projects unrelated to accessing court
records.

A federal judge in January certified a class of people and
organizations who would be eligible to recoup money should the
plaintiffs prevail and money be awarded.

Cleveland.com is not a plaintiff in the lawsuit and has taken no
action to challenge PACER's fees or how they are collected.  The
news organization was sent an email on May 16 with a notification
that it was part of the class.

"The Court decided this lawsuit should be a class action on behalf
of a 'Class,' or group of people that could include you," the
email says.  "There is no money available now and no guarantee
that there will be."

PACER, which provides records to federal courts and bankruptcy
cases, charges $0.10 a page.  There are exceptions, such as for
judicial opinions or for parties to cases.

The government has denied the claims outlined in the lawsuit,
which seeks to recoup money that the plaintiffs say was improperly
collected between April 2010 and April 2016. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Nonprofit Sues Over Calif. Legislative Districts
---------------------------------------------------------------
CITIZENS FOR FAIR REPRESENTATION; CITY OF FORT JONES; THE
CALIFORNIA LIBERTARIAN PARTY; THE CALIFORNIA AMERICAN INDEPENDENT
PARTY; THE MARIN COUNTY GREEN PARTY; MARK BAIRD; JOHN D'AGOSTINI;
LARRY WAHL; SHASTA NATION INDIAN TRIBE; ROY HALL JR; WIN
CARPENTER; KYLE CARPENTER; PATTY SMITH; KATHERINE RADINOVICH;
DAVID GARCIA; LESLIE LIM; KEVIN MCGARY; TERRY RAPOZA; HOWARD
THOMAS; MICHAEL THOMAS; STEVEN BAIRD; MANUEL MARTIN; OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED; AND DOES 1-30, the Plaintiffs, v. SECRETARY OF
STATE ALEX PADILLA, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00973-KJM-CMK
(E.D. Cal., May 8, 2017), seeks permanent injunction and, if
necessary, a preliminary injunction establishing statewide
legislative districts in California and enjoin the growth of the
Representative Districts.

This case is brought by multiple plaintiffs, including the
Municipal Government, 3rd Party Political Parties, Government
Officials and various United States Citizens through Citizens for
Fair Representation (CFR), a nonprofit corporation, seeking
equitable relief greatly increasing the number of representatives
in California or penalizing the State pursuant to U.S.
Constitutional Amendment for abridging the rights of plaintiffs to
vote in California.

CFR is a nonprofit formed to promote meaningful opportunities for
people, who are not wealthy, to participate in their own governing
by being elected to the California legislature or helping others
with similar beliefs and/or characteristics be elected. CFR seeks
to increase representation and decrease the size of the California
districts to achieve this purpose.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary L. Zerman, Esq.
          23935 Philbrook Ave.
          Valencia, CA 91354
          Telephone: (661) 259 2570

               - and -

          Scott Stafne, Esq.
          239 North Olympic Ave
          Arlington, WA 98223
          Telephone: (360) 403 8700


UNITED STATES: High Court Set to Decide on Immigration Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Sherman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Supreme Court decisions in a half-dozen cases dealing with
immigration over the next two months could reveal how the justices
might evaluate Trump administration actions on immigration,
especially stepped up deportations.

Some of those cases could be decided as early as May 15, when the
court was set to meet to issue opinions in cases that were argued
over the past six months.

The outcomes could indicate whether the justices are retreating
from long-standing decisions that give the president and Congress
great discretion in dealing with immigration, and what role
administration policies, including the proposed ban on visits to
the United States by residents of six majority Muslim countries,
may play.

President Donald Trump has pledged to increase deportations,
particularly of people who have been convicted of crimes.  But
Supreme Court rulings in favor of the immigrants in the pending
cases "could make his plans more difficult to realize," said
Christopher Hajec, director of litigation for the Immigration
Reform Litigation Institute. The group generally supports the new
administration's immigration actions, including the travel ban.

For about a century, the court has held that, when dealing with
immigration, the White House and Congress "can get away with
things they ordinarily couldn't," said Temple University law
professor Peter Spiro, an immigration law expert.  "The court has
explicitly said the Constitution applies differently in
immigration than in other contexts."

Two of the immigration cases at the court offer the justices the
possibility of cutting into the deference that courts have given
the other branches of government in this area.  One case is a
class-action lawsuit brought by immigrants who've spent long
periods in custody, including many who are legal residents of the
United States or are seeking asylum.  The court is weighing
whether the detainees have a right to court hearings.

In the other case, the court has taken on a challenge to an
unusual federal law that makes it easier for children born outside
the United States to become citizens if their mother is an
American and harder for them if their father is the U.S. citizen.
Even after legislation in 1986, children of American fathers face
higher hurdles claiming citizenship for themselves.

Both cases were argued before Trump became president in January,
and the Obama administration opposed the detainees' claims and the
citizenship challenge.

Even if the positions haven't changed, the context has, Spiro
said.

"The court has got to be conscious of how these rulings are going
to apply to Trump administration activity," Spiro said.

The decisions may directly affect people who are targeted by
immigration authorities for quick deportation, or expedited
removal, and immigrants who were brought to the United States as
children and offered protection from deportation by the Obama
administration, said Steven Vladeck, a University of Texas law
professor.

"An open question in immigration law concerns how much authority
the government has and how strong the Constitution is as a
constraint," Mr. Vladeck said. For Trump, he said a major question
is how much discretion the president has.  "It's at the heart of a
lot of what the Trump administration wants to do,"
Mr. Vladeck said.

Other cases involve discrete sections of the immigration law in
which the decisions either will free or constrain immigration
authorities from deporting people convicted of certain crimes.

In one case, a Mexican immigrant is facing deportation after he
was convicted in California of having sex with someone under 18
and more than three years younger than he was.  The charge covered
a period before and after his 21st birthday when the woman, his
girlfriend, was 16.  That's a crime in California, but not in most
of the rest of the country and the immigrant says it should not
count as sexual abuse of a minor, which under immigration law
would subject him to deportation.

In another case, an immigrant convicted of burglary is challenging
a provision of immigration law that counts the crime as serious
enough to warrant automatic deportation.  Several federal appeals
courts have sided with immigrants who have contended the provision
is too vague.

Another issue before the court also involves sending people back
to their native countries, in a case in which an immigrant
received bad legal advice that led to a guilty plea and certain
deportation.

Immigration almost certainly will continue to be a very active
part of the Supreme Court's docket.  The travel ban itself could
be at the court in the coming months.  On May 15, the federal
appeals court in San Francisco is hearing the administration's
appeal of an order striking down the ban.  Appellate judges in
Richmond, Virginia, heard a similar case recently. [GN]


UNITED STATES: IRS Scandal Case Ongoing in Cincinnati
-----------------------------------------------------
Michael Wyland, writing for Nonprofit Quarterly, reports that a
class action lawsuit related to the IRS's targeting of potentially
politically conservative organizations seeking tax exemption in
the early part of the decade has reached an unusual stage.  A
federal judge in Cincinnati is considering whether Lois Lerner and
Holly Paz, two former IRS officials at the center of what became
known as the IRS scandal, can be excused from public testimony
because they claim their lives are in danger.  A decision was
expected to come as soon as Friday, May 19.

Their attorneys argued in a recent court brief, "This
documentation, as the court will see, makes very personal
references and contains graphic, profane and disturbing language
that would lead to unnecessary intrusion and embarrassment if made
public.  Public dissemination of their deposition testimony would
put their lives in serious jeopardy."  They have asked that their
testimony remain sealed permanently.

An attorney for the 428 groups suing the federal government said,
"Generally, our position is that this is a matter of great public
interest and there is no legal basis for sealing the depositions
or the arguments about whether the depositions should be sealed."

There have been recent developments, such as the IRS's March 2017
response to a 2015 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from
conservative nonprofit Judicial Watch.  The IRS reported "an
additional 6,924 documents of potentially responsive records" had
been located, which, according to Judicial Watch, were not
included among documents in the "Congressional Database" provided
to investigators.

There are those who may be surprised that the IRS scandal is still
taking up court and government time.  It was five years ago that
Lois Lerner first admitted in remarks to an American Bar
Association group in Washington that the IRS had singled out tax
exemption applications from Tea Party and other conservative-
sounding organizations for heightened scrutiny. There have been
several Congressional and executive branch investigations of the
targeting scandal.  However, there has been no satisfactory
resolution of those investigations, with Republicans angry at what
they see as IRS stonewalling and Democrats fulminating about a
non-scandal that included a few liberal-sounding groups in the
targeting net cast by the IRS.

Since the filings in the class action lawsuit are currently sealed
and the participants in the case are limited in what they may say,
it's unknown how specific and credible the threats may be, and
what steps, if any, have been taken to substantiate the threats or
protect Lerner and Paz from potential harm.  The
May 19th court hearing to assess Lerner's and Paz's safety claims
will be closed to the public.  The personal safety of current and
former government employees is important, as is that of all
citizens.  However, theoretical danger should not prevent the
accountability and transparency we expect of government and
government officials in a democracy. [GN]


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: July 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against United Technologies
Corporation ("United Technologies" or the "Company") (NYSE: UTX)
and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased United Technologies securities between April 21, 2015
and July 20, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such
investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: http://www.bgandg.com/utx.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements by issuing
and reaffirming unfounded and inflated earnings guidance,
primarily based on the planning assumptions in two of the
Company's key business units: UTC Aerospace Systems ("UTAS") and
Otis Elevator Co. ("Otis").  Defendants' Class Period
representations were materially false and misleading because
Defendants failed to disclose or indicate that United
Technologies' earnings forecast relied on planning assumptions for
the UTAS and Otis units that were not fully scrutinized and were
far too aggressive.

On July 21, 2015, United Technologies cut its 2015 earnings
guidance due to weak performance by the UTAS and Otis units.
Following this news, United Technologies stock lost hundreds of
millions of dollars in market capitalization, and the stock price
dropped from a Class Period high of $119.14 per share on May 14,
2015, to close at $102.71 per share on July 21, 2015.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/utxor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.  If you suffered a loss
in United Technologies you have until July 11, 2017 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of its clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. [GN]


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Law Firms Provide Update on Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Safirstein Metcalf LLP and HGT Law are updating shareholders of
Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Valeant") of recent developments
in the ongoing shareholder class action.  On May 1, 2017, U.S.
District Judge Michael A. Shipp, a New Jersey federal judge,
allowed a large portion of the securities class action against
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc.("Valeant") and its top
officials to move forward.

The class action is brought on behalf of purchasers of Valeant
equity securities and senior notes between January 4, 2013 and
March 15, 2016 (the "Class Period").

If you purchased Valeant common stock during the Class Period and
suffered losses of more than $100,000, then you may wish to
consider opting out of the existing class action.  If you would
like to learn about the options available to you, please call 1-
800-221-0015, email info@SafirsteinMetcalf.com or visit
www.valeantshareholderlitigation.com

   Company:        Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
   Exchange:       NYSE
   Ticker:         VRX
   Class Period:   01/04/2013 - 03/15/2016

Background: On June 24, 2016, an amended class action complaint
("Complaint") was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, under the name In re Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation,
No. 3:15-cv-07658-MAS-LHG.  The action is brought on behalf of a
class ("Class") consisting of all purchasers of the common stock
of Valeant between January 4, 2013 and March 15, 2016 ("Class
Period"), including purchasers of Valeant's common stock in a
$1.45 billion offering announced on March 16, 2015, priced at $199
per share.

The Class Plaintiffs allege that, during the Class Period, Valeant
and its senior officers used a network of secretly controlled
pharmacies, deceptive pricing and reimbursement practices, and
fictitious accounting to misrepresent Valeant's business and
financial performance.  As a result of Defendants' misconduct, the
Class Plaintiffs allege that Valeant's stock price was
fraudulently inflated, increasing from just under $60 on December
31, 2012 (right before the start of the Class Period) to over $260
on August 5, 2015 (the highest price during the Class Period) --
an increase of nearly 350%.

              About Safirstein Metcalf LLP and HGT Law

Safirstein Metcalf LLP focuses its practice on shareholder rights.
The law firm also practices in the areas of antitrust and consumer
protection.  All of the Firm's legal endeavors are rooted in its
core mission: provide investor and consumer protection.  HGT Law
is a boutique commercial litigation firm based in New York.  The
firm focuses on representing investors in securities litigation
and corporate governance/derivative litigation. [GN]


VIZIO: Chamber of Commerce Seeks Review of Smart TV Privacy Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that the
large federation tells a federal judge to allow an immediate
appeal of her decision over Vizio's Smart TVs.

The Chamber of Commerce is interjecting itself in a lawsuit over
the alleged way that Vizio's Smart TVs collect and report users'
content viewing histories.  On May 12, the nation's largest
business federation sought permission to file an amicus brief
urging immediate appellate review of a "highly important" case.

What's concerning to the business community is not executives
potentially being spied upon, but rather how interpretation of
privacy law may "radically affect business models for developers
of Internet-enabled devices and other technologies."

In California, the plaintiffs in the Vizio lawsuit are testing
various state and federal privacy laws to challenge televisions
that until a recent settlement with the FTC were automatically set
up to collect data on its users.  One of the laws at issue is the
Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, which was enacted in the
wake of a Washington Post report disclosing then Supreme Court
nominee Robert Bork's video rental history.  A wide range of
entertainment companies including Hulu, Disney Interactive and
Viacom have been in court over the statute, and while plaintiffs
have largely struggled to use the VPPA to redress privacy concerns
in the digital age, at least two decisions from the past year have
caused anxiety from the business community.  One was a May 2016
appellate ruling from the 1st Circuit concerning those who used
USA Today's app.  The other decision was how U.S. District Court
Judge Josephine Staton in March allowed the Vizio lawsuit to move
forward.

Vizio attempted to have Judge Staton reject the plaintiffs' claim
by arguing that if it could be deemed a "video tape service
provider" under the VPPA, it would mean that other manufacturers
of products including Blu-ray players, smartphones, app stores,
cable boxes, wireless routers, personal computers, video game
consoles and even cars would qualify.

Judge Staton replied, "Most of these products or services are far
too peripherally or passively involved in the delivery of video
content to reasonably constitute 'the business' of delivering
video content . . . By contrast, Plaintiffs allege that Vizio has
developed a product intimately involved in the delivery of video
content to consumers, has created a supporting ecosystem to
seamlessly deliver video content to consumers (including entering
into agreements with content providers such as Netflix and Hulu)
and has marketed its product to consumers as a 'passport' to this
video content."

The Chamber of Commerce isn't soothed.

In its amicus brief, the group says the VPPA "fits a video store's
disclosure of video rentals like a glove," but expresses panic
should the law be taken outside of the brick-and-mortar context.

"Plaintiffs' arguments have implications far beyond this case,"
writes lawyers at Jenner & Block, representing the Chamber.
"Plaintiffs' core theory is that Vizio violates the VPPA because
it shares electronic information so as to facilitate the delivery
of targeted advertising.  Yet the business model of sharing
information for purposes of targeted advertising is the business
model underlying many of the Internet's most widely used services.
That business model is ubiquitous in the 'Internet of things' --
the network of physical devices, connected to the Internet, that
collect data -- and the Court's decision may have major
ramifications to such technologies."

Besides disputing the statutory application of a "video tape
service provider," the Chamber also disagrees with Judge Staton's
conclusions about what's "personally identifiable information" of
"consumers."  The group echoes Vizio's arguments that all it's
disclosing are "MAC addresses, which are unintelligible strings of
numbers," rather than specific names, ages, physical addresses,
and so forth of Vizio's users.  Essentially, the contention is
that by disguising identities, companies should be given latitude
to share what makes the public responsive.

"Whether such advertising-based business models improperly impinge
on users' privacy is a difficult and nuanced policy debate,"
states the amicus brief.  "But that debate should occur in
Congress, not in litigation under a statute enacted before those
technologies existed. Congress is better positioned to undertake
the extensive fact-finding that would be necessary in weighing the
benefits of advertising-based business models against concerns
about privacy.  And given that advertising-based business models
vary considerably -- content providers like YouTube, cell phone
providers like Apple, and Smart TV providers like Vizio, all rely
on advertising in different ways -- Congress is in the best
position to analyze these disparate services and decide what
privacy regulation is appropriate for each one."

Judge Staton must decide whether to permit an interlocutory
appeal, that is, one before a trial and final judgment.  Even if
she refuses, Vizio can attempt to get permission from the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Chamber asserts that questions
about the scope of the VPPA need to be answered as quickly as
possible as technology is continually evolving. [GN]


WALMART: Discriminates Against Pregnant Employees, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
RT reports that two women have sued Walmart, America's largest
private employer, claiming it discriminates against pregnant
employees.  The suit seeks class-action status, and comes as a
settlement has been proposed in another discrimination case
against the company.

Talisa Borders and Otisha Woolbright say that, until 2014, Walmart
had a company-wide policy that denied pregnant workers the same
accommodations as workers with other disabilities, treating
expectant mothers as "second-class citizens."

That policy, they said, was in violation of federal law, which
requires employers to treat pregnancy as a temporary disability
and provide work accommodations to pregnant women.  Such
accommodations include providing "light duty, alternative
assignments, disability leave, or unpaid leave to pregnant
employees if it does so for other temporarily disabled employees,"
according to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC).

If the proposal to turn the case into a class-action lawsuit is
accepted, it could include at least 20,000 women and possibly up
to 50,000 who worked at Walmart while pregnant before the policy
was changed.

Borders worked at a Walmart in Illinois, where she was reprimanded
for asking her co-workers to climb ladders and lift heavy boxes
for her during her pregnancy.  She was forced to take unpaid
leave, and her pay was $2.00 less per hour when she returned,
according to the lawsuit.

Woolbright worked at a Walmart in Florida. Her manager in the deli
department told her that pregnancy was "no excuse" for avoiding
heavy lifting, according to the lawsuit.  She was fired after
injuring herself lifting trays that weighed up to 50 lbs and then
making inquiries about Walmart's pregnancy policy, she said.

In March 2014, the Arkansas-based company changed its policy, but
lawyers for the two women say the new version did not go far
enough to protect expectant employees, and they are considering
filing a second lawsuit over the new policy, Reuters reported. It
is unclear whether that separate lawsuit over the new policy would
also seek class-action status.

One woman who could join the second lawsuit is Candis Riggins, who
filed a pregnancy discrimination charge with the EEOC against
Walmart in December 2014, after the company changed its policy.

Riggins was a maintenance worker in Maryland, and became sickened
by toxic cleaning chemicals she was using at work.  When she gave
her Walmart managers a doctor's note and asked to be temporarily
transferred to another position during her pregnancy, she was
instead told twice to take a career preference test, the complaint
read.  She was never reassigned, and was eventually fired, two
months after the new pregnancy policy went into effect.

"I didn't hear back from anyone," Riggins told the Washington Post
at the time she filed the complaint. "Even though I wasn't able to
stomach anything."

In response to Riggins' case and those like hers, Senator Bob
Casey (D-Pennsylvania) introduced the Pregnant Workers Fairness
Act in June 2015, but it never gained any traction.  A similar
bill was introduced in the House by Representative Jerrold Nadler
(D-New York).  It was referred to committee, but never went any
further in the process.

The new lawsuit comes as a settlement has been proposed in a
different class-action case claiming discrimination. In that suit,
the plaintiffs say that Walmart denied health benefits to the
same-sex spouses of its employees.

The lead plaintiff, Jacqueline Cote, worked as an associate in
Massachusetts from 2006 to 2012. During the annual open enrollment
periods for benefits, Cote attempted to add her wife to her
insurance.  Same-sex marriage has been legal in the Bay State
since 2004.

"When Cote entered her spouse's gender as 'female,' the online
system would stop her from proceeding further," the lawsuit said.
"When she called Walmart's home office to investigate, she was
told that Walmart did not offer health insurance coverage to same-
sex spouses."

Walmart changed its policy in 2013. By that point, Cote's wife was
battling ovarian cancer, and faced $150,000 in medical bills. Her
wife died last year.

The proposed settlement between Walmart and its current and former
employees is $7.5 million, the Springfield Republican
reported.[GN]


WAL-MART: Court Okays $7.5MM Settlement in Same-Sex Benefits Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a $7.5 million class action
settlement between Wal-Mart and a former employee who challenged
the retail chain's lack of health insurance benefits for her same-
sex spouse was approved by a federal judge on May 15.

The settlement will pay for claims by current and former Wal-Mart
associates in the U.S. and Puerto Rico that they were unable to
obtain health insurance for their same-sex spouses from 2011 to
2013. About 380 claims have been submitted.

U.S. District Judge William Young approved the settlement after a
brief hearing in federal court in Boston.

The lawsuit was filed in 2015 by Jacqueline Cote, a Wal-Mart
associate from Massachusetts who said the company denied medical
insurance for her wife. Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. began offering benefits for same-sex spouses in 2014.

Cote, whose wife died of ovarian cancer in 2016, said she was
pleased Wal-Mart was willing to resolve the issue for her and
other associates who are married to someone of the same sex.

"It's a relief to bring this chapter of my life to a close," she
said in a statement.

Wal-Mart's senior vice president for global benefits, Sally
Welborn, said the company was happy to resolve the case.

"We will continue to not distinguish between same and opposite sex
spouses when it comes to the benefits we offer under our health
insurance plan," Welborn said in a statement.

Cote was represented by the Boston-based group GLBTQ Legal
Advocates & Defenders, the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights & Urban Affairs and private law firms. [GN]


WASTE PRO: Faces "Andreu" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
ROGER ANDREU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), Plaintiffs, v. WASTE PRO
OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, JOHN J. JENNINGS,
individually, and RUSSELL MACKIE, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 0:17-cv-60926-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 9, 2017), alleges that
Defendants have employed several other similarly situated
employees like Plaintiff who have not been paid overtime and/or
minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Waste Pro of Florida, Inc., is a waste disposal, collection, and
transportation busines.  Plaintiff was a 'helper' for the first
two months of his employment with Defendants.  Later, he was
employed as truck driver.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc E. Rosenthal, Esq.
     ROSENBERG CUMMINGS & EDWARDS PLLC
     802 NE 20th Avenue
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304
     Phone: (954) 769-1344
     E-mail: Marc@RosenbergCummings.com


WATER OF LIFE: Former Parishioners File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Mike Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that two former
parishioners have filed a class action lawsuit against a Fontana,
Calif., church, alleging negligence, unfair competition and
violation of state law.

Tamara Claiborne and Noel Haver-Habib filed a complaint,
individually and on behalf of class members, April 21 in U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against
Water of Life Community Church, alleging the defendant made use of
the company's funds for its own benefit.

According to the complaint, Ms. Claiborne and Mr. Haver-Habib were
damaged financially from being robbed by their financial adviser.
The plaintiffs allege the church concealed and failed to disclose
to them the financial adviser's failings.

Ms. Caliborne and Mr. Haver-Habib seek trial by jury, actual,
compensatory and statutory damages, attorney fees, court costs and
pre-and post-judgment interest, and all other equitable relief.
They are represented by attorney Joshua B. Kons of Law Offices of
Joshua B. Kons LLC in Chicago.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 5:17-cv-00771-PA-KK[GN]


WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Window Sales Financing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that Wells Fargo has been
hit with a proposed class action in Mississippi accusing it of
opening unauthorized credit card accounts to finance windows sold
by the Window Source, a Pennsylvania company with 38 locations
nationwide.

Filed in federal court in Jackson on May 12, the lawsuit said
homeowners were led to believe that they were applying for a low-
interest consumer loan but were instead signed up for a Visa
credit card issued by Wells Fargo with an interest rate of more
than 28 percent. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: "Barbose" Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DREA BARBOSE and JOSHUA MORENO, ON
BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case No.
170400287, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas Phila, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-
cv-02287-MAK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Mark A. Kearney.

Wells Fargo is an American international banking and financial
services holding company headquartered in San Francisco,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          DRESHER, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884 2491
          E-mail: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael R. Galey, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          Radnor Financial Center, Suite C300
          150 N. Radnor-Chester Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 230 2141
          Facsimile: (610) 230 2151
          E-mail: mgaley@fisherphillips.com


ZILLOW: Homeowner Files Class Action Over "Zestimate" Tool
----------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth R. Harney, writing for Washington Post, reports that it
was bound to happen: A homeowner has filed suit against online
realty giant Zillow, claiming the company's "Zestimate" tool
repeatedly undervalued her home, creating a "tremendous road
block" to its sale.

The suit, which may be the first of its kind, was filed in Cook
County Circuit Court in Chicago by Barbara Andersen, the Glenview,
Illinois, homeowner and also a real-estate lawyer.  She alleges
that despite Zillow's denial that Zestimates constitute
"appraisals," they meet that state's definition of an appraisal,
given that they offer market-value estimates and "are promoted as
a tool for potential buyers."

Not only should Zillow be licensed to perform appraisals before
offering such estimates, the suit argues, but it should obtain
"the consent of the homeowner" before posting them online for
everyone to see.

In an interview, Andersen said she had been approached about
turning the matter into a class-action lawsuit, but she's not
seeking monetary damages, for the time being.

In the suit, Andersen said that she has been trying to sell her
townhouse, which is in a prime location, for $626,000 -- roughly
what she paid for it in 2009.  Homes across the street, but with
more square footage, sell for $100,000 more.  But Zillow's
valuation system has apparently used sales of newly built houses
from a less costly part of town as comparables in valuing her
townhouse, she says.  The most recent Zestimate is $562,000.

Emily Heffter, a spokeswoman for Zillow, dismissed Andersen's
litigation as "without merit."  A publicly traded real-estate
marketing company based in Seattle, Zillow has been offering
Zestimates since 2006 and it has more than 110 million -- whether
the homes are for sale or not.  The estimates are based on public
records and other data using "a proprietary formula," according to
Zillow.

The Zestimate feature is the cornerstone of Zillow's business
model.  Its website pulls in millions of home shoppers, allowing
the company to sell advertising space to real-estate agents. In
the first quarter of this year, Zillow reported $245.8 million in
revenue.

Zillow acknowledges estimate errors.  Nationwide, Ms. Heffter
said, it has a median error rate of 5 percent.  Zestimates are
within 5 percent of the sale price 53.9 percent of the time,
within 10 percent 75.6 percent of the time and within 20 percent
89.7 percent of the time, Zillow claims.

Though the 5 percent median error rate sounds modest, that can
translate into tens of thousands of dollars or more.  And in some
counties, error rates zoom beyond the 5 percent median -- 33.9
percent, for example, in Ogle County, Illinois, and 10 to 20
percent in a handful of counties in Ohio, Florida and Illinois.

"They've been playing appraiser without being licensed for years
and doing a bad job," said Pat Turner, a Richmond, Virginia,
appraiser.  "It's about time they got called on it." [GN]


ZIMBABWE: Mbare Families File Class Action v. Harare City Council
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paidamoyo Muzulu, writing for News Day, reports that forty-seven
Mbare families have taken a class action against the Harare City
Council and are demanding $100 000 compensation after their
properties were damaged by flash floods believed to have been
caused by the city's poor drainage system.

The residents, through their lawyers Allen Moyo Attorneys, claimed
they lost various movable and immovable properties in last year's
flash floods in the populous high-density suburb.

The residents' class action was filed under case number HC4127/17.

Tressie Taruvinga and 46 others accused the city authorities of
negligently approving construction of Sunshine Bazaar Mall along
Simon Mazorodze Road without conducting a proper environmental
impact assessment of the project.

The residents further argue that the construction of the mall
congested the drainage system, resulting in the flash floods that
destroyed their homes and household goods.

"As a result of the defendant's negligence in properly assessing
the construction of the said Sunshine Bazaar Mall, the plaintiffs
suffered loss and defendant has the obligation to compensate for
the loss suffered," the lawyers said.

They added: "Our clients are seeking compensation in the sum of
$100 556,70. The money is broken down as $57 556,70 for property
and items damaged and swept away while $43 000 as compensation for
shock, loss of sleep and alternative accommodation."

The flash floods affected Mbare residents, particularly those who
reside along Dumbutshena, Mwamuka, Mbirimi and Chinamhora streets.

The residents also argued the city, through its chief engineer
Jonathan Mutimukulu, the city did not inspect the clogged pipes
caused by the construction of the complex and if they had noted
the fault in time they would have fixed it.

The city is yet to respond to the summons. [GN]


* Center for Class Action Fairness Curbs Cy Pres Settlements
------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Frank and Frank Bednarz of Competitive Enterprise Institute
states that The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for
Class Action Fairness (CCAF) has long opposed abusive "cy pres"
settlements that benefit third-party beneficiaries instead of
compensating class members; Ted Frank wrote about the issue in
2008 before founding CCAF, and has testified about the problem
before Congress.  As Reuters reporter Alison Frankel wrote after
CCAF's win in the Eighth Circuit BankAmerica case, CCAF "continues
to reshape federal judicial policy on giving class money to
charity."  Thanks to CCAF's efforts, settlements that cut out
class members entirely are considerably more rare.  The effect is
not just in cases that CCAF has won, but in dozens of settlements
responding to those precedents.

A recent Law360 article is the first to empirically document the
sea change that has occurred thanks to CCAF's efforts, especially
after 2013, when CCAF petitioned the Supreme Court concerning an
all-cy pres settlement.  While the Supreme Court denied review,
Justice Roberts wrote an unusual statement "respecting" the
denial, opining that "this Court may need to clarify the limits on
the use of such remedies."  An empirical study by Law360 found
that settling parties in class-action settlements responded to the
warning, and that cy pres settlements after 2013 almost always
attempt to compensate class members before paying unrelated
beneficiaries.

Cy Pres Relief in Practice and Theory

Gaos v. Google, a case CCAF recently argued in the Ninth Circuit
on behalf of an objector, exemplifies the misuse of cy pres
settlements.  Law360 explains:

If you typed a query into Google anytime between Oct. 26, 2006,
and April 25, 2014, chances are you're entitled to a cut of a
multimillion-dollar class action settlement in California.  Under
the deal, however, you'll get nothing. Instead, a research lab at
Carnegie-Mellon University and five other charities will get about
$5 million on your behalf.

Is this fair?

That's the question facing the Ninth Circuit as it considers an
appeal of the 2014 deal in privacy litigation accusing Google of
selling user search terms containing personally identifiable
information to advertisers.

Characteristic of such settlements, the agreement in Gaos does not
even attempt to compensate absent class members, but instead
diverts essentially all recovery to third parties -- including the
alma maters of the attorneys who negotiated the settlement.

In March 13 oral arguments on the matter, [CCAF Founder Theodore]
Frank railed against the attorneys' decision not to even try
distributing money to the class through some form of claims
process.  Allowing class counsel to invoke cy pres -- the doctrine
allowing settlement funds to be paid to charities rather than
class members -- just because of the massive size of the potential
class would set a dangerous precedent in the age of mega-class
actions, he said.

"The standard they are asking for would effectively turn every
class action in the circuit into an all-cy pres settlement," Frank
told the three-judge appellate panel.

Underlying Mr. Frank's objections is the question of whether cases
resolved with cy pres distributions like the one in the Google
case should really be class actions in the first place if class
members don't receive any direct benefits.

Pre-negotiated cy pres settlements stray from the historical use
of the doctrine.

Cy pres -- pronounced "sigh pray" -- wasn't originally meant to be
included in class actions.  The term, which is derived from a
French phrase for "as near as possible," has its roots in trusts
law, where it was used to move funds when the intent of a trust
was no longer possible to fulfill.  For example, if someone left
behind a significant amount of money for a veterans charity that
shut down, cy pres would allow the funds to go to a comparable
veterans charity.  As noted in Edwin Newman's "Law of
Philanthropy" in 1955, cy pres was always meant to be a remedy of
"last resort."

In class action settlements, cy pres ceased acting as a remedy of
last resort.  After the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
curtailed coupon settlements, which were previously employed by
plaintiffs' attorneys to justify their fees, Law360 found that cy
pres settlement became increasingly common.  Pre-negotiated cy
pres recovery served much the same purpose as coupons did:
procuring attorneys' fees while creating the illusion of relief
for class members.

CCAF finds such settlements inherently unfair because they
compensate attorneys without compensating their purported clients,
and may allow plaintiffs' attorneys to effectively collect fees on
charitable donations the defendant would make anyway.

Worse, plaintiffs' attorneys can manipulatively designate cy pres
beneficiaries to effectively double-dip in the settlement: the
class's money goes to the attorneys' favorite charities, and then
the attorneys get fees for the donations that were designed to
benefit themselves rather than the class.  For example, plaintiffs
can name local charities or the judge's alma mater, which may make
the settlement more likely to be approved. Plaintiffs can
alternatively select a charity where the judge sits as a board
member, which can force the recusal of an especially rigorous
judge.

If cy pres donations are treated as equivalent to cash payments to
class members, then class counsel has no incentive to fulfill
their fiduciary duty to the class; indeed, class counsel will
always prefer the psychic benefits of a ceremony with a single
$2.7 million check rather than mailing 100,000 $27 checks to class
members who probably won't even respond with a Christmas card.

Too, because class members need not be identified in all-cy pres
settlements, the settling parties are better able to win approval
of settlements with overbroad and incoherent class definitions,
which would not pass muster under the rules.  As Martin Redish, a
Northwestern University School of Law professor, told Law360 "I
see cy pres as a cover, a camouflage for the faux class action. It
looks like a class action, but it's really just a cardboard cutout
of a class action."

CCAF's Successful Cy Pres Litigation

CCAF has opposed abusive cy pres settlements since its founding in
2009.  Law360 discusses the impact of three cases where CCAF
represented the objectors -- Bluetooth, Nachshin, and Marek v.
Lane.

One of CCAF's first appellate victories, In re: Bluetooth Product
Liability Litigation concerned a settlement providing $100,000
worth of cy pres donations and no direct class member relief,
while providing favorable treatment for $800,000 in attorneys'
fees.  The Ninth Circuit vacated approval of the settlement,
citing several features that only benefited the attorneys.

Nachshin v. AOL addressed the propriety of cy pres relief
directly. There, plaintiffs purported to represent a nationwide
class of 66 million email users, but the settlement instead
funneled cy pres money to a handful of local charities (one of
which employed one of the named plaintiffs).  The Ninth Circuit
again vacated approval because the cy pres beneficiaries did not
target the class.  This opinion was influential, and quickly
followed by the Third and Fifth Circuits.

Law360 identified Marek v. Lane as the "biggest shot across the
bow" for questionable cy pres settlements.  CCAF filed a cert
petition over approval of the underlying settlement, which
provided $3.5 million to attorneys and $6.5 million to a charity
founded by Facebook.  Absent class members, millions of Facebook
users, received nothing under the deal.

While the Supreme Court decided not to take the case -- affirming
the Ninth Circuit's decision not to meddle with the parties'
private deliberations -- Chief Justice John Roberts issued a
statement that seemed to contain a warning, saying the court would
be willing to take on a future case that provided the "opportunity
to address more fundamental concerns surrounding the use of such
remedies in class action litigation."

This seemed to mark a turning point for cy pres.  Many lawyers say
they saw fewer examples of it being abused after that -- and that
its use overall as a tool for settling class actions seemed to
dwindle.

"Between that decision and [the fact] that settling parties knew
we were out there looking to raise these issues, I think the safer
thing to do was to avoid the controversy and avoid anything that
might smack of problematic cy pres," said Frank, the objector in
the Google case.

CCAF's cert petition in Marek v. Lane turned out to have a
profound effect on future settlements.  Law360 analyzed 179 class
action settlements in federal district courts and determined that
from 2000 to 2012, cy pres was commonly employed to earmark money
for third-party beneficiaries.  Before Marek v. Lane, 29% of
settlements employing cy pres provisions designated third-party
beneficiaries to bypass class recovery.  For the period from 2013
to 2016, this rate plummeted to 3%.

Nowadays, thanks to precedents litigated by the Center for Class
Action Fairness, 97% of cy pres class action settlements
appropriately pay cy pres recipients only after paying the class.
For example, last year, the Center successfully persuaded a
district court to send $2.3 million to class members in an
antitrust settlement instead of to proposed questionable cy pres
recipients like the Geena Davis Institute on Women in Media; in
another case, a Second Circuit appeal prompted class counsel to
reverse course and agree to distribute $405,000 to the class
through the SEC Fair Fund instead of to third-party charities.
That said, as the Gaos appeal illustrates, more work needs to be
done to eliminate abusive cy pres settlements.  CCAF has three
federal appeals pending on the issue in the Third and Ninth
Circuits: Gaos, EasySaver, and Google Cookie. [GN]


* CMA Board Publishes Draft Regulation of Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
CMA Board has issued its resolution dated 19/08/1438H
corresponding to 15/05/2017G on publishing the draft regulation of
Class Action Suits (the draft) for public consultation on CMA
website.

This draft comes under the CMA several initiatives aiming at
facilitating the litigation procedures for the participants in the
Exchange.  A Class Action Suite is defined as "a suit filed by one
or more plaintiff (Lead Plaintiff or Lead Plaintiffs) against one
or more defendants on behalf of themselves and a group of persons
who share identical or similar suit in term of the legal bases,
grounds and merits.  Any decision issued shall affect all
parties".

The draft, to be incorporated in the Resolution Of Securities
Disputes Proceedings Regulations once approved, aims at
facilitating the litigation procedures of suits where the
plaintiff is a large group of persons who share the same grounds
and legal issues; this fits the nature of listed companies and the
size of their shareholders.

The draft includes many detailed provisions which pay heed to
explaining the mechanisms and procedures of the Class Action Suit
and the rights of its parties such as the provisions of
registering the Class Action Suit, criteria of accepting a suit as
a Class Action Suit and the joining of new plaintiffs after the
suit is filed, regulating the representation of plaintiffs and
restriction thereon, the right of the parties of the suit,
criteria of selecting the Lead Plaintiff and Lead Appellant,
regulating the withdrawal and settlement procedures and the role
of the committee in managing the Class Action Suit.

With regards to selecting the Lead Plaintiff, the draft prescribes
the criteria upon which he/she is selected by the Members of the
Group of plaintiffs; such as being fit to take the actions in the
Class Action Suit observing the rights of the Members of the Group
of Plaintiffs by being capable to exercise such duties during all
of the suite' phases and understand his/her duties towards the
Group and fully informed of the suit's details and the related
grounds.

CMA emphasizes in its statement that the draft comes in line with
the CMA's program to achieve (Saudi Vision 2030) which aims, in
one of its initiatives, to develop and implement the litigation
mechanism and procedures to meet the best international practices
in order to promote the attractiveness of the Saudi capital market
and minimizes the risks involved in investing therein; in addition
to its role in reducing the time period needed to decide on
compensation cases.  This would ease the committees mission and
focus investors efforts.

CMA stresses that all opinions and comments received from the
public on the draft will be studied and considered for the purpose
of approving a final version of the Class Action Suit regulating.
The draft can be viewed on CMA's website at
https://is.gd/RaiQyl [GN]


* Regulations Causing Employers to Flee California
--------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Fraser Light at Pacific Coast Business Times reports that
"I have a running sick joke with one of my insurance broker
clients. Every month he tells me how many of his clients have left
the state because they can't stand to run a business here. Others
of my employer clients are leaving when they can. Meat packers,
computer chip component makers, recreational product manufacturers
-- all are leaving for other states or other countries because
they can't put up with California's overly technical and
burdensome employment law environment."

A $15 minimum wage sounds great for many workers whose employer
can't leave the state (fast food, hospitality), but those who are
mobile are leaving in droves. Even agriculture is moving to Nevada
where they can grow crops hydroponically or otherwise indoors.

On top of that, one small class action can wipe out a business
because of the multiple layers of penalties that apply to even
minor violations.

For example, a single late meal break triggers a meal break
"penalty" of one hour of pay; but that isn't just a one-time
"penalty" according to the law. It means more "wages" owed to
employees. As a result, plaintiffs' lawyers can add a separate
"penalty" for a wage statement violation ($100 per pay period), a
waiting time penalty of 30 days' pay (failing to pay all wages to
a departed employee), and penalties under the Private Attorney
General Act ($100-$200 per pay period). When you have dozens of
employees, or thousands in some cases, even if many of those
employees worked only a single day (which isn't unusual with temp
employees), they each can be owed thousands of dollars in
penalties because of a single meal break violation. Not fair, say
the employers. And they're right. It's driving businesses under
and away.

We've created a legal stranglehold that no employer can possibly
get right 100 percent of the time. My clients complain that they
treat their employees fairly, pay better than minimum wage,
provide other perks, but then they get burned because of a single
disgruntled employee who quits, or is fired, and then goes to an
attorney who turns over every pebble looking for any violation to
support a class action lawsuit.

Think your company has all its bases covered? I guarantee that no
matter how confident employers are that they are doing everything
correctly, the odds are excellent they are doing something wrong.
One client just settled a class action for $700,000 based on
having late meal breaks. It wasn't intentional; the employees had
done it this way for years and liked it -- but technically it was
a violation. A former employee who was terminated for good cause
found a lawyer to take the case and file a class action. The
company's employees had been paid far above market, and some had
been with the company for more than 30 years. Unfortunately, to
prevent any other problems, the owner's solution was just to close
the facility.

A few changes to the law solely related to meals and rest breaks
might bring at least some relief to employers, but I don't have
much confidence that our overly employee-friendly state
legislature will address these issues. The rules often legislate
to the worst of the worst employers -- and certainly, they are out
there -- but the majority of employers do right by their employees
and don't intend to run afoul of the law. Or, when they do, it's
often no harm to the employees.

Here are a few thoughts on changes that could help: If a technical
violation is found for late meals (starting after the end of the
fifth hour of work), give the employer 30 days to cure, as with
certain pay stub violations. Exclude repeat offenders. Employees
would have to show actual harm due to a late meal or rest break.
Call meal and rest break penalties what they are -- penalties --
so that plaintiffs' lawyers won't be tempted to layer them with
additional penalties that balloon what is owed by the employer.
Restrict certain penalties to employees who have worked for the
employer for at least 30 days. When 500 temps can be owed $4,000
each for working a single week, the system is broken. Give the
court discretion to determine the penalty based on some showing of
harm and the equities. If employees in a class action don't make a
claim, let the settlement money revert to the employer.

By the way, that insurance broker client? He's moving his
operations online and relocating to Colorado. [GN]


* Two Law Firms Drive Surge in Shareholder Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
shareholder class actions are seeing an uptick after years of
limping along, with two law firms out of New York leading the
numbers by aggressively targeting biotech and pharmaceutical
firms.

Last year's rise in investor cases -- an increase of 32 percent to
44 percent, depending on the research report -- was driven in
large part by a surge in cases against health care, pharmaceutical
and biotech companies.  Lawsuits targeting life sciences firms
jumped 70 percent from 2014, according to a survey provided
earlier this year by Dechert.  And two firms, Pomerantz & Co. and
The Rosen Law Firm, filed more than half of the 67 cases in that
industry.

Pomerantz is one of the oldest shareholder plaintiffs' firms in
the country.  The Rosen Law Firm is among the youngest.  Sometimes
rivals, other times partners, both firms have been consistent
players in securities litigation with a relentless eye on the
market of mid-tier companies.

"They're both very aggressive in ascertaining potential new cases
and moving quickly to try to prosecute those cases," said
Lionel Glancy, a partner at Los Angeles-based Glancy Prongay &
Murray, who works with both firms.

The firms' high-volume play in the biotech/pharma sphere has
gotten results.

Pomerantz and The Rosen Law Firm tied for No. 2 in the number of
shareholder settlements in 2016, according to Institutional
Shareholder Services Inc.'s Securities Class Action Services,
which publishes an annual top 50 plaintiffs' firms list. Each firm
reported 15 settlements in 2016, outpaced only by San Diego's
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, which had 29 deals.

Taking Stock
That distinction doesn't mean that either firm got eye-popping
settlements. At The Rosen Law Firm, the average individual
settlement in 2016, was just $6.5 million.

"There are certain plaintiffs' firms that have explicitly said
their focus is bigger bang for the buck, leaving space for others
to take those smaller opportunities," said Andy Cottrell, vice
president of Securities Class Action Services.

Robbins Geller, for instance, topped total settlement value in
2016 with $2.7 billion, which included a $1.6 billion settlement
for former Household International shareholders.  Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, at No. 2 by dollar value, reported
settlements worth more than $2 billion, half of which came from a
deal with Merck & Co. Inc.

By contrast, Pomerantz's total settlement value was $201.8
million, and The Rosen Law Firm's was $97.5 million.

"We don't have mega settlements," acknowledged Phillip Kim, a
partner at The Rosen Law Firm.  He said the firm represents
"people who have been defrauded at smaller stocks that other firms
don't want to take, for whatever reasons."

Founded in 2001, The Rosen Law Firm has 18 lawyers and a satellite
office in the Philadelphia area. Founder and managing partner
Laurence Rosen splits his time between the New York and Los
Angeles office.

In recent years, the firm rode the wave of suing Chinese firms
that sought access to the U.S. public markets through reverse
mergers.  The suits accused the firms of fraudulent disclosures
and accounting-related allegations.

"Our firm is growing -- there's no doubt about that," Mr. Kim
said. "We've had a lot of investors satisfied with our work and
our results."

Pomerantz, founded more than 80 years ago, is a bigger firm.  It
now has additional offices in Los Angeles and Chicago and, last
month, opened an outpost in Paris.

"Pomerantz has been around and also gotten involved in some of the
larger cases," said David Tabak, managing director at National
Economic Research Associates Inc. (NERA).  Of particular note, he
said, is the shareholder litigation brought over a bribery scandal
against Brazilian oil giant Petroleo Brasileiro, or Petrobras, in
which Pomerantz was named lead counsel.

Pomerantz co-managing partners Jeremy Lieberman and Patrick
Dahlstrom did not respond to calls or requests for comment.
The boost in health care cases wasn't the only reason for last
year's rise in shareholder cases.  Researchers have attributed
much of the growth in 2016 to a jump in merger objections filed in
federal courts, particularly since the Delaware Court of
Chancery's 2016 decision in In re Trulia Stockholder Litigation
limited "disclosure-only" settlements in state courts.

But 28 percent of securities class actions last year were brought
against companies in the health technology and services sector,
according to NERA.  That shift comes as litigation against the
financial sector is beginning to wane nearly a decade after the
2008 recession.

"It was definitely a big increase in filings in the sector,"
Mr. Tabak said.  "The number almost doubled from the prior year.
So while all cases went up, they went up by a particularly large
rate in the health technology and services sector."

A handful of cases were filed amid reports of a U.S. Department of
Justice investigation into price fixing of generic
pharmaceuticals.  But even taking those out of the mix, the number
of cases against health care firms hit record levels.  Many of the
cases focus on the process for regulatory approval, upon which a
company's entire financial picture could depend.

Chicago lawyer David Kistenbroker, global co-chair of Dechert's
white-collar and securities litigation group, said the cases tend
to focus on two types of stock drops: when a company fails to get
approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or it comes
out with bad clinical trial results, and after a company fails to
meet its market projections.  He expected the trend to continue
into 2017.

But Mr. Kim, of The Rosen Law Firm, attributed the rise to a
"confluence of factors," including the DOJ's investigation.
"I don't view it as companies with a failed drug are getting
sued," he said.  "We're not focused on a particular sector; we're
focused on prosecuting securities fraud.  What's driven that is
market volatility and stock price declines." [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Volkswagen Dropped as Defendant in "Hodjera"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued separate orders
granting the motions filed by Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft,
Volkswagen Group Canada, Inc., Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., and Central Precision Limited to
dismiss the case captioned MATTHEW HODJERA and SYLVIA HODJERA,
Plaintiffs, v. BASF CATALYSTS LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
C17-48RSL (W.D. Wash.), for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs Matthew and Sylvia Hodjera, a married couple, allege
that Mr. Hodjera's mesothelioma was proximately caused by various
corporate defendants' manufacture, sale, and/or distribution of
asbestos-containing products.

Plaintiffs argue that the fairness prong of the specific
jurisdiction test should be sufficient in this case: "it would be
manifestly unfair to this dying plaintiff and his wife to break
this case up into multiple claims and require plaintiffs to start
over in many different states, and potentially two foreign
countries."  While the Court sympathizes with the plaintiffs'
circumstances, Judge Lasnik held that the Constitution does not
permit it to exercise jurisdiction over a particular defendant
merely because it would be most fair to the plaintiff.  All three
prongs of the test must be met to establish specific personal
jurisdiction in keeping with due process, the judge further held.
Accordingly, plaintiffs' claims against VWGC must be dismissed for
lack of personal jurisdiction.

Judge Lasnik also issued order denying as moot Volkswagen's Motion
For Protective Order regarding plaintiffs' second and third sets
of requests for production.

A full-text copy of May 17, 2017 Order granting Volkswagen
Aktiengesellschaft's motion to dismiss is available at
https://is.gd/sb9vu9 from Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of May 17, 2017, Order granting Volkswagen Group
Canada's motion to dismiss is available at https://is.gd/Go7ylo at
from Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the May 17, 2017, Order granting Volkswagen
Group America's motion to dismiss is available at
https://is.gd/slnJyG from Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the May 17, 2017 Order granting Whittaker's
motion to dismiss is available at https://is.gd/lVJ35N from
Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the May 17, 2017 Order granting Central
Precision's motion to dismiss is available at https://is.gd/GenAN4
from Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the Order relating to Volkswagen's Motion for
Protective Order dated May 18, 2017, is available at
https://is.gd/62Upbe from Leagle.com.

Matthew Hodjera, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra B. Caggiano,
WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC.

Matthew Hodjera, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Robert
Couture, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Brian Weinstein, WEINSTEIN
COUTURE PLLC, Charles Stein Siegel, WATERS & KRAUS LLP, pro hac
vice & Patrick J. Wigle, WATERS & KRAUS LLP, pro hac vice.

Sylvia Hodjera, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra B. Caggiano,
WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Benjamin Robert Couture, WEINSTEIN COUTURE
PLLC, Brian Weinstein, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Charles Stein
Siegel, WATERS & KRAUS LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick J. Wigle,
WATERS & KRAUS LLP, pro hac vice.

BASF Catalysts, LLC, Defendant, represented by Anthony Todaro, DLA
PIPER US LLP.

BorgWarner Morse Tec, Inc, Defendant, represented by Richard D.
Ross, SELMAN BRIETMAN LLP.

Charles B. Chrystal Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian
Bernard Smith, FOLEY & MANSFIELD & J. Scott Wood, FOLEY &
MANSFIELD.

Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Diane J. Kero,
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.

Dana Canada Corp., Defendant, represented by Diane J. Kero, GORDON
THOMAS HONEYWELL.

DAP Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Peter K. Renstrom,
JACKSON JENKINS RENSTROM LLC, pro hac vice, Robert J. Bugatto,
JACKSON JENKINS RENSTROM LLC, pro hac vice & Joan L. Roth, JACKSON
JENKINS RENSTROM LLP.

Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, represented by Kristine
E. Kruger, PERKINS COIE & Mary P. Gaston, PERKINS COIE.

Imerys Talc America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard D.
Ross, SELMAN BRIETMAN LLP.

Johnson & Johnson, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Walther,
SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Gannon Crisera,
BENNETT BIGELOW & LEEDOM & William James Leedom, BENNETT BIGELOW &
LEEDOM.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Benjamin Walther, SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP, pro hac vice,
Jennifer Gannon Crisera, BENNETT BIGELOW & LEEDOM & William James
Leedom, BENNETT BIGELOW & LEEDOM.

Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, represented by Diane J. Kero, GORDON
THOMAS HONEYWELL.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin J.
Craig, GORDON & REES LLP & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON & REES.

Vanderbilt Minerals LLC, Defendant, represented by Alice Coles
Serko, SEDGWICK LLP, Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP & Rachel
Tallon Reynolds, SEDGWICK LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Ordered to Address Defendants' Domicile
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PATRICK JACK, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD, et al., Defendants, Case No. C17-0537JLR
(W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Robart of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued an
order directing the Jacks to file a response of no more than three
pages addressing where all of LLC Defendants' members are
domiciled.  Judge Robart held that if the Jacks fail to file a
response or otherwise demonstrate the court's subject matter
jurisdiction, the court may dismiss their action without
prejudice.

Judge Robart held that because the Jacks have not alleged the
domicile of all of the members of LLC Defendants, the court cannot
determine whether the Jacks have properly invoked the court's
subject matter jurisdiction.

Patrick Jack, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin H. Adams, DEAN
OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, pro hac vice.

Patrick Jack, Plaintiff, represented by Kristin M. Houser,
SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Lucas W.H. Garrett, SCHROETER
GOLDMARK & BENDER, William Joel Rutzick, SCHROETER GOLDMARK &
BENDER & Thomas J. Breen, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER.

Leslie Jack, husband and wife, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin
H. Adams, DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, pro hac vice, Kristin M.
Houser, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Lucas W.H. Garrett, SCHROETER
GOLDMARK & BENDER, William Joel Rutzick, SCHROETER GOLDMARK &
BENDER & Thomas J. Breen, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER.

Asbestos Corporation Ltd, Defendant, represented by Kevin J.
Craig, GORDON & REES LLP & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON & REES.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry
Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP.

Armstrong International Inc, Defendant, represented by David E.
Chawes, PREG O'DONNELL & GILLETT, PLLC.

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Jeanne F. Loftis,
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC.

Autosales Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Dana C. Kopij,
WILLIAMS KASTNER.

Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, Defendant, represented by Richard D.
Ross, SELLMAN BRIETMAN LLP.

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Nicole R.
MacKenzie, WILLIAMS KASTNER.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher S. Marks,
SEDGWICK LLP.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G. William Shaw, K&L GATES
LLP.

Crosby Valve Inc, Defendant, represented by Alice Coles Serko,
SEDGWICK LLP, Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP & John G. Goller,
VON BRIESEN & ROPER.

Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc, Defendant, represented by Barry
Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP.

Flowserve US Inc, Defendant, represented by Randy J. Aliment,
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Mark J. Fucile,
FUCILE & REISING.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher S. Marks, SEDGWICK LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher S.
Marks, SEDGWICK LLP & Erin P. Fraser, SEDGWICK LLP.

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, represented by Jeanne F. Loftis,
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC.

Goulds Pumps Inc, Defendant, represented by Ronald C. Gardner,
GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

Hennessy Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig,
GORDON & REES LLP & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON & REES.

Honeywell International Inc, Defendant, represented by Kristine E.
Kruger, PERKINS COIE.

IMO Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne,
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael Edward Ricketts, GORDON THOMAS
HONEYWELL.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig,
GORDON & REES LLP & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON & REES.

John Crane Inc, Defendant, represented by Richard D. Ross, SELLMAN
BRIETMAN LLP.

Kelsey-Hayes Company, Defendant, represented by Katherine M.
Steele, BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY.

MeadWestvaco Corporation, Defendant, represented by Katherine M.
Steele, BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY.

The Nash Engineering Company, Defendant, represented by Dana C.
Kopij, WILLIAMS KASTNER.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Nicole R.
MacKenzie, WILLIAMS KASTNER.

Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, represented by Diane J. Kero, GORDON
THOMAS HONEYWELL.

Standard Motor Products Inc, Defendant, represented by Nicole R.
MacKenzie, WILLIAMS KASTNER.

Union Pacific Railroad Company, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
M. Odom, LANE POWELL PC & Tim D. Wackerbarth, LANE POWELL PC.

Uniroyal Holding Inc, Defendant, represented by Chris Robert
Youtz, SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER.

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig,
GORDON & REES LLP & Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON & REES.

Viad Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ronald C. Gardner,
GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut, RIZZO
MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Weir Valves & Controls USA Inc, Defendant, represented by Dana C.
Kopij, WILLIAMS KASTNER.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Brian
Bernard Smith, FOLEY & MANSFIELD & James D. Hicks, FOLEY &
MANSFIELD.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Smith" Remanded to Louisiana State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana remanded to the Civil District
Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, the case
captioned RONALD SMITH, v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC, ET AL., SECTION:
"S" (1), Civil Action No. 17-4698 (E.D. La.), holding that, when
evaluating all of the factual allegations in the light most
favorable to Smith, and resolving all contested issues of
substantive fact in Smith's favor, there is a reasonable
possibility that a state court would impose liability on Taylor-
Seidenbach.

Ronald Smith originally filed the action in the Civil District
Court, Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana alleging that he
developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos.  Smith
argues that the matter should be remanded for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because both he and one of the defendants,
Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., are citizens of Louisiana. Honeywell
International, Inc., the removing defendant, contends that the
federal court has diversity subject matter jurisdiction because
Taylor-Seidenbach was improperly joined to defeat removal.

A full-text copy of the Order and Reasons dated May 22, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/snDQRc from Leagle.com.

Ronald Smith, Plaintiff, represented by David Ryan Cannella,
Cannella Law Firm, LLC.

Ronald Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Lindsey A. Cheek, The
Cheek Law Firm.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant, represented by Gayla M. Moncla,
Kean Miller, Alexandra E. Rossi, Kean Miller, Allison N. Benoit,
Kean Miller, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP, Barrye
Panepinto Miyagi, Kean Miller, Gregory M. Anding, Kean Miller, Jay
Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller, Robert E. Dille, Kean Miller &
Sarah W. Anderson, Kean Miller.

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Arthur Wendel
Stout, III, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby,
Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Jason P. Franco, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP,
Jennifer E. Adams, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP & William Claudy Harrison,
Jr., Deutsch Kerrigan LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric
Shuman, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC & Sarah Elizabeth McMillan,
McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC.

Pneumo-Abex, LLC, Defendant, represented by Arthur Wendel Stout,
III, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby, Deutsch
Kerrigan LLP, Jason P. Franco, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Jennifer E.
Adams, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP & William Claudy Harrison, Jr.,
Deutsch Kerrigan LLP.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Edward
J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard
J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ernest G.
Foundas, Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Pugh,
Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, McGready Lewis Richeson, Pugh,
Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey & Perrey S. Lee, Pugh, Accardo,
LLC.

Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Kay Barnes
Baxter, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Ashley A. Edwards, Cosmich
Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Georgia Noble Ainsworth, Cosmich Simmons &
Brown, PLLC, Jason K. Elam, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC,
Margaret Adams Casey, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Martin James
Dempsey, Jr., Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ernest G.
Foundas, Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Pugh,
Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, McGready Lewis Richeson, Pugh,
Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey & Perrey S. Lee, Pugh, Accardo,
LLC.

Bird Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Kay Barnes Baxter,
Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Ashley A. Edwards, Cosmich Simmons
& Brown, PLLC, Georgia Noble Ainsworth, Cosmich Simmons & Brown,
PLLC, Jason K. Elam, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Margaret Adams
Casey, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Martin James Dempsey, Jr.,
Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had 16,482 Unresolved Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation had 16,482 unresolved claims regarding
asbestos-related matters at March 31, 2017, compared to 19,772
unresolved claims at March 31, 2016, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "The Corporation is and has been involved in a
large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades.  These suits principally
allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-
containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive
damages.  The alleged claims primarily relate to products that UCC
sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
located on UCC's premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos
suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc.
("Amchem").  In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate
that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such
exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure
to UCC's products.

"Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue numerous defendants in individual
lawsuits or on behalf of numerous claimants.  As a result, the
damages alleged are not expressly identified as to UCC, Amchem or
any other particular defendant, even when specific damages are
alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury.  In fact,
there are no personal injury cases in which only the Corporation
and/or Amchem are the sole named defendants.  For these reasons
and based upon the Corporation's litigation and settlement
experience, the Corporation does not consider the damages alleged
against it and Amchem to be a meaningful factor in its
determination of any potential asbestos-related liability.

"Since 2003, the Corporation has engaged Ankura Consulting Group,
LLC ("Ankura"), a third party actuarial specialist, to review the
Corporation's historical asbestos-related claim and resolution
activity in order to assist UCC management in estimating the
Corporation's asbestos-related liability.  Each year, Ankura has
reviewed the claim and resolution activity to determine the
appropriateness of updating the most recent Ankura study.
Historically, every other year beginning in October, Ankura has
completed a full review and formal update to the most recent
Ankura study.

"Based on the December 2016 Ankura study and the Corporation's own
review of the data, and taking into account the change in
accounting policy that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2016, the
Corporation's total asbestos-related liability through the
terminal year of 2049, including asbestos-related defense and
processing costs, was US$1,490 million at December 31, 2016, and
was included in "Asbestos-related liabilities - current" and
"Asbestos-related liabilities - noncurrent" in the consolidated
balance sheets.

"Each quarter, the Corporation reviews claims filed, settled and
dismissed, as well as average settlement and resolution costs by
disease category.  The Corporation also considers additional
quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature of pending
claims, trial experience of the Corporation and other asbestos
defendants, current spending for defense and processing costs,
significant appellate rulings and legislative developments, trends
in the tort system, and their respective effects on expected
future resolution costs.  UCC management considers all these
factors in conjunction with the most recent Ankura study and
determines whether a change in the estimate is warranted.  Based
on the Corporation's review of 2017 activity, it was determined
that no adjustment to the accrual was required at March 31, 2017.

"The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims and defense and processing costs was US$1,460
million at March 31, 2017.  Approximately 14 percent of the
recorded liability for pending and future claims related to
pending claims and approximately 86 percent related to future
claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/sYltcB


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 629 Pending Cases at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation had 629 pending asbestos-related personal
injury cases as of March 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "As of March 31, 2017, the Company was a party
to 629 pending cases involving an aggregate of 5,310 claims
primarily alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated
and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of its
subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining and
exploration industries.

"In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition.  The Company believes that many of its
pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets
were distributed or used.

"The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-
related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which
product identification can be made may increase, and the Company
may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors.

"The Company is unable to make a meaningful statement concerning
the monetary claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among
other things, claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions
without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the
requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be
amended to alter the amount sought.  The large majority of claims
do not specify the amount sought.

"Of the 5,310 claims pending at March 31, 2017, 60 set forth
specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the
statutory minimum or maximum).  At March 31, 2017, of the 60
claims that set forth specific amounts, there were no claims
seeking specific amounts for punitive damages.

"Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been
approximately US$8.4 million.  All relief sought in the asbestos
cases is monetary in nature.  To date, approximately 40% of the
Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos
litigation have been covered by its primary insurance.

"Effective February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-
in-place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding
the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related
claims when the primary insurance is exhausted.  The coverage-in-
place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity
insurance coverage available to the Company that might otherwise
be disputed by the carriers and provides a methodology for the
administration of such expenses.  Nonetheless, the Company
believes it is likely there will be a period within the next six
to 18 months, prior to the commencement of coverage under this
agreement and following exhaustion of the Company's primary
insurance coverage, during which the Company will be solely
responsible for defense costs and indemnity payments, the duration
of which would be subject to the scope of damage awards and
settlements paid.

"Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims
dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the
Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not
bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability.  Based
upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in
annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other
available information (including the availability of excess
insurance), the Company does not believe these cases will have a
material adverse effect on its financial position and results of
operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/xJIjDT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Had US$1.3-Bil. Reserve at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., had net reserve of
US$1,320 million for asbestos-related liabilities at March 31,
2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Reserves for asbestos and environmental are
primarily within P&C Other Operations with less significant
amounts of asbestos and environmental reserves included within
Commercial Lines and Personal Lines reporting segments
(collectively "Ongoing Operations").

"The Company classifies its asbestos and environmental reserves
into three categories: Direct, Assumed Reinsurance and London
Market.

   * Direct Insurance - includes primary and excess coverage.  Of
the three categories of claims, direct policies tend to have the
greatest factual development from which to estimate the Company's
exposures.

   * Assumed Reinsurance - includes both "treaty" reinsurance
(covering broad categories of claims or blocks of business) and
"facultative" reinsurance (covering specific risks or individual
policies of primary or excess insurance companies).  Assumed
Reinsurance exposures are less predictable than direct insurance
exposures because the Company does not generally receive notice of
a reinsurance claim until the underlying direct insurance claim is
mature.  This causes a delay in the receipt of information at the
reinsurer level and adds to the uncertainty of estimating related
reserves.

   * London Market - includes the business written by one or more
of the Company's subsidiaries in the United Kingdom, which are no
longer active in the insurance or reinsurance business.  Such
business includes both direct insurance and assumed reinsurance.
London Market exposures are the most uncertain of the three
categories of claims.  As a participant in the London Market
(comprised of both Lloyd's of London and London Market companies),
certain subsidiaries of the Company wrote business on a
subscription basis, with those subsidiaries' involvement being
limited to a relatively small percentage of a total contract
placement.  Claims are reported, via a broker, to the "lead"
underwriter and, once agreed to, are presented to the following
markets for concurrence.  This reporting and claim agreement
process makes estimating liabilities for this business the most
uncertain of the three categories of claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/wmCkMX


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had 9,500 Claims Pending at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. had approximately 9,500 pending asbestos-related
claims as of March 31, 2017, an increase from the 9,400 claims
pending at December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "It is probable that additional asbestos-
related claims will be asserted against the Company in the future.
The Company vigorously defends against these claims, and has
obtained the dismissal of the majority of the claims asserted
against it without any payment.  The Company likewise expects that
in the vast majority of current and future asbestos-related claims
in which it has been or will be named (or has an obligation to
indemnify a party which has been or will be named), no payment
will be made by the Company or its insurers.  In the first quarter
of 2017, of the approximately 500 claims resolved, 120 (24%)
resulted in payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of
the Company.  In 2016, of the approximately 2,800 claims resolved,
352 (13%) resulted in payment being made to a claimant by or on
behalf of the Company.

"Through March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company had
accrued and paid US$491.3 million and US$477.7 million in
indemnity (including settlement payments) and defense costs in
connection with asbestos-related claims, respectively.  These
gross payments are before tax benefits and any insurance receipts.
Indemnity and defense costs are incorporated into the Company's
operating cash flows and will continue to be in the future.

"The Company reviews, on an ongoing basis, its own experience in
handling asbestos-related claims and trends affecting asbestos-
related claims in the U.S. tort system generally, for the purposes
of assessing the value of pending asbestos-related claims and the
number and value of those that may be asserted in the future, as
well as potential recoveries from the Company's insurers with
respect to such claims and defense costs.  The Company's best
estimate of the aggregate liability both for asbestos-related
claims asserted but not yet resolved and potential asbestos-
related claims not yet asserted, including an estimate for defense
costs, is US$865.7 million as of March 31, 2017.  During the
fourth quarter of 2016, the Company determined that a reasonable
estimate of its liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted
could be made, and the Company increased its aggregate estimated
liability for asbestos-related claims asserted but not yet
resolved and potential asbestos-related claims not yet asserted to
US$879.3 million as of December 31, 2016.  The Company's estimate
is not discounted to present value and includes an estimate of
liability for potential future claims not yet asserted through
December 31, 2059 with a runoff through 2067.  The Company
currently believes that December 31, 2067 is a reasonable
assumption as to the last date on which it is likely to have
resolved all asbestos-related claims, based on the nature and
useful life of the Company's products and the likelihood of
incidence of asbestos-related disease in the U.S. population
generally.

"The Company has certain insurance coverage applicable to
asbestos-related claims.  Prior to June 2004, the settlement and
defense costs associated with all asbestos-related claims were
paid by the Company's primary layer insurance carriers under a
series of interim funding arrangements.  In June 2004, primary
layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the alleged
exhaustion of their policy limits.  A declaratory judgment action
was filed in January 2004 in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois by Continental Casualty Company and related companies
against the Company and certain of its historical general
liability insurers.  The Cook County court has issued a number of
interim rulings and discovery is continuing in this proceeding.
The Company is vigorously pursuing the litigation against all
carriers that are parties to it, as well as pursuing settlement
discussions with its carriers where appropriate.  The Company has
entered into settlement agreements with certain of its insurance
carriers, resolving such insurance carriers' coverage disputes
through the carriers' agreement to pay specified amounts to the
Company, either immediately or over a specified period.  Through
March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company had received
US$270.0 million in cash and notes from insurers, respectively, on
account of indemnity and defense costs respecting asbestos-related
claims.

"The Company continues to have additional excess insurance
coverage available for potential future asbestos-related claims.
The Company also reviews the amount of its unresolved, unexhausted
excess insurance coverage for asbestos-related claims, taking into
account the remaining limits of such coverage, the number and
amount of claims from co-insured parties, the ongoing litigation
against the Company's insurers described above, potential
remaining recoveries from insolvent insurers, the impact of
previous insurance settlements, and coverage available from
solvent insurers not party to the coverage litigation.  Based on
that review, the Company has estimated that as of March 31, 2017
and December 31, 2016 that it has US$386.4 million in aggregate
insurance coverage available with respect to asbestos-related
claims already satisfied by the Company but not yet reimbursed by
the insurers, asbestos-related claims asserted but not yet
resolved, and asbestos-related claims not yet asserted, in each
case together with their associated defense costs.  In each case,
such amounts are expected to be fully recovered.  However, the
resolution of the insurance coverage litigation, and the number
and amount of claims on our insurance from co-insured parties, may
increase or decrease the amount of such insurance coverage
available to the Company as compared to the Company's estimate."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/mH9Q91


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UTC Records US$379MM for Asbestos Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
United Technologies Corporation recorded US$379 million as of
March 31, 2017 for its estimated total liability to resolve all
pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through
2059, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies, we and
our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos
integrated into certain of our products or business premises.
While we have never manufactured asbestos and no longer
incorporate it in any currently-manufactured products, certain of
our historical products, like those of many other manufacturers,
have contained components incorporating asbestos.  A substantial
majority of these asbestos-related claims have been dismissed
without payment or were covered in full or in part by insurance or
other forms of indemnity.  Additional cases were litigated and
settled without any insurance reimbursement.  The amounts involved
in asbestos related claims were not material individually or in
the aggregate in any year.

"Our estimated total liability to resolve all pending and
unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is
approximately US$379 million and is principally recorded in Other
long-term liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet
as of March 31, 2017.  This amount is on a pre-tax basis, not
discounted, and excludes the Company's legal fees to defend the
asbestos claims (which will continue to be expensed by the Company
as they are incurred).  In addition, the Company has an insurance
recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of
approximately US$133 million, which is included primarily in Other
assets on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31,
2017.

"The amounts recorded by UTC for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance recoveries are based on currently available information
and assumptions that we believe are reasonable.  Our actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than
those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the
assumptions.  Key variables in these assumptions include the
number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the outcomes
or resolution of such claims, the average cost of resolution of
each new claim, the amount of insurance available, allocation
methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer with whom
we have reached settlements, the resolution of coverage issues
with other excess insurance carriers with whom we have not yet
achieved settlements, and the solvency risk with respect to our
insurance carriers.  Other factors that may affect our future
liability include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, legal
rulings that may be made by state and federal courts, and the
passage of state or federal legislation.  At least annually, the
Company will evaluate all of these factors and, with input from an
outside actuarial expert, make any necessary adjustments to both
our estimated asbestos liabilities and insurance recoveries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Uu2vBJ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Still Face Claims at April 2
----------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 2, 2017, that asbestos-related product
liability claims continue to be filed against two of its
subsidiaries: Spence Engineering Company, Inc., the stock of which
the Company acquired in 1984; and CIRCOR Instrumentation
Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Hoke, Inc.), the stock of which the
Company acquired in 1998.

The Company states, "Due to the nature of the products supplied by
these entities, the markets they serve and our historical
experience in resolving these claims, we do not believe that these
asbestos-related claims will have a material adverse effect on the
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity of the
Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/AQnjAX


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Still Defends PI Suits at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., is one
of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed
throughout the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as
a result of exposure to asbestos.

The Company states, "These claims arose from the insulation
operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown
Cork purchased in 1963.  Approximately ninety days after the stock
purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was
later merged into Crown Cork.

"Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by
a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with
carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became
self-insured.  The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has
no remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

"In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos.  The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly
more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's
adjusted asset value.  In November 2004, the legislation was
amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli
v. AC&S Corporation, et al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the
statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive
application.  The Company cautions that the limitations of the
statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be
upheld.

"In June 2003, the state of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such
as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because
they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos.  The Texas legislation, which applies to
future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related
liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets
adjusted for inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly more
for asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its
predecessor's assets.

"In October 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision,
reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-
related case against Crown Cork.  The Texas Supreme Court held
that the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas
Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending
against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June 2003.
The Company believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court
is limited to retroactive application of the Texas legislation to
asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in
Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its accrual, continues to
assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

"In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West
Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming enacted legislation that limits
asbestos-related liabilities under state law of companies such as
Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they
are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos.  The legislation, which applies to future
and, with the exception of Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina,
South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming, pending claims, caps
asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market value of the
predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for inflation.  Crown
Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than
the total value of its predecessor's assets adjusted for
inflation.  Crown Cork has integrated the legislation into its
claims defense strategy.

"The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any
litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to
Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-
related liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could have
a material impact on the Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/4M4BDp


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 146 Talcum Suits vs. Colgate-Palmolive Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017, that 146 individual cases related to
asbestos-contaminated talcum powder products were pending against
the Company in state and federal courts throughout the United
States as of March 31, 2017. This is an increase from the 115
cases as of December 31, 2016.

Colgate-Palmolive states, "The Company has been named as a
defendant in civil actions alleging that certain talcum powder
products that were sold prior to 1996 were contaminated with
asbestos.  Most of these actions involve a number of co-defendants
from a variety of different industries, including suppliers of
asbestos and manufacturers of products that, unlike the Company's
products, were designed to contain asbestos.

"During the quarter ended March 31, 2017, 41 new cases were filed
and 10 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal or settlement.
The value of the settlements was not material, either individually
or in the aggregate, to the Company's results of operations for
the quarter ended March 31, 2017."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/6RHed9


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had 61,700 Claims at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company had 61,700 asbestos-related
claims pending as of March 31, 2017, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits
alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to
result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products
manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and Federal courts.

"We have disposed of approximately 126,000 claims by defending and
obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering into a settlement.
The sum of our accrued asbestos-related liability and gross
payments to date, including legal costs, by us and our insurers
totaled approximately US$521 million through March 31, 2017 and
US$517 million through December 31, 2016.

"We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing
reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of
the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and
estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries.  We
recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted
claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$173 million and
US$171 million at March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016,
respectively.  In determining the estimate of our asbestos
liability, we evaluated claims over the next ten-year period.  Due
to the difficulties in making these estimates, analysis based on
new data and/or a change in circumstances arising in the future
may result in an increase in the recorded obligation, and that
increase could be significant.

"We maintain certain primary and excess insurance coverage under
coverage-in-place agreements, and also have additional excess
liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities.  After
consultation with our outside legal counsel and giving
consideration to agreements with certain of our insurance
carriers, the financial viability and legal obligations of our
insurance carriers and other relevant factors, we determine an
amount we expect is probable of recovery from such carriers.  We
record a receivable with respect to such policies when we
determine that recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate
the amount of a particular recovery.

"We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of US$125
million and US$123 million at March 31, 2017 and December 31,
2016, respectively.  We expect that approximately 70% of asbestos
claim related losses would be recoverable through insurance during
the ten-year period covered by the estimated liability.  Of these
amounts, US$12 million was included in Current Assets as part of
Accounts Receivable at March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016.  The
recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect
under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary and excess
insurance carriers as well as an amount we believe is probable of
recovery from certain of our other excess insurance carriers.
We believe that, at December 31, 2016, we had approximately US$430
million in excess level policy limits applicable to indemnity and
defense costs for asbestos products claims under coverage-in-place
agreements.  We also had additional unsettled excess level policy
limits potentially applicable to such costs.  We had coverage
under certain primary policies for indemnity and defense costs for
asbestos products claims under remaining aggregate limits pursuant
to a coverage-in-place agreement, as well as coverage for
indemnity and defense costs for asbestos premises claims pursuant
to coverage-in-place agreements.

"With respect to both asserted and unasserted claims, it is
reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of cost in
excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts cannot be
reasonably estimated.  Coverage under insurance policies is
subject to varying characteristics of asbestos claims including,
but not limited to, the type of claim (premise vs. product
exposure), alleged date of first exposure to our products or
premises and disease alleged.  Depending upon the nature of these
characteristics, as well as the resolution of certain legal
issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible by
us."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/fvaiWw


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Defend Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017 that the amount of "reasonably
possible" additional asbestos claims, if any, "is not material to"
its financial position and operations.

The Company states, "Over the years, the Company has been named as
a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in
various state courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due
to exposure to asbestos-containing brakes, which Carlisle
manufactured in limited amounts between the late-1940s and the
mid-1980s.  In addition to compensatory awards, these lawsuits may
also seek punitive damages. Generally, the Company has obtained
dismissals or settlements of its asbestos-related lawsuits with no
material effect on its financial condition, results of operations,
or cash flows.  The Company maintains insurance coverage that
applies to the Company's defense costs and payments of settlements
or judgments in connection with asbestos-related lawsuits. At this
time, the amount of reasonably possible additional asbestos
claims, if any, is not material to the Company's financial
position, results of operations, or operating cash flows, although
these matters could result in the Company being subject to
monetary damages, costs or expenses, and charges against earnings
in particular periods."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/nhAMDe


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 346 Cases vs. AK Steel Still Pending at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation had 346 asbestos-related cases
pending as of March 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company states, "Since 1990 we have been named as a defendant
in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos.  The great majority of these lawsuits have
been filed on behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to
asbestos while visiting the premises of one of our current or
former facilities.  The majority of asbestos cases pending in
which we are a defendant do not include a specific dollar claim
for damages.  In the cases that do include specific dollar claims
for damages, the complaint typically includes a monetary claim for
compensatory damages and a separate monetary claim in an equal
amount for punitive damages, and does not attempt to allocate the
total monetary claim among the various defendants.

"Since the onset of asbestos claims against us in 1990, five
asbestos claims against us have proceeded to trial in four
separate cases.  All five concluded with a verdict in our favor.
We continue to vigorously defend the asbestos claims.  Based upon
present knowledge, and the factors above, we believe it is
unlikely that the resolution in the aggregate of the asbestos
claims against us will have a materially adverse effect on our
consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial
condition.  However, predictions about the outcome of pending
litigation, particularly claims alleging asbestos exposure, are
subject to substantial uncertainties.  These uncertainties include
(1) the significantly variable rate at which new claims may be
filed, (2) the effect of bankruptcies of other companies currently
or historically defending asbestos claims, (3) the litigation
process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case,
(4) the type and severity of the disease each claimant alleged to
suffer, and (5) the potential for enactment of legislation
affecting asbestos litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Qk4tyg







                         *********


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  * * *