CAR_Public/170608.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Thursday, June 8, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 114



                            Headlines

56 EAST SUNRISE: Judicial Intervention Bid Filed in "Ah" Suit
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: "Barwick" Suit Sues Over Similac Formula
AFFORDABLE MANAGEMENT: June 28 Rule 16 Conference in TCPA Suit
ALBERT MUELLER: Court Won't Hear Payroll Card Class Action Appeal
ALLAN SPEAR: "Rodriguez" Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay

AMARIN CORP: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Securities Suit
AMERICAN HONDA: "Katz" Suit Sues Over Credit Reporting Violation
ANGELO OF MULBERRY ST: "Calle" Seeks Unpaid Spread-of-Hours Pay
ARAMARK CORP: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hendrick" Class Suit
ARBONNE INTERNATIONAL: "Dagnall" Suit Alleges Pyramid Scheme

ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Karp Seeks to Enjoin Sterling Bank Merger
AVINGER INC: Faces "Olberding" Suit Over Misleading Reports
BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT: Spies on Riders, Class Suit Alleges
BCA FINANCIAL: "Velazquez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
BILTMORE GENERAL: Plaza Construction Sues Over Breach of Contract

BRS ROOFING: "Boring" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages, Damages
CARUSO TRUCKING: Certification of Class Denied in "Magsby" Suit
CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Ohlman Sues over Background Checks
CHEVRON CORP: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Suit Over ESIP Plan
CHICAGO, IL: Inmates at Jacksonville Prison File Class Suit

COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Faces "Rivera" Suit for Invasion of Privacy
CONSUMERS ENERGY: Bid to Stay "Ricketts" Granted
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. Florida
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Consumer Challenges Summary Judgment
CREDITORS SPECIALITY: Faces "Vasquez" Suit in N.D. California

CVS HEALTH: "Prescott" Hits Blood Glucose Test Strip Price-fixing
DANY RESTORATION: Faces "Singh" Wage-and-Hour Suit
DEJA VU: Exotic Dancers Oppose Class Action Settlement
DELL INC: "Sloatman" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
DEROSSI GLOBAL: Faces "Anderson" Suit in E.D. New York

DIGITALGLOBE INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action in Colorado
DIGITALGLOBE INC: "Zand" Sues Over Shadowy Merger Deal
DINOSAUR RESTAURANTS: Faces "Asencio" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Falbo Sues Over Debt Collection Violation
ECO SCIENCE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Wheeler Sues Over Retiree Life Insurance Plan
EVIO GROUP: "Valladares" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
FACEBOOK INC: Israeli AG Issues Legal Opinion on Privacy Suit
FARMERS INSURANCE: Deluca Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
FCA US: Faltermeier Appeals W.D. Mo. Ct. Ruling to 8th Circuit

FIAT CHRYSLER: Mooradian Sues over Jeep Wrangler Warranty
FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: Wilson Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Kotlyarsky" Suit in E.D. New York
FURMANITE AMERICA: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Wade" Suit Says
GENERAC POWER: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed

GENERAL REVENUE: Faces "Hensley" Suit in C.D. California
GOOGLE INC: DoL Gender Pay Gap Allegations May Spark Lawsuits
GRISWOLD INT'L: Sued Over Failure to Pay Aides Travel Expenses
HANSON AGGREGATES: NEI Contracting Loses Bid for Atty Fees, Costs
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN: Faces "T.F." Suit in District of Minnesota

HOME DEPOT USA: "Wezel-Peterson" Sues Over Unruh Act Breach
HORIZON GLOBAL: Craftwood, et al File Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
JBS S.A.: "Murphy" Sues Over Share Price Drop
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of "Langan" Suit Ruling

KAISER PERMANENTE: Sued in Cal. Over Disability Discrimination
KEANE GROUP: "Hickson" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Classes
KELLOGG CO: New York Court Dismisses "Mantikas" Suit
L BRANDS: Faces "Ochoa" Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers
LIBERTY BROADBAND: Stockholder Directed to File Addt'l Briefing

LITTLE CAESARS PIZZA: Pizza Not "Halal", Bazzi Claims
MACY'S FLORIDA: Adler Sues over Purchase of Used Mattresses
MARKET AMERICA: "Yang" Class Suit Alleges Pyramid Scheme
MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Local 589 Appeals Ruling to First Circuit
MAZDA MOTOR: Campbell Sues Over Tower Assembly Safety Defect

MDE LEARNING: Fawzy Seeks Unpaid Wages Under New Jersey Law
MDL 2353: Bid to Exclude Expert Testimonies Denied
MDL 2492: "Hudson" Suit v NCAA Goes to N.D. Illinois
MEYERKORD & MEYERKORD: Averts Business Solicitation Class Action
MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: Kombucha Buyers Eligible for Class Suit

MISSOURI: Court Won't Review Denial of Inmate's Class Cert. Bid
MISSOURI: Non-Parties' Bid for Joinder in "Church" Denied
NAILS BY VIVIAN: "Yu" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
NANTHEALTH INC: Bucks County Sues Over Overpriced IPO
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Walker" Suit Transferred to Chicago Court

NELSON & WATSON: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Maldonado"
OSCAR DE LA RENTA: Intern's Bid to Remand Class Action Denied
PACIFIC LINE: "Palafox" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: "Shamis" Hits Missed Meal/Rest Periods
PINNACLE MANAGEMENT: Prasad Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA

PRECISION DRILLING: "Montes" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
PRIDE: Mobility Scooter Class Action in UK Faces Hurdle
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Nelson Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations
RANBAXY INC: Faces Meijer Suit in District of New Jersey
REGIONS FINANCIAL: "Ratchford" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

RHODE ISLAND: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Disableds' FAPE Suit
RODAN + FIELDS: Sued in Cal. Over Automatic Renewal Policies
SARGENTO FOODS: Stanton Sues Over Natural Cheese Branding
SAUL CHEVROLET: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Rivera" Suit
SCHOOL SAFETY: Sent Unsolicited Facsimile Ads, Suit Claims

SILVER CARE: "Trischler" Suit Sues Over Employment Suspension
SIMM ASSOCIATES: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
SIMONTON BUILDING: Kiefer Appeals Order and Judgment to 8th Cir.
SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA: "Hardoby" Suit Seeks Class Certification
SPOTLESS GROUP: Faces Second Class Action Over Financial Guidance

ST. JOHN'S: "Romero" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Vacation Leaves
STEAKS AND GAME: Faces "Walker" Suit in E.D. New York
STOCKTON ENTERPRISES: "Predmore" Hits Misclassification, Tip Cuts
SWEET HOME: Jackson, et al. Seek to Certify Health Aides Class
TARDASIA HOTELS: $51MM Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK

TENNESSEE, USA: Tony Parker, et al. Appeal Graham Suit Ruling
TETRAPHASE PHARMA: First Cir. Appeal Filed in "Harrington" Suit
TEXAS: Inmate Mental Health Care Class Action Pending
TEXAS DE BRAZIL: Faces "Anderson" Suit in E.D. New York
TG CIRCLE: Faces "Griggs" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pennsylvania

THEDACARE INC: Miller et al. Seek Certification of FLSA Class
THEDACARE INC: Seeks to Decertify FLSA Collective Action
TRANSGENOMIC INC: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: 9th Cir. to Hear Appeal on Settlement
TURKEY HILL: Faces "Badger" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania

UBER TECH: Judge Raises Concern over $7.5MM Class Suit Deal
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Hidden Charges
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Cavallo" Suit Dismissed, Sent to Arbitration
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Order in "Metter" Suit to 9th Circuit
VIRTU CATHEDRAL: "Zdun" Action Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay

VOLAR LLC: Faces Class Action Over Labor Code Violations
WALK SCORE: Faces "West" Suit in Southern District of New York
WHOLE FOOD: 2nd Cir. Revives Suit over Weight of Prepack Food
YUMS INC: "Wei" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay

* CMA Includes Class Action Chapter in Updated Listing Rules



                            *********


56 EAST SUNRISE: Judicial Intervention Bid Filed in "Ah" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Judicial Intervention was filed on May 24, 2017 in the
case captioned Haider Ah, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 56 East Sunrise Corp. (d/b/a
Dunkin Donuts), Suzanne Jantzen and Diane Morales, Case No.
702590/2017, (N.Y. Sup., February 23, 2017).

Defendant operates Dunkin Donuts franchise restaurants where
Plaintiff worked as an assistant manager at their locations in
East Meadow and Merrick. He seeks unpaid overtime, pre- and post-
judgment interest, damages for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to New York Labor Law. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
      LOUIS GINSBERG P.C.
      1613 Northern Boulevard
      Roslyn, NY 11576
      Tel: (516) 625-0105

Defendant is represented by:

      CERTILMAN BALIN ADLER & HYMAN
      90 Merrick Avenue, 9th Floor
      East Meadow, NY 11554
      Tel: (516) 296-7000
      Email: btg@bthomasgolden.com


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: "Barwick" Suit Sues Over Similac Formula
-------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL KAO and NINA BARWICK, individually and on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES INC., an Illinois corporation d/b/a Abbott
Nutrition, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-02790-JCS (N.D. Cal.,
May 15, 2017), seeks to recover compensatory, statutory, and
punitive damages, as well as declaratory, injunctive, and all
other relief allowed in equity and law.

This consumer class action concerns deceptive and unfair business
practices by Abbott in the advertisement and sale of its Similac
Advanced Non-GMO baby formula.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has wrongfully and
unfairly deceived the public and its customers by misrepresenting
Similac Non-GMO as containing no genetically modified organisms
("GMOs"). As independent testing lab results show at different
times and across several lots and geographic areas, Similac Non-
GMO contains GMOs. Abbott uniformly represented that Similac Non-
GMO was free of GMOs and places this representation prominently on
the package label for all Similac Non-GMO products. Abbott's
representation is and was false. Abbott misrepresented or failed
to disclose material facts about the content of Similac Non-GMO in
that it contains GMOs.

Tests from across the country from different periods of time and
from different product lots show that Similac Non-GMO contains
GMOs. As Abbott had anticipated, consumers who look for and
purchase GMO-free products, especially products for babies and
infants, care greatly about the lack of GMOs in their food, and
this is a material reason that customers choose Similac Non-GMO as
opposed to other Similac lines of products (including the organic
and standard formulas).

As a result of Defendant's misrepresentations, Plaintiffs and
Class members who purchased the Similac Non-GMO have suffered
harm.

Abbott Laboratories is an American worldwide health care company.
It has 74,000 employees and operates in more than 150 countries.
The company headquarters are in Lake Bluff, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Weissglass, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421 7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362 8064
          E-mail: jweissglass@altshulerberzon.com

               - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
          Michael Isaac Miller, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH
          & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254 8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255 5419
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
                  beng@bsjfirm.com


AFFORDABLE MANAGEMENT: June 28 Rule 16 Conference in TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned FAMILY SPINAL HEALTH & REHABILITATION
CENTER, INC. HEALTH GROUP d/b/a PRECISION HEALTH GROUP, Plaintiff,
v. AFFORDABLE MANAGEMENT & CONSULTING, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 4:17cv00975 PLC (E.D. Mo.), Judge Patricia L. Cohen of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the joint motion to extend
deadlines as follows:

   (i) the Defendants' answers or other responses to the first
amended class action complaint are due no later than June 15,
2017;

   (ii) the Rule 16 conference is removed from June 14, 2017 and
rescheduled for June 28, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.; and

  (iii) the parties' joint scheduling plan must be filed no later
than June 21, 2017.

The Plaintiff and the seven originally-named Defendants jointly
move for (i) a 14-day extension of deadlines and (ii) the
rescheduling of the Rule 16 conference now set for 10:00 a.m. on
June 14, 2017, because "the parties have agreed in principle to a
settlement" and need more time to "finalize the settlement."  As
the parties note, the record does not reflect service of process
on the four Defendants added by the first amended class action
complaint.

A full-text copy of the May 31, 2017 memorandum and order is
available at https://is.gd/LHlm1h from Leagle.com

Family Spinal Health & Rehabilitation Center, Inc., Plaintiff,
represented by Mary B. Schultz, Schultz and Associates, L.L.P..

Family Spinal Health & Rehabilitation Center, Inc., Plaintiff,
represented by Ronald J. Eisenberg, Schultz and Associates,
L.L.P..

Affordable Management & Consulting, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Sarah E.S. Carlson, Dentons US LLP, Stephen J. O'Brien, Dentons
US LLP & Alice Marie Aten, Dentons US LLP.

Affordable Management & Consulting - Midwest, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Sarah E.S. Carlson, Dentons US LLP, Stephen J.
O'Brien, Dentons US LLP & Alice Marie Aten, Dentons US LLP.

Affordable Management & Consulting - Southwest, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Sarah E.S. Carlson, Dentons US LLP, Stephen J.
O'Brien, Dentons US LLP & Alice Marie Aten, Dentons US LLP.

Affordable Management & Consulting - Northeast, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Sarah E.S. Carlson, Dentons US LLP, Stephen J.
O'Brien, Dentons US LLP & Alice Marie Aten, Dentons US LLP.

Affordable Management & Consulting - West, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Sarah E.S. Carlson, Dentons US LLP, Stephen J.
O'Brien, Dentons US LLP & Alice Marie Aten, Dentons US LLP.

Thomas A. Owen, III, Defendant, represented by Sarah E.S. Carlson,
Dentons US LLP, Stephen J. O'Brien, Dentons US LLP & Alice Marie
Aten, Dentons US LLP.

Chrisaundra Reese, Defendant, represented by Sarah E.S. Carlson,
Dentons US LLP, Stephen J. O'Brien, Dentons US LLP & Alice Marie
Aten, Dentons US LLP.


ALBERT MUELLER: Court Won't Hear Payroll Card Class Action Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reports that the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a decision in a wage
class action agreeing that a McDonald's franchisee ran afoul of
state wage laws by requiring employees to accept their pay on
debit cards.

The justices agreed to leave standing a decision by the Superior
Court finding that the plain language of the state's Wage Payment
and Collection Law limited employers to cash and checks as a means
of disbursing earnings to workers, and that debit cards used by a
McDonald's franchisee were a clear violation.

The justices issued no opinion accompanying their one-page order
denying the appeal, and an attorney for the franchisees declined
to comment when reached on May 24.

Carol and Albert Mueller, who operate more than a dozen McDonald's
franchises in Pennsylvania, were slapped with a class action in
Luzerne County court in August 2013 on behalf of nearly 2,400
workers who claimed they were illegally paid via JPMorgan Chase
payroll cards rather than by cash or check.

According to court records, the Muellers used the payroll cards
over a three-year period from November 2010 to July 2013.

A Luzerne County judge agreed to allow the case to move forward in
May 2015 after denying a summary judgment motion from the
franchisees arguing that the cards passed muster under the WPCL
because they could be readily converted to cash.

The trial court, however, noted that the law had been drafted in
the early 1960s, long before debit cards could have been
contemplated as a form of payment, and that the issue was one of
first impression in the state.

The Superior Court, given the uniqueness of the issue, agreed to
hear an interlocutory appeal in the case despite the fact that the
case remains pending.

The appeals court, however, ultimately sided with the trial judge.

"The WPCL states that wages 'shall be paid in lawful money of the
United States or check,'" the Superior Court's opinion said. "The
language is clear. A debit card is not 'lawful money' and it is
not a 'check' as contemplated by the drafters of the WPCL."

While the Supreme Court refused to hear the dispute on May 24, it
is within the realm of possibility that the matter could end up
before the justices as part of an appeal after a final decision in
Luzerne County.

The workers are represented by Michael Cefalo of Cefalo &
Associates, and David Senoff -- dsenoff@anapolweiss.com -- and Sol
Weiss -- sweiss@anapolweiss.com -- of Anapol Weiss.

The Muellers are represented by Rachel Satinsky, Matthew Hank and
Paul Sopher of Littler Mendelson PC, and Daniel Brier and Nicholas
Kravitz of Myers Brier & Kelly LLP. [GN]

The case is Alisha Siciliano et al. v. Albert/Carol Mueller etc.,
case number 823 MAL 2016, before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.


ALLAN SPEAR: "Rodriguez" Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Cesar Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Allan Spear Construction, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-05175 (E.D. La., May 23, 2017), seeks to recover
from Defendant unpaid overtime wages, interest, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Allan Spear is a concrete and masonry contractor that specializes
in foundations, slabs, tilt wall, elevated floor systems, and
other types of concrete and masonry projects. Plaintiff was
assigned to the Defendants' project at the University Medical
Center in New Orleans, mixing and pouring concrete for driveways
and sidewalks. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
      William H. Beaumont, Esq.
      Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone: (504) 534-5005
      Facsimile: (504) 272-2956
      Email: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
             whb@beaumontcostales.com
             eaw@beaumontcostales.com


AMARIN CORP: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Moussako, Alex Wolf and Cara Salvatore, writing for
Law360, report that the Third Circuit upheld the dismissal of a
securities class action against biopharmaceuticals maker Amarin on
May 23, agreeing with a New Jersey district court that the
company's statements about the FDA approval process for a fish oil
drug were not misleading to investors.

The appeals panel ruled to affirm the dismissal of a shareholder
class action that accused Amarin of not fully informing investors
about its progress during a failed bid to obtain approval for
expanded use of Vascepa, a fish oil drug, to treat more adults
with high triglycerides, or blood fats, which ultimately resulted
in a 20 percent drop in stock price.  The panel noted that the
company statements that formed the basis of the lawsuit were not
deceptively rosy about the approval prospects.

In an April 2016 decision dismissing the second iteration of the
lawsuit, the judge rejected their allegations that the company
violated a duty to shareholders regarding the information it
shared about a July 2008 meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration at which they discussed Amarin's so-called ANCHOR
trial for expanded Vascepa use.

The district court also ruled the investors failed on their
contention that the company had a duty to disclose the FDA's
consideration of ongoing clinical trials for similar drugs --
known as the AIM-HIGH and ACCORD studies -- or that it failed to
accurately communicate the conditions the FDA wanted the company
to meet before potentially approving expanded use for Vascepa.

On appeal, the shareholders argued the lower court had subjected
their claims to a heightened pleading standard, and claimed there
would have been a clear misleading effect to investors as to
whether the expanded use would be approved.

The panel disagreed on both questions, finding the claims were
subject to an appropriate standard.  The court also ruled the
information supposedly hidden from investors was not "materially
misleading."

The shareholders had argued that the failure of a set of clinical
trials for similar drugs meant that Amarin's statements regarding
Vascepa's approval prospects were an omission.

However, the court ruled that the items the plaintiffs argue were
omitted -- documentation of meetings from 2008, 2009 and 2011
where the FDA discussed the drug's prospects -- did not hinge the
approval of Amarin's expanded drug use on the completion of a
similar clinical trial.

"We think it clear from the 2008 minutes, 2009 SPA and 2011 SPA
that the FDA never explicitly or even implicitly indicated that a
long-term outcome trial would be required to be completed for
approval.  The FDA only wished to see that a long-term study was
'well under way' . . . While quantification of that requirement,
in terms of enrollment figures, appears to have been a matter of
negotiation throughout the class period, there is no dispute,
based on these documents, that completion of such a trial was not
required for approval," the court said.

The panel also ruled that statements made by Amarin to investors
at the time highlighted the possibility of the FDA changing its
judgment as to the science behind the potential expansion of
Vascepa's use.

"As other courts have recognized, a reasonable investor
understands that a '[c]ontinuous dialogue between the FDA and the
proponent of a new drug is the essence of the product license
application process,'" the decision noted.

Christina L. Costley -- christina.costley@kattenlaw.com -- who
represented Amarin, told law360 on May 24 that she was pleased
with the court's decision.

Counsel for the plaintiffs were not immediately available for
comment on May 24.

Prior to the Third Circuit's ruling, Amarin said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3,
2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the
Company intends to continue with its vigorous defense in
connection with the appeal.

The Company said, "We and certain of our current and former
executive officers were named as defendants in a class action
lawsuit that could result in substantial costs and divert
management's attention."

"The market price of our American Depositary Shares, or ADSs,
declined significantly after the October 2013 decision by the FDA
Advisory Committee to recommend against approval of Vascepa in the
ANCHOR indication. We and certain of our current and former
executive officers and directors were named as defendants in a
class action lawsuit that generally alleged that we and certain of
our current and former officers and directors violated Sections
10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or
misleading statements or material omissions concerning the ANCHOR
sNDA and related FDA regulatory approval process in an effort to
lead investors to believe that Vascepa would receive approval from
the FDA in the ANCHOR indication. The complaints sought
unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs.

"We engaged in a vigorous defense of this lawsuit. On June 29,
2015, the court granted our first motion to dismiss the class
action litigation without prejudice. The court held that the
plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted and plaintiffs were given 30 days to refile an amended
complaint.

"On July 29, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and
we again moved to dismiss. On April 26, 2016, the court granted a
second motion to dismiss, again without prejudice, with leave for
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. On May 24, 2016,
plaintiffs notified the court they would not file another amended
complaint and on September 21, 2016, filed a brief in support of
their appeal of the most recent dismissal to the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals. We plan to continue with our vigorous defense in
connection with this appeal."

In fall 2013, an FDA advisory panel raised concerns that Amarin's
latest clinical trial results might have been skewed due to a
placebo. The agency also said that, after approving the trial,
cardiovascular tests had shown that a reduction in triglyceride
levels might not lead to cardiovascular benefits.

On the day the FDA issued those findings, Amarin's stock price
fell more than 20 percent, closing at $5.09 per share on Oct. 11,
2013.  Five days later, the company revealed that an FDA committee
had voted 9-2 against approving Vascepa for expanded use. Amarin
stock plunged an additional 61 percent and closed at just $2.10
per share on Oct. 17.

Amarin is an Irish company that develops therapeutic drugs
intended to improve cardiovascular health, its website says, and
Vascepa is its main product.

In July 2012, the FDA approved the drug for use by adults who have
very high triglyceride levels. About 4 million Americans have
hypertriglyceridemia, the complaint says.

The following month, Amarin said it would ask the agency -- after
conducting an additional FDA-approved clinical trial -- to also
approve the drug for use by adults who have levels of triglyceride
that are high but not high enough to classify them as having
hypertriglyceridemia.  As about 40 million U.S. adults have this
second condition, Amarin's Vascepa sales would have vastly
expanded following the additional FDA approval, according to court
documents.

Circuit Court judges D. Brooks Smith, Theodore McKee and Marjorie
Rendell sat on the panel.

The shareholders are represented by Robert C. Finkel --
rfinkel@wolfpopper.com -- Lester L. Levy -- llevy@wolfpopper.com -
- and Sean M. Zaroogian -- szaroogian@wolfpopper.com -- of Wolf
Popper and Jeffrey W. Herrmann of Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann &
Knopf.

Amarin is represented by Christina L. Costley, Bruce G. Vanyo --
bruce@kattenlaw.com -- Howard R. Rubin --
howard.rubin@kattenlaw.com -- Robert T. Smith --
robert.smith1@kattenlaw.com -- and Jason C. Vigna --
jason.vigna@kattenlaw.com -- of Katten Muchin Rosenman. [GN]

The case is In re: Amarin Corporation PLC Securities Litigation,
case number 16-2640, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.


AMERICAN HONDA: "Katz" Suit Sues Over Credit Reporting Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ari Katz, the Plaintiff, v. American Honda Finance Corp., the
Defendant, Case No. L-3655-17 (N.J. Super. Ct., May 19, 2017),
seeks to recover damages arising from Defendant's violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, bought this case against American Honda Finance
Corp.

According to the complaint, Defendant is reporting a debt
allegedly due and owing to the Credit Reporting Agencies
concerning Plaintiff. The alleged debt was incurred as a result of
a car loan. After reviewing his credit report, and specifically
the credit entry from Defendant, on February 23, 2017, Plaintiff
disputed the accuracy of the credit reporting, via fax to
Defendant. Thereafter, Defendant failed to notate the account as
one in dispute, as is required under the FCRA. As a result,
Defendant's credit score and credit worthiness were negatively
affected.[BN]

American Honda Finance Corporation provides various forms of
financing to purchasers and lessees, and authorized independent
dealers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          70 Clinton Ave. Suite 3
          Newark, NJ 07114
          Telephone: (862) 227 3106


ANGELO OF MULBERRY ST: "Calle" Seeks Unpaid Spread-of-Hours Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Efrain Patricio Gonzalez Calle and Sebastian Lopez Acabal,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Angelo of Mulberry Street Inc. (d/b/a Angelo's of
Mulberry Street), Giovanni Aprea, Concetta Aprea and Tina Aprea,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03857 (S.D. N.Y., May 22, 2017),
seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, spread of hours pay, applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York
Labor Laws.

Defendants operate an Italian restaurant, Angelo's of Mulberry
Street, located at 146 Mulberry Street, New York, New York 10013,
where Calle and Acabal worked as cook and busboy, respectively.
Both did not receive accurate wage statements, thus were not able
to claim overtime and spread of hours pay for unaccounted work
hours. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARAMARK CORP: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hendrick" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Joel Hendrick filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Joel Hendrick v. Aramark Corporation, et al., Case
No. 2-16-cv-04069, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair
and the Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

Aramark Corporation is an American food service, facilities, and
uniform services provider to clients in fields including
education, healthcare, business, corrections, and leisure.

The appellate case is captioned as Joel Hendrick v. Aramark
Corporation, et al., Case No. 17-2120, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JOEL HENDRICK, Individually and as a
Representative of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, is
represented by:

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
          E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
                  kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com

               - and -

          W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          E-mail: Dee.Miles@beasleyallen.com

Defendant-Appellee ARAMARK CORP is represented by:

          Ezra D. Church, Esq.
          Andrew W. Katz, Esq.
          Gregory T. Parks, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5710
          E-mail: echurch@morganlewis.com
                  andrew.katz@morganlewis.com
                  gregory.parks@morganlewis.com


ARBONNE INTERNATIONAL: "Dagnall" Suit Alleges Pyramid Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Arbonne, an an multilevel marketer of health and beauty products
that claims to have generated $541 million in revenue last year,
is a pyramid scheme, according to a class action RICO complaint in
Southern California.

Lead plaintiffs Cynthia and Michael Dagnall sued Arbonne
International and five of its top executives, who live in Arizona,
Colorado, New Jersey, the United Kingdom and Australia. The
Dagnalls say that despite Arbonne's claim of $541 million in net
revenue last year, 86 percent of the company's "consultants" lose
money.  They call it a "pyramid scheme masquerading as a direct
seller of health and beauty products," in their May 25 complaint
in Orange County Court.

The Dagnalls, husband and wife, say that between them they paid
Arbonne $2,840 in fees and product purchases, for which they
received $30 in payments.

Cynthia Dagnall joined Arbonne in February 2015 and stuck with it
until May 2016. Her husband enrolled a few weeks after her and
left in May 2015.

Arbonne requires its thousands of consultants to pay for start-up
fees and annual dues and "makes it a virtual necessity that the
distributors purchase Arbonne products -- lots of them," the
complaint states. But as in other pyramid schemes, consultants
make the most money by bringing on other consultants to sell
products.

"Unlike participants in a classic pyramid scheme, the Arbonne
consultants receive health and beauty products, which the
consultants can theoretically sell. But that fact makes Arbonne no
less a pyramid scheme," according to the 13-page complaint.

As is typical in a pyramid scheme, nearly everyone but those at
the top lose money; only those at the top of the pyramid, such as
the five individual defendants, "actively participate in the
Arbonne pyramid scheme and profit from the payments to Arbonne
made by the many thousands of other losing consultants," the
complaint states.

The individual defendants are Donna Johnson of Cave Creek,
Arizona; Cassandra House of New South Wales, Australia; Tarrah
Brandsma of Parker, Colorado; Iain Pritchard of Chester, United
Kingdom; and Deborah Neal of Pittstown, New Jersey.

The Dagnalls seek class certification, nullification of
arbitration provisions in their contracts, and damages and costs
for unfair and deceptive trade, unjust enrichment, and
racketeering.

They are represented by Betny Townsend with Reid Collins & Tsai,
in Austin, Texas.

Arbonne did not immediately respond to a request for comment
through its website.

The case is captioned, CYNTHIA DAGNALL and MICHAEL DAGNALL,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiffs, vs. ARBONNE INTERNATIONAL, LLC, DONNA
JOHNSON, CASSANDRA HOUSE, TARRAH BRANDSMA, IAIN PRITCHARD, and
DEBORAH CARROLL NEAL, Defendants. Case No. 30-2017-00922926-CU-RI-
CXC, filed in Orange County Court.

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

     Betny A. Townsend Esq.
     REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP
     1301 S. Capital of Texas Hwy.
     Bldg. C, Suite 300
     Austin, TX 78746
     Tel.: 512-647-6100
     E-mail: btownsend@rctlegal.com


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Karp Seeks to Enjoin Sterling Bank Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Karp, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, v. ASTORIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
JOHN R. CHRIN, JOHN J. CORRADO, ROBERT GIAMBRONE, GERARD C.
KEEGAN, BRIAN M. LEENEY, PATRICIA M. NAZEMETZ, RALPH F. PALLESCHI,
MONTE N., the Defendants, Case No. 604286/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May
15, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to
consummate a proposed transaction or, in the event the proposed
transaction is completed, recover damages resulting from
Defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties.

The case is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on
behalf of herself, and all other similarly situated public
stockholders of Astoria Financial Corporation (Company), against
the Company, the Company's Board of Directors, and Sterling
Bancorp in connection with a proposed merger between Astoria and
Sterling.

According to the complaint, on March 7, 2017, Astoria and Sterling
jointly announced that they had entered into merger agreement
pursuant to which Sterling will acquire all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of Astoria in exchange for 0.875 shares of
Sterling.  The proposed transaction is valued at approximately
$2.2 billion.  On April 21, 2017, defendants filed a Form S-4
Registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in
connection with the Proposed Transaction. On May 1, 2017,
Defendants filed Schedule 14A definitive proxy statement with the
SEC in connection with the Proposed Transaction (Proxy) soliciting
Astoria's stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, as well as scheduling a stockholder vote for June 13,
2017. The Proxy omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy both false and
misleading. Both the value to Astoria's stockholders contemplated
in the Proposed Transaction, and the buyer friendly terms of the
Merger Agreement, are fundamentally unfair, for inadequate
consideration, and are detrimental to Plaintiff and other public
stockholders of the Company. The Board, desperate to sell the
Company to ensure certain financial benefits, engaged in an
insufficient sales process, ignored alternative bidder's higher
bids and even agreed to contractual provisions that would
foreclose taking better offers.

Astoria Financial Corporation, with assets of $14.6 billion, is
the holding company for Astoria Bank.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
          Jacob E. Lewin, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 905 0509
          Facsimile: (212) 905 0508


AVINGER INC: Faces "Olberding" Suit Over Misleading Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Olberding, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Avinger, Inc.; Jeffrey M. Soinskl-John B. Simpson;
Matthew B. Ferguson; Donald A. Lucas; James B. McElwee; James G.
Cullen; Canaccord Genuity Inc.; Cowen and Company LLC; Oppenheimer
& Co. Inc.; BTIG, LLC; and Stephens Inc., Case No. 17cv02307 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 25, 2017), alleges that the Registration Statement
and Prospectus made by the Defendants for their initial public
stock offering were inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue
statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and omitted
to state material facts required to be disclosed.

Avinger, Inc. is a California-based medical device company that
has developed an image-guided, catheter-based system to treat
peripheral arterial disease.

The Defendants Canaccord Genuity, Inc., Cowen and Company, LLC,
Oppenheimer & Co., BTIG, and Stephens, Inc. are investment banking
firms that acted as underwriters of the IPO, helping to draft and
disseminate their IPO documents. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      707 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 233-4565
      Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
      E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Tom Leughlin, Esq.
      Rhiana Swwartz, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Helmsley Building
      230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10169
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: tlaugh11n@scott-scott.com
              rswartz@scott-scott.com


BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT: Spies on Riders, Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that even trains are spying on us now, a woman claims in a federal
class action in Oakland, Calif. accusing the Bay Area Rapid
Transit District of tracking passengers' movements by duping them
into downloading a seemingly benign crime-reporting app.

Pamela Moreno claimed May 22, that BART collects personal
information from riders' cellphones and tracks their location
through its BART Watch app, without consent.

Moreno also sued Elerts Corp., a Massachusetts software company
that developed the app.

"Defendants have amassed a trove of data through the app," Moreno
says in the complaint. "BART, or any of the agencies it shares
resources with, now have the ability to match previous nondescript
numerical identifiers with personally identifying information."

The 26-page lawsuit compares the app, which lets users anonymously
report crime to BART police, to the Stingray cellphone tracker,
used by state and local law enforcement agencies. The Stingray
mimics cellphone towers and forces cellphones within range --
including those of bystanders -- to disclose their numeric
identifiers.

Moreno says the app goes further than even the Stingray. Although
a Stingray captures a cellphone's numeric identifiers, it does not
capture personal information. But the BART app captures both types
of information and links them together, allowing BART to identify
cellphones' owners and record their location, according to the
complaint.

BART spokeswoman Alicia Trost denied Moreno's allegations in an
emailed statement. Trost said the app obtains a user's location
only when the user reports an incident, and only if the user
chooses to share it.

"BART does not use ELERTS system to randomly track users," she
said. "The safety and privacy of our riders are a priority and we
want to make clear we are not using ELERTS system for any other
purpose than responding to security and safety reports made by our
riders."

But Moreno claims the BART Watch app begins collecting personal
information from a user's phone during initial setup, bundling a
cellphone's numeric identifier with a user's optional contact
information and information about a phone's battery levels.
Together, the data create a "fingerprint" that can identify and
track a user, she says.

"Worse, should a transit user submit an 'anonymous' tip,
defendants still collect and transmit to their servers identifying
information. As such, these reports are not anonymous at all," the
complaint states.

Moreno claims BART's failure to warn users that it collects their
information and to obtain consent before collecting it violates
California's Cellular Communications Interception Act, its
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the California Constitution.

But Trost said in a statement that "there is a user agreement that
is clear," which can be found "in multiple areas," including on
the BART website.

Moreno wants a judge to prohibit BART and Elerts from collecting
passengers' cellular numerical identifiers and locations, and
order them to destroy the identifying information they have and
disclose who else has access to the information.

She is represented by Nina Eisenberg with Edelson PC in San
Francisco, who did not return a request for comment May 22.

The case is captioned, PAMELA MORENO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SAN FRANCISCO BAY
AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, a public entity, ELERTS CORP., a
Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case 4:17-cv-02911 (N.D. Cal.
May 22, 2017).

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

     Eve-Lynn Rapp
     Nina Eisenberg Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street,
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Tel: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     E-mail: erapp@edelson.com
             neisenberg@edelson.com


BCA FINANCIAL: "Velazquez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA VELAZQUEZ, and others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff,
v. BCA FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation
Defendant, the Defendant, Case No. 56434678 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 11th
Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, May 15, 2017), seeks to
recover compensatory and liquidated damages and reasonable
Attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act for overtime owing from Plaintiffs entire employment period

According to the complaint, the Defendant knew and showed reckless
disregard for the provisions of the FLSA because the Defendant
Employer had knowledge of Plaintiff's work schedule and the amount
of overtime hours she worked. The Defendant knew or should have
known of the work Plaintiff performed and of its obligation to pay
overtime wages to Plaintiff. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff
her overtime wages at a rate required by the FLSA.

BCA Financial offers accounts receivable management solutions
servicing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andres F, Fernandez, Esq.
          Samantha M. Fraga-Lopez, Esq.
          BERENS FERNANDEZ & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          2100 Ponce de Leon Blvd, PH No. 2
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 329 2990
          E-mail: Fernandez@berensfernandez.com
                  Fraga@berensfemandez.com
                  Pleadings@berensfemandez.com


BILTMORE GENERAL: Plaza Construction Sues Over Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PLAZA CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., the Plaintiff, v. BILTMORE GENERAL
CONTRACTORS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
NEW YORK CITY SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY and JOHN and JANE DOES
1-10 and others similarly situated, the Defendants, Case No.
509631/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 15, 2017), seeks to recover
against the Defendants in the amount of at least $1,060,922.86
plus interest, collection costs, including attorney fees, and
other damages that shall be further specified at the trial of this
action.

According to the complaint, on December 12, 2014, Plaza and
Biltmore entered into contracts related to SCA School PS 269K by
which Plaza agreed to provide certain hoisting, scaffolding and/or
outrigger and construction equipment for use at the PS 269K
Project. As of the date of this complaint, Biltmore failed to pay
Plaza in accordance with the PS 269K Subcontracts.

Biltmore General Contractors, Inc. was founded in 1989. The
Company's line of business includes the construction of single-
family homes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter M. Kutil, Esq.
          KING & KING, LLP
          Sanborn Map Building
          629 Fifth Avenue
          Pelham, N.Y. 10803
          Telephone: (914)380 5970


BRS ROOFING: "Boring" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages, Damages
--------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Boring, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BRS Roofing Inc., Defendants, Case No.
BC662106, (Cal. Super., May 22, 2017), seeks compensatory, general
and punitive damages, applicable penalties, injunctive relief,
interest, including prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees on the
applicable causes of action, costs of suit incurred and such other
and further relief pursuant to the California Labor Code.

BRS Roofing Inc. is a full-service roofing contractor that
provides repairs, maintains and replaces roof at residential and
commercial properties. Plaintiff accuses Defendants of failing to
provide meal and rest breaks, failing to pay minimum and overtime
wages and all earned wages upon separation of employment. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
     Caspar Jiyaiagian, Esq.
     KJT LAW GROUP LLP
     230 N. Maryland Ave. Suite 306
     Glendale, CA 91206
     Telephone: (818) 507-8525
     Email: caspar@kjtlawgroup.com

            - and -

     Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
     ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
     4740 Calle Carga
     Camarillo, CA 93012
     Telephone: (818) 425-1437
     Email: ca@AdamsEmploymentCounsel.com


CARUSO TRUCKING: Certification of Class Denied in "Magsby" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TRENT MAGSBY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the PLAINTIFFS v. CARUSO TRUCKING,
LTD, et al., the DEFENDANTS, Case No4:17-cv-00086-BRW (E.D. Ark.),
the Hon. Judge Billy Roy Wilson entered an order denying
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and court-
authorized notice on behalf of:

   "all route drivers (or similar positions) employed by
   Defendants at any time after February 9, 2014".

Mr. Magsby alleges that all route drivers -- whether from
Arkansas, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, or other areas, were "subject
to Defendants' universal policies that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act."

The Court said, "The affidavit from Defendants' Recruiting and
Employee Relations Manager contradicts the general assertions in
Plaintiff's motion. In fact, Plaintiff presented no evidence that
other similarly-situated individuals want to opt into this case.
Rather, in an affidavit, quite similar to one used in another
case, Plaintiff provides only the vague statement that "I believe
other delivery drivers would be interested in participating in
this lawsuit." Although Plaintiff's "burden at this stage is not
onerous, it is not invisible. Evidence of other employees
who are willing to join the litigation is necessary to ensure that
the mechanism for a collective action is being used appropriately
to promote judicial efficiency, rather than used as a tool to
burden a defendant and create settlement pressure. While this may
not be required in every case, when a case has only one named
Plaintiff, vague allegations, and a general affidavit regarding
other potential class member, such as this one, more is required.
Otherwise, certification would simply be a rubber-stamp procedure
with no real burden on the moving party.
Furthermore, if, as Defendants say, that the time-keeping
procedures are different at the various locations, then there is
no reason to alert other employees to a lawsuit that, ultimately,
may not affect them. A court may consider the following, when
determining whether employees are similarly situated: (1) whether
the plaintiffs hold the same job title; (2) whether they worked in
the same geographic location; (3) whether the alleged violations
occurred during the same time period; (4) whether the plaintiffs
were subjected to the same policies and practices; and (5) the
extent to which the acts constituting the alleged violations are
similar. As it now stands, (2), (3), and (4) all weigh against
Plaintiff's request. Plaintiff could easily contact the six
drivers from the Arkansas location, but, instead, he seeks to
certify a class and send out notices to "all route drivers (or
similar positions)" in every state where Defendants
operate. Accordingly, without more, Plaintiff has failed to meet
his burden."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2NgYnuvF


CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Ohlman Sues over Background Checks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Ohlman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CenturyLink Communications, LLC, and
Clear Link Technologies, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
03640 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2017), seeks relief against Defendants
for their unlawful business practice of obtaining consumer credit
reports when the consumer is merely inquiring about potential
service, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other consumers across
the country confirm that, despite never ordering Defendants'
services and initiating a purchase transaction, Defendants still
routinely access their credit reports, and record of that access
appears as a "hard inquiry" on their consumer reports.

CenturyLink is an American telecommunications company,
headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, that provides communications
and data services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stacy M. Bardo, Esq.
          BARDO LAW, P.C.
          22 West Washington Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 219 6980
          E-mail: stacy@bardolawpc.com

              - and -

          Ian B. Lyngklip, Esq.
          Sylvia Bolos, Esq.
          LYNGKLIP & ASSOCIATES CONSUMER LAW CENTER, PLC
          24500 Northwestern Highway, Suite 206
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 208 8864
          E-mail: ian@MichiganConsumerLaw.com
                  sylviab@MichiganConsumerLaw.com


CHEVRON CORP: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Suit Over ESIP Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CHARLES E. WHITE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-0793-PJH
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice the first amended
complaint.

The Plaintiffs are participants in the Chevron Employee Savings
Investment Plan ("the ESIP Plan") -- a Section 401(k) defined
contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plan
under 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(2)(A) and Section 1002(34).  As of
Dec. 31, 2014, the Plan had over $19 billion in total assets and
more than 40,000 participants with account balances.

The Plaintiffs assert that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in choosing certain funds in the Plan lineup, and in
failing to monitor those funds that were selected for the Plan
lineup.  As in the original complaint, the Plaintiffs assert that
the Vanguard Prime Money Market Fund -- the Plan's sole
conservative capital preservation investment option -- was an
imprudent choice because of its low return starting in 2008.  They
assert that stable value funds generally outperform money market
funds, and that in this case a stable value fund would have been a
more prudent choice than a money market fund.

In the FAC, the Plaintiffs propose three theories as to why the
Plan's investment management fees were unreasonable: (i) that the
fiduciaries imprudently offered non-Vanguard mutual fund options
when they could have selected comparable Vanguard funds at a lower
expense; (ii) that the fiduciaries imprudently selected mutual
fund share classes with higher expense ratios than other available
share classes in the same funds; and (iii) that the fiduciaries
imprudently offered mutual funds when the Plan could have used
less expensive institutional products, such as collective trusts
or separate accounts.

The Defendants argue generally that the FAC realleges the same
claims of breach of fiduciary duty as in the original complaint,
but still fails to plead cognizable claims.  They contend that
even with the substantial increase in length from the original
complaint, none of the amendments is materially different from the
original insufficient allegations, with the exception of the new
"prohibited transaction" cause of action, and none cures the
deficiencies that the Court found required dismissal of all causes
of action asserted in the original complaint.  Thus, they argue,
the FAC should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

The Court finds that the Defendants' motion must be granted.  The
Court further finds that with regard to the claims for breach of
the duty of loyalty (first, second, third, and fifth causes of
action), the FAC fails to allege facts sufficient to raise a
plausible inference that defendants took any actions for the
purpose of benefitting themselves or some third party with
connections to Chevron, at the expense of Plan participants, or
that they acted under any actual or perceived conflict of
interest.

With regard to the claims of breach of the duty of prudence, the
Court finds that the FAC fails to state a claim for the reasons
set forth.  The derivative claim of failure to monitor fiduciaries
fails because the FAC does not state a claim for breach of
fiduciary duty.

Because the Plaintiffs have failed to correct the deficiencies
identified by the Court in its prior order, and because the sole
new claim fails for the reasons set forth in the Order, the Court
finds that further leave to amend would be futile.  The dismissal
is with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/BV0C3T from Leagle.com

Charles E White, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Jerome J.
Schlichter, Schlichter Bogard & Denton.

Charles E White, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Heather Lea,
Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, Jaime G. Touchstone, Futterman Dupree
Dodd Croley Maier LLP, James Redd, Schlichter Bogard and Denton,
LLP, Jamie L. Dupree, Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier LLP,
Michael Armin Wolff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP & Troy
Andrew Doles, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP.

John P. Jacobs, Plaintiff, represented by Jerome J. Schlichter,
Schlichter Bogard & Denton, Heather Lea, Schlichter, Bogard &
Denton, Jaime G. Touchstone, Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier
LLP, James Redd, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP, Jamie L.
Dupree, Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier LLP, Michael Armin
Wolff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP & Troy Andrew Doles,
Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP.

Verlan D. Hoopes, Plaintiff, represented by Jerome J. Schlichter,
Schlichter Bogard & Denton, Heather Lea, Schlichter, Bogard &
Denton, Jaime G. Touchstone, Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier
LLP, James Redd, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP, Jamie L.
Dupree, Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier LLP, Michael Armin
Wolff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP & Troy Andrew Doles,
Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP.

Nora L. Pennington, Plaintiff, represented by Jerome J.
Schlichter, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, Heather Lea, Schlichter,
Bogard & Denton, Jaime G. Touchstone, Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley
Maier LLP, James Redd, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP, Jamie L.
Dupree, Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier LLP, Michael Armin
Wolff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP & Troy Andrew Doles,
Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP.

James A. Ray, Plaintiff, represented by Jerome J. Schlichter,
Schlichter Bogard & Denton, Heather Lea, Schlichter, Bogard &
Denton, Jaime G. Touchstone, Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier
LLP, James Redd, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP, Jamie L.
Dupree, Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier LLP, Michael Armin
Wolff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP & Troy Andrew Doles,
Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP.

Jeannette A. Finley, Plaintiff, represented by Jerome J.
Schlichter, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, Heather Lea, Schlichter,
Bogard & Denton, Jaime G. Touchstone, Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley
Maier LLP, James Redd, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP, Jamie L.
Dupree, Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier LLP, Michael Armin
Wolff, Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP & Troy Andrew Doles,
Schlichter Bogard and Denton, LLP.

Chevron Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle,
O'Melveny Myers LLP, Catalina Joos Vergara, O'Melveny and Myers
LLP, Mark Randall Oppenheimer, O'Melveny Myers & Raymond Collins
Kilgore, O'Melveny and Myers LLP.

ESIP Investment Committee, Defendant, represented by Brian David
Boyle, O'Melveny Myers LLP, Catalina Joos Vergara, O'Melveny and
Myers LLP, Mark Randall Oppenheimer, O'Melveny Myers & Raymond
Collins Kilgore, O'Melveny and Myers LLP.


CHICAGO, IL: Inmates at Jacksonville Prison File Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class of Chicago inmates
at the Jacksonville Correctional Facility claims in a federal
lawsuit that they were subjected to mass strip searches in front
of other inmates and officers to cause them humiliation and
emotional distress.

The case is captioned, Plaintiffs, Anthony Vasquez, George
Woodard, and Julius Sangster, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, including Bidemi Ajobiewe, Jeffrey
Alexander, Paul A. Alston, Michael Anderson, Michael Anderson,
Jesh Anselmini, William Austin, Daniel Barron, Jerry Behm, Briran
Blake, Jason Bowen, Andrew Bradley, Robert D. Brown II, Minor
Calvo, Timothy Childs, Jermaine Clare, David Coleman, James L.
Coleman, Jose Cortez, James E. Cox, Ryan Curran, Dennis Curry,
Contrell Diggs, Carl Dorsey, Frank Dower, Jason M. Dulceak, Harris
E.L., Reginald Elliott, Fernando, Franco-Cornejo, Frederick
Gaston, Fernando Gomez, Eugene L. Greenwood III, Tim Griffin,
Alphonso Harris, Rail Hibbler, Remonse Holt, Antoine Howard,
Jeremy Huffman, James Jackson, Richard Jackson, Marc C. Johns,
DeMarlo Jones, Edward Keller, Edward V. Lacy, Dontrell Lewis,
Robert A. Lewis, Michael Lirios, Willie Martin, Roberto Martinez,
Willie Mason, James Massey, Sherman McBride, Marquise McCraney,
Jesse McDonald, Casey McGee, Ricky McGee, Juliano Mendez, Luis
Mendoza, Bart Milligan, Damen Moore, Anthony Morales, Parnell
Mosby, Keith Nash, Nicholas Nowotnik, Rafael Pastrana, Theodore
Piano, Cory Pisciotto, John A. Powell, Denzil Radabaugh, Mario
Ramos, Kyle Rankin, Aaron Ridgeway, Carlos Rosario, Vern
Rosenthal, Joel Sanchez, Thomas Sierra, Augusta Sims Jovon Smith,
Ricardo Solivan, Lucious Tate, Oliver Teon, Frederick Thomas,
LaMont Thomas, Darion Thompson, Shammarco Trainer, Devron Tyus,
Jose G. Valdez, Juan Vazquez, Arell Washington, Roosevelt
Williams, Maurice Williamson, Charles Wyatt, Armondo Zarate, and
other Unknown Inmates of Jacksonville Correctional Center,
PLAINTIFFS, vs. Warden Orr, individually and in his official
capacity as a warden at Jacksonville Correctional Facility, Warden
Marvin Reed, individually and in his official capacity as warden
at Jacksonville Correctional Center, Lt. Burtle, Lt. Bradshaw, Lt.
Cheeks, Major Cheeks, Lt. Blackley, Lt. Cox, Lt. Dewitt, Sgt.
Smith, C.O. Faul, C.O. Richards, C.O. Turner, C.O. Owajawe, C.O.
Beckman or Beckham, C.O. Morgan, C.O. Sours, C.O. Burgee, C.O.
Ruyon, C.O. Kuforiji, C.O. Wahls, C.O. Green, C.O. Tobin, C.O.
Morgan, C.O. Williams, and other Unknown Officers, each
individually, and the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC),
Donald Stolworthy, Acting Director of the Illinois Department of
Corrections, individually and in his official capacity, and John
R. Baldwin, Acting Director of the Illinois Department of
Corrections, individually and in his official capacity,
DEFENDANTS, Case No. 17-cv-04051 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2017).

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

     Deidre Baumann, Esq.
     Baumann & Shuldiner
     20 S. Clark Street, Suite 500
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312) 558-3119


COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Faces "Rivera" Suit for Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Rivera, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Commonwealth Edison Company and Exelon Corporation,
Case No. 2017-CH-07460 (Ill. Cir. Ct., May 25, 2017), is an action
for invasion of privacy, discrimination and other damages as a
direct and proximate cause of the Defendants' unlawful conduct of
subjecting all Illinois customer service representative applicants
to a credit check.

The Defendants operate an electric utility company in the State of
Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 6060
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550
      Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
      E-mail: aficzko@stephanzouras.com
              rstephan@stephanzouras.com


CONSUMERS ENERGY: Bid to Stay "Ricketts" Granted
------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division, granted the
Defendant's motion to stay the case captioned KELLY RICKETTS,
Plaintiff, v. CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 16-
cv-13208 (E.D. Mich.).

On Sept. 6, 2016, the Plaintiff initiated this putative class
action against the Defendants Consumers Energy and CMS Energy
Corp., alleging that "as early as 2015" she began receiving
unsolicited, prerecorded phone calls to her wireless phone from
the Defendants concerning the sale of home appliance insurance and
energy saving appliances.  She further alleges that the calls were
placed via an Automatic Telephone Dialing System ("ATDS") and by
using an artificial or prerecorded voice system.  As a result, on
behalf of herself and all persons in the state of Michigan who
received such calls from the Defendants or their agents, the
Plaintiff asserts a claim that the Defendants negligently violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and a claim that
the Defendants knowingly or willfully violated the TCPA.  The
Plaintiff seeks to recover both statutory damages and injunctive
relief.

After Defendants filed answers to the complaint, on Nov. 1, 2016 a
scheduling order was issued establishing July 3, 2017, as the
discovery cut-off, Aug. 3, 2017 as the dispositive motion cut-off,
and Dec. 12, 2017 as the initial day of trial.  Shortly
thereafter, on Nov. 4, 2016 the parties stipulated to the
dismissal of Defendant CMS Energy pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A).

On Jan. 23, 2017 Defendant Consumers Energy moved to stay all
proceedings in the action pending the decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in ACA
International v. FCC, No. 15-1211 (July 10, 2015).  The Defendant
alleges that that opinion is expected to address the definition of
an ATDS under the Act, which will likely be dispositive of the
Plaintiff's claims.  Plaintiff Ricketts has filed a response
opposing the request for a stay.

According to Judge Ludington, the Plaintiff has not identified any
real hardship, burden, or prejudice that would result to her from
a stay.  While she asserts that witnesses' memories may fade and
documents may be misplaced, these possibilities are lessened due
to the brief nature of the stay, the judge pointed out.  On the
other hand, the Defendant has identified real administrative and
economic hardships that would arise if the parties' engaged in
extensive fact and expert discovery, only to have the D.C. Circuit
overturn the 2015 FCC Order, the judge said.  It is also in the
interest of judicial resources and economy to ensure that this
matter is definitively resolved, and that key issues will not be
revisited half-way through the case due to changes in law, the
judge held.

All proceedings related to this action, including third party
discovery, is stayed.  It is further ordered that the parties are
directed to monitor the docket for the ACA International and to
file notice with the Court as soon as the D.C. Circuit issues its
ruling.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/MSxfj9 from Leagle.com

Kelly Ricketts, Plaintiff, represented by Kas L. Gallucci, Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron.

Kelly Ricketts, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Paul Camaj, The
Camaj Law Firm P.C. & Ronald A. Marron, Law Offices of Ronald A.
Marron, APLC.

Consumers Energy Company, Defendant, represented by Eric V. Luoma,
Consumers Energy Company, Givonna S. Long, Kelley Drye & Warren
LLP & Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP.


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is captioned as Carolyn Young, also
known as: Carrie Young, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Convergent Outsourcing,
Inc., a Washington state corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
9:17-cv-80691-RLR (S.D. Fla., May 31, 2017). The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Robin L. Rosenberg.

Convergent offers business process outsourcing, revenue cycle, and
receivables management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq.
          5070 N. Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (772) 231 9600
          Facsimile: (772) 231 0300
          E-mail: lwd@verobeachlegal.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Consumer Challenges Summary Judgment
------------------------------------------------------
Shayna Posses, writing for Law360, reports that a consumer told a
California federal court on May 23 that Costco and NBTY aren't
entitled to a quick win in a class action accusing them of falsely
advertising that a ginkgo biloba product improves mental alertness
and memory, saying that the evidence makes it clear the supplement
is no better than a placebo.

Tatiana Korolshteyn blasted Costco Wholesale Corp. and NBTY Inc.'s
contention that she lacks proof that the brain health benefits
promised on the labels for TruNature Ginkgo Biloba with
Vinpocetine are false, arguing that the "overwhelming weight of
competent scientific evidence" supports her claims.

The consumer said that "defendants and their experts effectively
ignore or spuriously attack the numerous subsequently conducted,
large-scale, long-term, high-quality, independent [randomized,
controlled trials] relied upon by plaintiff's experts," which
uniformly conclude that ginkgo biloba offers nothing more than a
placebo.

Instead, she added, "defendants attempt to change the issues and
standards in this case, as well as circumvent any evaluation of
the unreliability of the scientific evidence they claim supports
the efficacy of [ginkgo biloba]" -- even though they rely on
trials and studies that independent scientists have deemed highly
flawed and that are sponsored by one of the largest ginkgo biloba
manufacturers in Europe, the William Schwabe Co.

Ms. Korolshteyn originally filed suit in December 2014 over the
labeling of TruNature Ginkgo, which represents that the product
"supports alertness & memory" and "can help with mental clarity
and memory."

The consumer alleged that she bought the product based on those
claims, but as it turns out, the representations were false
because ginkgo biloba and vinpocetine don't provide any mental
clarity, memory or mental alertness benefits.

U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo trimmed the suit in
September, holding that Ms. Korolshteyn lacks standing to seek
injunctive relief because she hasn't shown she is likely to be
injured again and can't represent consumers in other states.  The
judge also pointed out deficiencies in her Consumers Legal
Remedies Act damages claim against NBTY.

Ms. Korolshteyn came back with a third amended complaint in late
October and moved for class certification the next month,
ultimately winning over Judge Bencivengo.  In March, the judge
certified a class of Californians who bought the product within
the applicable statute of limitations, saying that the common
question of whether the consumers were duped into buying the
product based on allegedly false labeling statements about its
health benefits reaches across the class.

Costco and NBTY then asked for summary judgment on May 9, saying
that the consumer can't meet the high burden of establishing that
the label claims are false in light of foreign governments
recognizing that ginkgo biloba can support memory and cognition,
numerous world-renowned medical institutions citing its benefits
and more than two dozen studies concluding it offers a slew of
benefits to both healthy and cognitively impaired individuals.

Since she can't prove falsity, Ms. Korolshteyn instead tries to
show that the companies lack substantiation for their claims,
including by arguing that their studies have methodological flaws,
Costco and NBTY said.  However, the companies asserted, courts
have consistently held that merely arguing about the strength and
credibility of defendants' studies isn't enough to show falsity or
survive summary judgment.

But the consumer blasted that argument on May 23, saying she
doesn't claim the companies lack substantiation.  Instead, she
said, she asserts that an analysis of the totality of the evidence
shows that the supplement does nothing more than a placebo and
that the labeling claims are false.

Analyzing the quality of each controlled trial and weighing the
totality of the scientific evidence is exactly what the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration says to do when evaluating the accuracy of
a dietary supplement claim, she contended.

"To hold otherwise, and allow a defendant to cling to wholly
unreliable or irrelevant [randomized, controlled trials] as a
means of defeating a falsity claim under the consumer fraud laws
would stand consumer protection on its head," Ms. Korolshteyn
said.

The consumer also challenged the companies' argument that she
seeks an inappropriate measure of damages. Under California law,
they contended, full restitution is only appropriate when the
plaintiff receives no benefit, whereas here, Ms. Korolshteyn's
expert conceded that the product does provide antioxidants, as
advertised.

That contention fails because ginkgo biloba doesn't provide any of
the mentioned brain health benefits, Ms. Korolshteyn argued. Plus,
she said, as the judge held when ruling on class certification,
the fact that some customers may have benefited from the product
is irrelevant as her claims center on whether the companies'
representations were deceptive.

In a separate motion on May 23, the consumer asked the judge to
strike a number of documents the companies supposedly cited for
the first time in their summary judgment papers as purported
support for ginkgo biloba's efficacy. The parties are also
currently sparring over whether their respective experts' opinions
are admissible.

Representatives for the parties didn't immediately return requests
for comment on May 24.

The consumer is represented by Patricia N. Syverson --
psyverson@bffb.com -- Manfred P. Muecke -- mmuecke@bffb.com -- and
Elaine A. Ryan -- eryan@bffb.com -- of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman
& Balint PC, and Stewart M. Weltman and Michael Chang of Siprut
PC.

Costco and NBTY are represented by William A. Delgado --
wdelgado@willenken.com -- and Megan O'Neill --
moneill@willenken.com -- of Willenken Wilson Loh & Delgado LLP.

The case is Tatiana Korolshteyn v. Costco Wholesale Corp., case
number 3:15-cv-00709, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California. [GN]


CREDITORS SPECIALITY: Faces "Vasquez" Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Creditors Speciality
Service, Inc.  The case is captioned as Enrique M. Vasquez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Creditors Speciality Service, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-02797-JSC (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.

Creditors Specialty is a debt collection agency headquartered in
Acton, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (845) 367 7146
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com

               - and -

          Tammy Gruder Hussin, Esq.
          HUSSIN LAW
          1302 N. Coast Highway 101, Suite 201
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Telephone: (877) 677 5397
          Facsimile: (877) 667 1547
          E-mail: tammy@HussinLaw.com


CVS HEALTH: "Prescott" Hits Blood Glucose Test Strip Price-fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeanine Prescott, Michael Bewley, Scott Strumello, Julia Boss and
Type 1 Diabetes Defense Foundation, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CVS Health
Corporation, Caremark RX, L.L.C., Caremark RX, Inc., Express
Scripts Holding Company, Express Scripts, Inc., Unitedhealth
Group, Inc., OptumRX, Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes
Care, Inc., Abbott Diabetes Care Sales Corporation, Bayer
Healthcare LLC, Ascensia Diabetes Care US Inc., Lifescan, Inc.,
Johnson & Johnson, Roche Diagnostics Corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00803, (W.D. Wash., May 24, 2017), seeks preliminary
and permanent injunctive and other equitable relief; an order
requiring Defendants or their agents to disclose the true net
price of blood glucose test strips; disgorgement of all profits
and unjust enrichment Defendants obtained; and remedial relief,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, including
reasonable attorneys' fees under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, the Sherman Act, federal and state antitrust laws and
various state consumer protection laws.

Defendants are manufacturer/distributors of blood glucose test
strips. Diabetes patients monitor their blood glucose throughout
the day by testing with blood glucose monitors and single-use
blood glucose test strips.

Plaintiffs claim to have bought these at exorbitant prices due to
Defendants' pocketing of large rebates and discounts from
manufacturers resulting in higher costs for patients. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
     Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Tel: (206) 623-1900


DANY RESTORATION: Faces "Singh" Wage-and-Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------------
TARSEM SINGH; HARPREET SINGH; PARAMJEET SINGH; GURDEV SINGH;
GURPREET SINGH; and HARDEV SINGH, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. DANY RESTORATION INC.
d/b/a Dany Restoration and ASAD HUSSAIN, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-03787-JMF (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest; and/or attorneys' fees and costs under the New York
Labor Law and Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, Defendants knowingly and willfully
failed to pay Plaintiffs his lawful overtime compensation of one
and one half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
over 40 in a given workweek. While employed by Defendants,
Plaintiffs were not exempt under federal and state laws requiring
employers to pay employees overtime. Defendants failed to keep
full and accurate records of Plaintiffs' hours and wages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762 1324


DEJA VU: Exotic Dancers Oppose Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Paul Egan, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that a growing
number of exotic dancers want to block a national class-action
settlement with Michigan-based Deja Vu clubs, saying it will pay
many dancers only a few hundred dollars each.

Kalamazoo dancer Merry Clark said in a letter to the court that
the proposed $6.5-million settlement is "nowhere near enough" for
her and other dancers she says have been outrageously exploited by
Deja Vu Services and related companies for "sweaty gross work."

Also, dancers' attorneys from as far away as Massachusetts and
Tennessee have filed objections to the settlement ahead of a June
6 hearing in federal court in Detroit, saying the proposal is not
fair, reasonable, or adequate.

Attorneys for the lead plaintiffs and for Deja Vu say the
settlement is fair and contains many non-monetary benefits for the
dancers.  They say objectors still represent a tiny handful of the
more than 28,000 dancers and former dancers who are class members.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy can't modify the proposed
settlement, but can only accept it or reject it as is, attorneys
say.

The case centers on whether the dancers are employees or
independent contractors -- a classification that affects issues
such as whether the clubs must pay them a minimum hourly wage or
can instead charge them for doing business inside the clubs.

Though it's billed as a $6.5-million settlement, the proposal
would provide only $920,000 in cash payments to settle claims from
more than 28,000 dancers who worked at 64 different clubs in 18
states, including 11 in Michigan, Boston attorney Harold Lichten
argued in a May 12 court filing.

Most of the rest of the "egregiously unfair and unreasonable"
settlement would pay for coupons the dancers could use to offset
future fees charged by the clubs, plus about $1 million in
attorney fees, Mr. Lichten said.

The suit alleges the nude and nearly nude dancers are paid no
wages but required to pay rent to the clubs, plus 30% or more of
their tips.  The dancers also face monetary penalties for leaving
early or showing up late, the suit alleges.

Deja Vu, which has denied the allegations and admits no wrongdoing
as part of the settlement, maintains that despite the claims made
in the lawsuit, most exotic dancers who are given the opportunity
to become club employees find out they prefer being independent
contractors, because they make more money that way and have more
control over their hours and conditions of work.

Bradley Shafer, a Lansing attorney representing Deja Vu, said the
settlement does not involve "coupons," but a $4.5-million pool of
money that can be used by dancers determined to be independent
contractors to pay fees the dancers would otherwise have to pay
from their own pockets. Also, in clubs that operate on an
independent contractor model, dancers will receive cash payments
from that pool, Mr. Shafer said.

Mr. Lichten, representing California dancers Eva Cabrera and
Brittney Halverson, said exotic dancers have brought a series of
lawsuits around the country in recent years, challenging their
classification as independent contractors, and have received
$50,000 or more each when they pursued their claims as individuals
and often thousands or tens of thousands of dollars when part of a
class action.

In contrast, the proposed settlement "would put an end to a number
of previously filed actions against individual clubs, and would
allow dancers to receive no more than a few hundred dollars in
cash if they submit a claim form," Mr. Lichten wrote.

Anyone with an existing lawsuit elsewhere can opt out of the
settlement and continue their suit, Mr. Shafer said.

So far, close to 3,000 dancers have filed claims to share in the
$920,000 cash portion of the settlement, and with notices recently
sent a second time to 8,000 dancers, that number is likely to
grow, he said.

That means each dancer who files a claim for a cash settlement --
passing up on a share of $4.5 million in club coupons -- is likely
to receive between $100 and $300. Many of them may be former
dancers who would not be eligible for coupons, Mr. Lichten said.

Mr. Lichten estimates the dancers' claims should be worth more
than $141 million, based on the clubs' failure to pay minimum wage
alone.

Under the proposed settlement, Deja Vu will assess all current and
future dancers based on a set of agreed criteria -- including the
dancer's expressed wishes -- to determine whether they should be
hired or retained as employees or as independent professional
entertainers.  Those deemed employees will be paid minimum wage,
plus bonuses including commissions of at least 20% on their
private dances and drink sales, and receive club support to pay
for employment-related expenses such as the purchase and cleaning
of costumes and payment of required local license fees.

Southfield attorney Jason Thompson said that aspect of the
settlement is "ground-breaking" in that it will require the clubs
to change their business practices going forward.

Mr. Lichten said that essentially allows the dancers to "choose"
their status as employees or independent contractors, which flies
in the face of the law because the dancers should clearly be
classified as employees.

Mr. Shafer said the dancers don't get to choose their employment
status. What they want is one of several factors that will
determine whether they are employees or independent contractors,
he said.

Deja Vu, founded in Michigan but now a national firm with offices
in Michigan, California and Nevada, has operated many of its clubs
under a model in which the clubs serve no alcohol but dancers
disrobe completely.  Until recently, Michigan law prohibited fully
nude dancing at clubs where alcohol was served.

The case began in 2016, when a Bay City dancer filed suit against
Deja Vu clubs in Saginaw, but it was expanded this year to include
Deja Vu clubs and their affiliates nationwide.  The lawsuit's
roots go back even earlier, to a similar lawsuit filed in 2008 and
settled in 2011, but that had a settlement that did not include
requirements that Deja Vu determine, going forward, whether
dancers were, in fact, club employees or independent contractors.

Ms. Clark, the Kalamazoo dancer, said the proposed settlement
doesn't address the "highly questionable practice" of the clubs
charging "rent fees" to the dancers, who receive no share of the
admission fees charged patrons entering the club.

"This is outrageous exploitation," she said.  "The entertainers
are the ones who are generating the admission fees in the first
place."

As for the coupons, they just facilitate more exploitation,
Ms. Clark said.  "Great, we got you a small settlement, now pay us
back over time with that sweaty gross work you do."

Shafer said if Ms. Clark doesn't like the coupons, she can opt for
a share of the cash payment pool.

As for the club charging admission fees that are not shared with
the dancers, "it costs money to operate the club," Shafer said.
"If Ms. Clark believes businesses can operate with no income,
that's fine for her."

Thompson, the plaintiffs' attorney, said any exploitation related
to fair wages is resolved by the proposed settlement. More
generally, "these women decided they wanted to become dancers, and
that's why they are in the class," he said.

Nashville attorney Daniel Arcinieagas, in a separate filing on May
13, argued the coupon portion of the proposed settlement violates
the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, which doesn't permit
employers to pay wages using scrip or other instruments that don't
have a recognized par value.

"The entire coupon portion of the settlement is a sham, with zero
money being paid by defendants," Mr. Arciniegas wrote. [GN]


DELL INC: "Sloatman" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
John Sloatman III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dell Inc., and Does 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
03918, (C.D. Cal., May 24, 2017), seeks actual damages, statutory
damages for willful and negligent violations, costs and reasonable
attorney's fees and such other and further relief resulting from
negligent violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Dell Inc. is engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of
computers and related equipment and services as well as marketing,
supplying and selling written warranties to the public at large
through a system of authorized dealerships of its products. [BN]

Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system to place its
call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services without prior
express consent.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DEROSSI GLOBAL: Faces "Anderson" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Derossi Global LLC.
The case is styled as Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Derossi Global
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03261 (E.D.N.Y., May 31,
2017).

Derossi is a premier restaurant group focusing in high end co
cktail bars.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


DIGITALGLOBE INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action in Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., disclosed that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of holders of DigitalGlobe, Inc.
("DigitalGlobe") (NYSE:DGI) common stock in connection with the
proposed acquisition of DigitalGlobe by MacDonald, Dettwiler and
Associates Ltd ("MacDonald") announced on February 24, 2017 (the
"Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against DigitalGlobe, its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), and MacDonald, is captioned Assad v.
DigitalGlobe, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01097 (D. Colo.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,
DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail at info@rl-
legal.com; or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On February 24, 2017, DigitalGlobe entered into an agreement and
plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with MacDonald.  Pursuant
to the Merger Agreement, shareholders of DigitalGlobe will receive
$17.50 in cash and 0.3132 of a MacDonald share for each share of
DigitalGlobe stock they own (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a
registration statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27,
2017.  The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement,
which recommends that DigitalGlobe stockholders vote in favor of
the Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary to
enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote
on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with
respect to DigitalGlobe's financial projections, the analyses
performed by DigitalGlobe's financial advisor, and potential
conflicts of interest.  The Complaint seeks injunctive and
equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of DigitalGlobe
common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 24, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York,
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://rigrodskylong.com/-- regularly
prosecutes securities fraud, shareholder corporate, and
shareholder derivative litigation on behalf of shareholders in
state and federal courts throughout the United States. [GN]


DIGITALGLOBE INC: "Zand" Sues Over Shadowy Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Zand, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Digitalglobe, Inc., General Howell M.
Estes III, Nick S. Cyprus, Roxanne Decyk, Lawrence A. Hough,
Warren C. Jenson, L. Roger Mason, Jr., Jeffrey R. Tarr, Kimberly
Till, Eddy Zervigon, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00592, (D. Del.,
May 22, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin
defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the
acquisition of DigitalGlobe by MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates
Ltd.  The suit also seeks rescissory damages in case the merger is
consummated, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance
for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and
further relief under the Securities and Exchange Act.

McDonald will acquire all of the outstanding shares of
DigitalGlobe common stock for $17.50 in cash. Transaction was
valued at approximately $35 per share, or $2.4 billion.

The merger deal is allegedly marred with conflicts of interest on
the part of the management during the negotiation process,
rendering it unfair to Plaintiff.

DigitalGlobe provides imagery solutions and other services to
customers for a wide variety of uses, including mission-planning,
mapping and analysis, environmental monitoring, oil and gas
exploration, and infrastructure management. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
      James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
      New Yor006B, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
             jwilson@faruqilaw.com

             - and -

      Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Tel: (302) 482-3182
      Email: jbanko@faruqilaw.com
             mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

             - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      The Empire State Building
      350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 971-1341
      Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


DINOSAUR RESTAURANTS: Faces "Asencio" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Asencio and Michael Asencio, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Dinosaur Restaurants LLC d/b/a
Dinosaur BBQ, John P. Stage, Jr.; and any other related entities,
Case No. 154847/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 25, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 700 W.
125th St., New York, NY 10027. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laura R. Reznick, Esq.
      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Falbo Sues Over Debt Collection Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Falbo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, a
South Carolina limited liability company, and USI Solutions, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03740
(N.D. Ill., May 19, 2017), seeks to recover damages
as a result of Defendants' violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA).

According to the complaint, the Defendants' form debt collection
letter violated the FDCPA. The letter failed to state specifically
that Dynamic could not sue on the debt; moreover, by stating that
USI or "we" (without stating who "we" included) "will not" sue,
rather than "cannot" sue, the letter implied that Defendants still
had the option to take that action, and that they were simply
choosing not to do so; moreover, the letter failed to foreclose
the possibility that Dynamic, as an assignee, could sue.
Additionally, by stating that "[I]f you do not pay the debt, USI
SOLUTIONS, INC. may report it to the credit reporting agencies as
unpaid", Defendants clearly threatened Mr. Falbo with negative
consequences if he did not pay the debt, which rendered any
message about a decision not to sue ineffective.

In 2006, due to his financial circumstances, Mr. Falbo was unable
to pay Wells Fargo for a private student loan. At some point after
that debt became delinquent, it was allegedly purchased/obtained
by USI, which tried to collect upon it by having Defendant Dynamic
send Mr. Falbo a collection letter, dated June 3, 2016, demanding
payment of this debt.

Dynamic is a full service debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Stacy M. Bardo, Esq.
          BARDO LAW, P.C.
          22 West Washington Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, Illinois 60602
          Telephone: (312) 219 6980
          Facsimile: (312) 219 6981
          E-mail: stacy@bardolawpc.com


ECO SCIENCE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm disclosed that
it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Eco Science Solutions, Inc. (OTCQB: ESSI) from May
1, 2017 through May 19, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Eco Science Solutions
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Eco Science Solutions class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1135.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Eco Science Solutions' plan for strategic acquisitions
lacked veracity; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about
Eco Science Solutions' business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis
at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
July 24, 2017.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1135.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has been ranked #2 in the nation by
Institutional Shareholder Services for the number of securities
class action settlements annually obtained for investors. [GN]


EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Wheeler Sues Over Retiree Life Insurance Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
MAGDALENE WHEELER, RICHARD FIELDS, DONALD KEARNS, SR., JOYCE DULL,
THOMAS LAWSON, and JEFFREY TAYLOR, on Their Own Behalf and on
Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Persons, and IUE-CW A, AFL-
CIO, and LOCAL 82173, IUE-CWA, AFL-CIO, the Plaintiffs, v.
EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE, LLC, f/k/a Energizer Personal Care, LLC,
formerly a Division of Energizer Holdings, Inc., as Plan Sponsor
and Administrator of the Energizer Holdings, Inc. Group Life
Insurance for Disabled and Retired Employees and the American
Safety Razor Company Group Insurance Plan for Hourly Employees and
as Parent to Playtex Products, LLC and as Successor to American
Safety Razor Company, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03789-
GBD (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2017), seeks to permanently enjoin
Defendant from modifying or terminating retiree life insurance
that Defendant is obligated to provide Plaintiffs under applicable
collective bargaining agreements and employee welfare benefit
plans and to reinstate those benefits already wrongfully modified
or terminated.

On December 31, 2013, Edgewell, formerly a division of Energizer
Holdings, Inc., terminated retiree life insurance benefits that
IUE-CWA had negotiated with: (a) Playtex Products, LLC, f/k/a
Playtex Products, Inc., a predecessor company to Edgewell, and (b)
American Safety Razor Company, LLC, which had been acquired by
Energizer.

Hundreds of retirees who had enjoyed those benefits for decades
were left without this coverage. One IUE-CW A retired participant
in the Playtex retiree life insurance plan, Walter Wheeler, died
in February 2014, and his widow has not been provided the life
insurance benefit that Walter Wheeler bargained for as the
President of the IUE-CW A local union at Playtex.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action under Section 301 of the
Labor Management Labor Relations Act for breach of collective
bargaining agreements and the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, to recover life insurance benefits due and to clarify and
enforce rights under employee welfare benefit plan.

Edgewell manufactures personal care products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas M. Kennedy, Esq.
          Susan M. Jennik, Esq.
          Serge Ambroise, Esq.
          KENNEDY, JENNIK & MURRAY, P.C.
          113 University Place, 7th FL
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone (212) 358 1500
          Facsimile (212) 358 0207
          E-mail: tkennedy@kjmlabor.com
                  sjennik@kjmlabor.com
                  sambroise@kjmlabor.com


EVIO GROUP: "Valladares" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar B. Valladares, and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Evio Group LLC, a/k/a Evio's Pizza & Grill and Elio F. Solari,
Case No. 1:17-cv-21967-MGC (S.D. Fla., May 25, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid half-time overtime wages and damages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Evio's Pizza & Grill restaurant in
Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


FACEBOOK INC: Israeli AG Issues Legal Opinion on Privacy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oded Yaron, writing for Haaretz, reports that the insistence by
Facebook, Inc., that any legal dispute with users be adjudicated
in a California court is a discriminatory condition, Attorney
General Avichai Mendelblit wrote in a legal opinion he submitted
to Israel's Supreme Court.

He submitted the opinion in the context of an appeal by Facebook
appeal of a June 2016 ruling by Central District Court Judge
Esther Stemmer, allowing a class action against the social media
company to proceed.

Ms. Stemmer rejected Facebook's arguments regarding bringing suit
only in California.  She was ruling on a request by Ohad Ben Hamo
to declare an action he was bringing against Facebook a class
action.  The class action claims that Facebook monitored users'
private messages, read them and made improper use of them without
informing users, in violation of Israeli law.

Facebook has repeatedly argued in suits filed against it in Israel
and in other countries that every legal dispute with the company
must be resolved in a California court, because every user agrees
to that when he agrees to the company's terms of service, where
such a clause indeed appears.

"You will resolve any claim, cause of action or dispute (claim)
you have with us arising out of or relating to this Statement or
Facebook exclusively in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California or a state court located in San Mateo
County, and you agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of
such courts for the purpose of litigating all such claims.  The
laws of the State of California will govern this Statement, as
well as any claim that might arise between you and us, without
regard to conflict of law provisions," the clause reads.
Keep updated: Sign up to our newsletter

Ms. Stemmer, however, rejected Facebook's argument, stating, "It's
possible that the time has come to examine this issue from a
different angle -- the viewpoint of the consumer, especially when
he is a customer of huge international companies that are
contending for customers all over the world," she wrote in her
ruling.

"It isn't clear that the weight of Facebook's right to litigate in
one place in the world, as it established in the unified contracts
that it signs users to, is greater than the right of all users to
an available remedy in their own countries," she added.  "It seems
that whoever markets his wares must be prepared to be sued in any
country in which he does substantial business."
The attorney general's position, submitted by attorney Limor Peled
from the State Prosecutions Civil Department, is similar, making
an effort to balance the power between Israeli consumers and huge
international corporations like Facebook and PayPal, "who in
engaging with the Israeli market add to its standard contracts
litigation conditions that deter and make it difficult for
consumers to file suit and uphold their rights." [GN]


FARMERS INSURANCE: Deluca Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DAVID DELUCA AND BARRY FRANCIS,
individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on
behalf of the general public, the Plaintiffs, v. FARMERS INSURANCE
EXCHANGE, FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
and FARMERS SPECIALITY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-
00034-EDL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on
August 1, 2017, for an order conditionally certifying a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and authorizing
distribution of judicial notice on behalf of:

   "all persons who are, or who have been, employed by Defendants
   as special investigators, or similar job titles, at any time
   within three years prior to this action's filing date through
   the present".

To facilitate notice, Plaintiffs also request that within ten days
of the Court's order, Defendants be required to provide
Plaintiffs' counsel with a list, in Excel format, of all persons
who are, or who have been, employed by Defendants as special
investigators, or similar job titles, at any time within three
years prior to this action's filing date through the present. This
list should include each individual's (1) name, (2) job title, (3)
last known address and telephone number, (4) dates of employment,
(5) location of employment, (6) employee number, and (7) personal
email address (for former employees, if known) and work email
address (for current employees).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
          Matthew H. Morgan, Esq.
          Reena I. Desai, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
          235 Montgomery St. Suite 810
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (877) 448 0492
          Facsimile: (415) 277 7238
          E-mail: helland@nka.com
                  dbrome@nka.com
                  morgan@nka.com
                  rdesai@nka.com


FCA US: Faltermeier Appeals W.D. Mo. Ct. Ruling to 8th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David Faltermeier filed an appeal from an order and
judgment, both dated April 12, 2017, relating to the lawsuit
entitled David Faltermeier v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00491-
DGK, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri - Kansas City.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is a
putative class action arising from alleged violations of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.  The Plaintiff alleged that
FCA US LLC made misrepresentations during a vehicle safety recall
that have caused him and all other consumers who have purchased
the recalled vehicles since June 4, 2013, an ascertainable
financial loss.

The appellate case is captioned as David Faltermeier v. FCA US
LLC, Case No. 17-2093, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Appendix is due on June 27, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellant David Faltermeier is due on June 27,
      2017;

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

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

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

          David Lee Heinemann, Esq.
          Stephen J. Moore, Esq.
          Christopher S. Shank, Esq.
          SHANK & MOORE, LLC
          1968 Shawnee Mission Parkway, Suite 100
          Mission Woods, KS 66205
          Telephone: (816) 471-0909
          Facsimile: (816) 471-3888
          E-mail: sjm@shankmoore.com
                  davidh@shankmoore.com
                  chriss@shankmoore.com

Defendant-Appellee FCA US LLC is represented by:

          Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq.
          Mark A. Mattingly, Esq.
          Scott Harston Morgan, Esq.
          Sharon Rosenberg, Esq.
          Kathy A. Wisniewski, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          One US Bank Plaza
          505 N. Seventh Street
          Saint Louis, MO 63101-1693
          Telephone: (314) 552-6000
          Facsimile: (314) 552-7000
          E-mail: sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com
                  mmattingly@thompsoncoburn.com
                  smorgan@thompsoncoburn.com
                  srosenberg@thompsoncoburn.com
                  kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Mooradian Sues over Jeep Wrangler Warranty
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class in Cleveland, Ohio,
claims Fiat Chrysler has refused to honor its warranty and cover
the cost of repairing a manufacturing defect in the engines of
Jeep Wranglers made between 2012 and 2017, which causes radiators
and oil coolers to fill with a damaging sludge-like residue.

The case is captioned, DONNA MOORADIAN and WILLIAM MOORADIAN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC Defendant. Case: 1:17-cv-01132 (N.D.
Ohio, May 31, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Jack Landskroner, Esq.
     Drew Legando, Esq.
     LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
     1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
     Cleveland, Ohio 44113
     Tel: (216) 522-9000
     Fax: (216) 522-9007
     E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com
             drew@lgmlegal.com

          - and -

     Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
     John Hunter Bryson, Esq.
     WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
     900 W. Morgan Street
     Raleigh, NC 27603
     Tel: (919) 600-5000
     Fax: (919) 600-5035
     E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
             hunter@wbmllp.com

          - and -

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
     First Tennessee Plaza
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Tel: 865-247-0080
     Fax: 865-522-0049
     E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com


FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: Wilson Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jack Wilson, Patricia Du Vall and William Gaudette
filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Jack
Wilson, et al. v. Fidelity Management Trust Co., et al., Case No.
2:16-cv-02251-PA-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Jack Wilson, et al. v. Fidelity
Management Trust Co., et al., Case No. 17-55726, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 2,
2017, the Court dismissed the putative class action initiated by
former employees of The Walt Disney Co., who alleged that an
investment plan violated the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act by including a fund that invested in now-embattled Valeant,
saying the suit fell short in establishing a breach of fiduciary
duty.

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

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

The Defendants-Appellees are THE INVESTMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE OF THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY SPONSORED QUALIFIED BENEFIT
PLANS AND KEY EMPLOYEES DEFERRED COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT PLAN,
FIDELITY MANAGEMENT TRUST COMPANY, CHRISTINE MCCARTHY, MARY JAYNE
PARKER, JEFFREY E. SHAPIRO, JAMES A. RASULO, ALAN N. BRAVERMAN,
BRENT WOODFORD, and JONATHAN S. HEADLEY.

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

   -- Appellants Patricia Du Vall, William Gaudette and Jack
      Wilson's opening brief is due on October 26, 2017;

   -- Appellees Alan N. Braverman, Fidelity Management Trust
      Company, Jonathan S. Headley, Christine McCarthy, Mary
      Jayne Parker, James A. Rasulo, Jeffrey E. Shapiro, The
      Investment And Administrative Committee of the Walt Disney
      Company Sponsored Qualified Benefit Plans and Key Employees
      Deferred Compensation And Retirement Plan and Brent
      Woodford's answering brief is due on November 27, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants JACK WILSON, WILLIAM GAUDETTE and PATRICIA
DU VALL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the Disney Savings and Investment Plan,
are represented by:

          Dana Erin Berkowitz, Esq.
          Victor O'Connell, Esq.
          STRIS & MAHER LLP
          19210 S. Vermont Ave., Building E
          Gardena, CA 90248
          Telephone: (201) 906-9380
          E-mail: dana.berkowitz@strismaher.com
                  victor.oconnell@strismaher.com

               - and -

          Brendan Maher, Esq.
          STRIS & MAHER LLP
          6688 North Central Expressway, Suite 1650
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 224-0091
          E-mail: brendan.maher@strismaher.com

               - and -

          Peter K. Stris, Esq.
          STRIS & MAHER LLP
          725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1830
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 995-6801
          E-mail: peter.stris@strismaher.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Kirby, Esq.
          KIRBY & KIRBY LLP
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 1720
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 487-1500
          E-mail: Mike@kirbyandkirbylaw.com

Plaintiffs-Appellants JACK WILSON and WILLIAM GAUDETTE are
represented by:

          Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq.
          Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
          ZAMANSKY LLC
          50 Broadway
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 742-1414
          Facsimile: (212) 742-1177
          E-mail: samuel@zamansky.com
                  eglenn@zamansky.com

Plaintiff-Appellant PATRICIA DU VALL, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Disney Savings
and Investment Plan, is represented by:

          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          Robert A. Izard, Jr., Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
          29 S. Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107-2498
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: mkindall@ikrlaw.com
                  rizard@ikrlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
          100 S. 4th Street, Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621-7151
          E-mail: mboyko@uselaws.com

Defendant-Appellee THE INVESTMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF
THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY SPONSORED QUALIFIED BENEFIT PLANS AND KEY
EMPLOYEES DEFERRED COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT PLAN is represented
by:

          Brian D. Boyle, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5327
          Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
          E-mail: bblyle@omm.com

               - and -

          Catalina Joos Vergara, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
          E-mail: cvergara@omm.com


FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Kotlyarsky" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus
LLP. The case is titled as Bridget Kotlyarsky, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. Forster & Garbus LLP, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03247
(E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2017).

Forster & Garbus is a full service New York Law Firm concentrating
on creditor's rights law since 1970. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Igor B Litvak. Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (646) 796 4905
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com


FURMANITE AMERICA: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Wade" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Wade, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Furmanite America, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-
00169 (S.D. Tex., May 25, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours in excess of 40 in
a workweek.

Furmanite America, Inc. operates an international pipeline
inspection and maintenance company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
      SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      5612 Chaucer Drive
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (281) 885-8844
      Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
      E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com

         - and -

      John Neuman, Esq.
      SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      5612 Chaucer Drive
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (281) 885-8630
      Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
      E-mail: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com


GENERAC POWER: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Craftwood II, Inc., et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. Generac Power Systems, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-04105 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify
a class of:

   "all persons and entities that were subscribers of facsimile
   telephone numbers to which material that advertised the
   commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or
   services of Generac was sent via facsimile transmission within
   four years preceding the commencement of this action,
   including, without limitation, the faxes. Plaintiffs reserve
   the right to amend the class definition after completion of
   class certification discovery".

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=My1JlIwP

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C. Darryl Cordero, Esq.
          Matthew K. Brown, Esq.
          PAYNE & FEARS LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 689 1750
          E-mail: cdc@paynefears.com
          mkb@paynefears.com

               - and -

          Peter Trobe, Esq.
          TROBE, BABOWICE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          404 West Water Street
          Waukegan, IL 60085
          Telephone: (847) 625 8700
          E-mail: ptrobe@tbalaws.com


GENERAL REVENUE: Faces "Hensley" Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Revenue
Corporation. The case is captioned as Jonathan Hensley,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. General Revenue Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-03641-FMO-JEM (C.D. Cal., May 15, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin.

General Revenue Corporation is a United States debt-recovery
organization that specializes in the recovery of defaulted student
loans and consumer loans. GRC is a subsidiary of Navient.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
          MARTIN AND BONTRAGER APC
          6464 West Sunset Boulevard Suite 960
          Los Angeles, CA 90028
          Telephone: (323) 940 1700
          Facsimile: (323) 328 8095
          E-mail: tom@mblawapc.com

               - and -

          Nicholas J Bontrager, Esq.
          MARTIN AND BONTRAGER APC
          6464 West Sunset Boulevard Suite 960
          Los Angeles, CA 90028
          Telephone: (323) 940 1700
          Facsimile: (323) 328 8095
          E-mail: nick@mblawapc.com


GOOGLE INC: DoL Gender Pay Gap Allegations May Spark Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Kabateck, Esq., and Natalie S. Pang, Esq., of Kabateck
Brown Kellner, in an article for The Recorder, wrote that the
Department of Labor accused the company of "systemic compensation
disparities" in pay "pretty much across the entire workforce."  In
vehement denial of these accusations, Google has stated that in
conducting its relevant annual analysis, it has not found any
evidence of such a pay gap.  Despite the tech titan's denial, the
explosive allegations leave Google vulnerable to penalties and
lawsuits claiming the company engages in gender discrimination and
at the same time, raises questions about the clarity of the Equal
Pay Act.

The case was initially prompted by Google's refusal to turn over
certain employee compensation information for an audit in late
2015, citing privacy reasons.  The Department of Labor is now
moving to compel Google to produce this same salary information.
While the Department of Labor has not yet disclosed how it reached
its allegations, their findings will undoubtedly open the door to
further scrutiny of Google, other big tech companies and potential
penalties and civil liability.  In light of a spate of recent
discrimination lawsuits brought against Silicon Valley companies,
it seems likely that former and current female Google employees
will bring a class action lawsuit against Google.

The Department of Labor has subjected Silicon Valley companies to
increased scrutiny in recent months.  In late 2016, the Department
of Labor filed a lawsuit against Palo Alto-based software company
Palantir, alleging a pattern of discrimination against Asian job
applicants.  In January 2017, the Department of Labor sued Oracle
for paying white males more than other workers with the same job
title and for giving preferential treatment to Asians when
recruiting for technical and product development jobs. Similar to
Google, both Palantir and Oracle fervently denied these
accusations.  However, in late April 2017, Palantir agreed to
settle without admitting liability for $1.6 million in back pay
and other relief.  Palantir was also required to hire at least
eight employees from the affected class for two different
engineering roles.

Should female Google employees bring a lawsuit against the
company, the outcomes of recent U.S. Supreme Court cases as well
as recent Silicon Valley gender discrimination suits do not
provide a favorable forecast. In 2015, Ellen Pao, a junior
investing partner at venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield
& Byers, lost her highly publicized $16 million lawsuit which
alleged that she was passed over for a promotion due to her
gender.  In March 2015, Chia Hong, a former Facebook intern, sued
for sexual discrimination and harassment on the basis of race and
national origin; she dropped the suit a few months later. In 2015,
female employees brought class action suits against Twitter and
Microsoft for discriminating against female employees; both suits
are ongoing.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decisions regarding employment
discrimination have generally been narrowing the path to
successfully suing for such discrimination.  In the 2011 case,
Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, female employees of Wal-Mart brought a
class action lawsuit alleging sex discrimination; the court ruled
against the plaintiffs because there was too much variation
between the plaintiffs' circumstances, which made certification of
a class too difficult.  Dukes thus had the effect of further
increasing the difficulty in certifying a class action,
particularly where workers may seek to sue an employer for
discriminatory conduct.  In 2013, the Supreme Court created a
narrower definition of who counted as a "supervisor" in Vance v.
Ball, thus further limiting which employees can be held liable for
discrimination.  Furthermore, in 2013, the Supreme Court raised
the bar for the type of conduct that counts as "retaliation" in
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar.

Regardless of whether female Google employees bring a class action
lawsuit or individual suits against the company, the Department of
Labor's investigation highlights the need for clarification in the
language of the Equal Pay Act.  As a federal contractor, Google
(and numerous other big companies) are subject to regulations
requiring them to turn over information pertaining to their
compliance with equal opportunity laws such as the Equal Pay Act
to the Department of Labor.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits employers from discriminating
against employees based on gender by paying employees of a
particular gender differently than others of a different gender
doing work of "equal skill, effort, and responsibility." (29
U.S.C.A., Section 206(d)).  Anyone who violates the Equal Pay Act
in this manner can be subject to a civil penalty of $1,100 for
each violation. (29 U.S.C.A., Section 216).  Furthermore, an
employer violating these provisions can be liable to the
discriminated employees for a variety of other types of relief
such as reinstatement, promotion and payment of unpaid minimum
wages and overtime. (29 U.S.C.A., Section 216).

Thus, at the crux of the dispute between Google and the Department
of Labor is likely how "equal work" is to be defined. The Equal
Pay Act prohibits gender discrimination in the form of unequal
wages amongst employees doing "equal work."  The Equal Pay Act
further defines this as jobs that require equal skill, effort and
responsibility, performed under similar working conditions, (29
U.S.C.A., Section 206(d)(1)).  Google has publicly acknowledged a
dearth of diversity among its employees in recent years; in 2014,
it released a report showing that seven out of 10 employees were
male, 3 percent of the workforce was Latino and 2 percent African-
American.  In 2015, the company pledged to spend $150 million over
the next year to increase diversity.  Its apparent transparency
seems at odds with the DOL's statements, leading to speculation
that the department and Google are disputing what types of jobs
are "equal."

While the Department of Labor's ongoing investigations of tech
companies highlight the need for clarification of what truly
constitutes "equal work" under the Equal Pay Act of 1963,
California has taken steps to clarify ambiguities in amendments of
its own Fair Pay Act, which went into effect earlier this year.
California's Fair Pay Act was recently expanded to protect against
compensation differences between members of one race or ethnicity
and those of another: thus women of color being paid less than
white women doing the same jobs can now make claims under the act.
Another new amendment to California's Fair Pay Act specifies that
one's prior salary alone is not sufficient to justify compensation
differences between such groups.

Though the results of recent lawsuits brought against big Silicon
Valley companies for employment discrimination do not bode well
for Google employees who may seek to do the same, the landscape of
employment discrimination lawsuits in California may start to
shift as a result of the Fair Pay Act's amendments. California
employees seeking to bring discrimination lawsuits under the Fair
Pay Act have now been afforded broader and clearer protections
that may make it less difficult for them to prevail in such cases.
[GN]


GRISWOLD INT'L: Sued Over Failure to Pay Aides Travel Expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Foster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Griswold International, Inc. d/b/a Griswold Home Care,
Matthew Murphy, and Graham Weihmiller, Case No. 170638 (Mass.
Cmmw., May 25, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to fully pay home health care aides for compensable,
intra-day travel time and full reimbursement for their work-
related transportation expenses.

The Defendants operate home health care agencies that employ over
one hundred hourly-paid home health care aides providing in-home
care to elderly and infirm clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tallulah Q. Knopp, Esq.
      Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
      Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, PC
      99 High Street, Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 338-9400
      E-mail: nfo@mass-legal.com


HANSON AGGREGATES: NEI Contracting Loses Bid for Atty Fees, Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned NEI CONTRACTING AND ENGINEERING, INC.,
Plaintiff, v. HANSON AGGREGATES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 12-cv-01685-BAS(JLB) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California denied the Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and
costs.

Plaintiff NEI placed orders for concrete by phone with Defendant
Hanson.  After accepting delivery of the concrete, NEI refused to
pay for it.  But NEI's efforts to stiff Hanson crumbled when
Hanson produced recordings of its phone orders.  The company paid
its bill in full.

NEI then filed this putative class action against Hanson based on
Hanson's practice of recording customers' phone calls.  It hoped
to recover millions of dollars in damages on behalf of a class of
Hanson's customers.  NEI also sought to change Hanson's conduct.
The company succeeded on the second point -- part way through the
litigation, Hanson voluntarily changed its phone system's
admonition to advise customers that their calls may be recorded.

By the time NEI discovered Hanson's new behavior, the company's
contingency fee counsel had already invested nearly $300,000 worth
of time into this case.  Yet, the hope of a large class action
recovery never materialized.  NEI proceeded to trial on its
individual claim against Hanson, and it lost.  The company
recovered nothing.

Now, NEI turns to California's Private Attorney General Statute
and the state's catalyst theory to try to recoup some of its
counsel's investment.  By leveraging its success in changing
Hanson's conduct, the company hopes to subsidize its unsuccessful
pursuit of a class action recovery.  Thus, NEI seeks to recover
all of its attorneys' fees up to the date it discovered Hanson's
new behavior.  The company also requests this fee amount be
increased by a multiplier of 1.75 -- for a total bounty of almost
$500,000.  Hanson opposes.

The Court is unconvinced.  Although NEI achieved partial success,
a fee award is not appropriate, the Court ruled.  NEI does not
meet its burden of demonstrating the requirements under
California's Private Attorney General Statute and the catalyst
theory are satisfied, the Court said.  NEI does not demonstrate a
fee award is appropriate under section 1021.5 on a catalyst theory
basis for several reasons, the Court added.

Judge Bashant further ruled, "Initially, the company does not show
it obtained the primary relief it was seeking in this lawsuit.
Second, NEI failed to engage in a reasonable settlement attempt
before filing this case, and it does not demonstrate an effort
would have been futile.  Finally, NEI has not shown there were
insufficient financial incentives to justify this litigation in
economic terms.  The Court consequently denied motion for
attorneys' fees and costs."

A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/50dYrh from Leagle.com

NEI Contracting and Engineering, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Douglas J. Campion, Law Offices of Douglas J Campion.

NEI Contracting and Engineering, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Richard Eron Grey, Grey Law Group APC & Curtis Keith Greer, Greer
and Associates APC.

Hanson Aggregates Pacific Southwest, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Fred R. Puglisi, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton, Jay T.
Ramsey, Sheppard Mullin, John C. Dineen, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP & Valerie E. Alter, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP.


HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN: Faces "T.F." Suit in District of Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hennepin County. The
case is entitled as T.F., by his next friend Tracy Keller,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; K.D.,
by his next friend Laura Ferenci, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; C.O., by her next friend Laura
Ferenci, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; L.L., by his next friend Gerald Kegler, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated; T.T., by her next
friend Dr. Caryn Zembrosky, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; M.T. by her next friend Dr. Caryn
Zembrosky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; T.M., by his next friend James Dorsey, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated; T.E.. by her next
friend James Dorsey, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; A.T.. by her next friend James Dorsey,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; A.W.,
by his next friend Margaret Shulman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Hennepin County;
Hennepin County Department of Human Services and Public Health;
David J. Hough, Hennepin County Administrator; Jennifer
Decubellis, Hennepin County Deputy Administrator for Health and
Human Services; Jodi Wentland, Hennepin County Director of Human
Services; Janine Moore, Director, Hennepin County Child and Family
Services; Emily Piper, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Human
Services; James G. Koppel, Assistant Commissioner, Children and
Family Services Administration, Minnesota Department of Human
Services; and Jamie Sorensen, Director of Child Safety and
Permanency Division, Minnesota Department of Human Services, the
Defendants, Case No 0:17-cv-01826 (D. Minn., May 31, 2017).

Hennepin County is a county in the U.S. state of Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James L Volling, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          90 S 7th St Ste 2200
          Mpls, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766 7758
          Facsimile: (612) 766 1600
          E-mail: james.volling@FaegreBD.com


HOME DEPOT USA: "Wezel-Peterson" Sues Over Unruh Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andreas Wezel-Peterson, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., a
Delaware Corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC662135 (Cal. Super., May 22, 2017), seeks
minimum statutory, actual, general and punitive damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further
relief for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the
California Disabled Persons Act.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. owns and operates The Home Depot retail
stores throughout the United States. Peterson applied and was
granted a credit limit of $10,000.00 by Home Depot. Mr. Wezel-
Peterson is deaf. He was not able to activate his credit line
which required the customer to call Home Depot telephone that is
not equipped for use by consumers who are deaf and hard of
hearing. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David P. Myers, Esq.
      Ann Hendrix, Esq.
      Jason Hatcher, Esq.
      THE MYERS LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
      9327 Fairway View Place, Suite 100
      Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
      Telephone: (909) 919-2027
      Facsimile: (888) 375-2102


HORIZON GLOBAL: Craftwood, et al File Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Craftwood II, Inc., et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. Horizon Global Corporation., et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04129 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs
move the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a Plaintiff class of:

      "all persons and entities that were subscribers of
      facsimile telephone numbers to which material that
      advertised the commercial availability or quality of
      Horizon Global property, goods, or services was sent via
      facsimile transmission within four years preceding the
      commencement of this action, including, without limitation
      the faxes. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the class
      definition after completion of class certification
      discovery";

   2. designating Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;

   3. appointing C. Darryl Cordero of Payne & Fears LLP as lead
      Class Counsel, and Peter Trobe of Trobe, Babowice &
      Associates, LLC, as additional class counsel; and

   4. directing to class members the best notice that is
      practicable under the circumstances, including individual
      notice to all members who can be identified through
      reasonable effort.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nL0LpRtG

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C. Darryl Cordero, Esq.
          Matthew K. Brown, Esq.
          PAYNE & FEARS LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 689 1750
          E-mail: cdc@paynefears.com
          mkb@paynefears.com

               - and -

          Peter Trobe, Esq.
          TROBE, BABOWICE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          404 West Water Street
          Waukegan, IL 60085
          Telephone: (847) 625 8700
          E-mail: ptrobe@tbalaws.com


INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that a
class action complaint filed against Investment Technology Group,
Inc. (NYSE: ITG) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York recently survived defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The complaint, brought on behalf of all purchasers of
ITG securities between February 28, 2011, and August 3, 2015,
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by ITG's
officers and directors. ITG operates as an independent broker and
financial technology company in the United States, Canada, Europe,
and the Asia Pacific.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/investment-
technology-group-inc

Investment Technology Group Accused of Hiding Confidentiality
Breaches

According to the complaint, in early 2010, ITG's board of
directors and Chief Executive Officer, Robert Gasser, approved but
did not publicly disclose an experimental and secret proprietary
trading desk known as Project Omega, which traded for ITG's own
account.  In 2015, ITG disclosed the existence of Project Omega
for the first time, revealing that Project Omega had illegally
accessed confidential customer trade data within the company's
alternative trading system, POSIT, in order to maximize
profitability.  The complaint further states that for several
years, ITG officials failed to ensure that sufficient controls or
firewalls were in place to prevent the gaming of client data and
failed to inform investors of blatant breaches of confidentiality.
In 2015, an investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") resulted in an agreed-upon SEC Order,
disclosing the fraud and fining the company $20.3 million, in turn
causing ITG's share price to plummet.

Investment Technology Group Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov
at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

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


JBS S.A.: "Murphy" Sues Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------
Edmund Murphy III, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JBS S.A., Wesley MendonĂ¡a
Batista, Gilberto Tomazoni, and Joesley MendonĂ¡a Batista,
Defendants, Case 1:17-cv-03084 (E.D. N.Y., May 22, 2017) seeks to
recover compensable damages in violation of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

JBS is a Brazilian company that processes and sells beef, lamb,
pork, and chicken products in Brazil and internationally. JBS
American Depositary Receipts were traded on the OTCQX market.

Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that JBS executives bribed
regulators and politicians to subvert food inspections of its
plants and overlook unsanitary practices, such as processing
rotten meat and running plants with traces of salmonella; Batista,
CEO of JBS, was providing monthly bribery payments to a former
Brazilian government official and a lobbyist; that there were
irregularities with the loans JBS received from Brazilian state-
owned development bank BNDES; and that the company and other
entities controlled by Defendants Batista made suspicious trades
that exhibit signs of possible insider trading prior to the
revelation of a plea deal by the Company's top executives.

On this news, shares of JBS fell $0.71 per share or over 9.2% from
its previous closing price to close at $6.96 per share on March
17, 2017, damaging investors including the Plaintiff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
             pkim@rosenlegal.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of "Langan" Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., filed an
appeal from the District Court's Omnibus Ruling Re: Pending
Motions, dated March 13, 2017, in the lawsuit entitled Langan v.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-1471,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New
Haven).

The appellate case is captioned as Langan v. Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No. 17-1605, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 5,
2017, the Hon. Jeffrey Alker Meyer entered omnibus orders in the
combined cases styled HEIDI LANGAN, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC., Case Nos. 3:13-cv-1470 (JAM) and 3:13-cv-1471 (JAM) (D.
Conn.):

   -- denying the cross-motions for summary judgment in both
      cases;

   -- denying the motions to exclude the expert testimony of Dr.
      Elizabeth Howlett, and Colin Weir;

   -- denying the motion to certify the class in
      Case No. 13-cv-1470; and

   -- granting the motion to certify the class in
      Case No. 13-cv-1471.  The class is defined as:

      All purchasers of the Aveeno(R) Baby Brand Wash and Shampoo
      until November of 2012 and Aveeno(R) Baby Brand Calming
      Comfort Bath baby wash until November of 2013, beginning on
      the following dates in the following states: in Alaska from
      January 25, 2011 in California, Connecticut, Delaware, the
      District of Colombia, Illinois, New York and Wisconsin from
      January 25, 2010; in Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and
      Washington from January 25, 2009; in Arkansas and Missouri
      from January 25, 2008; in Michigan, New Jersey, and Vermont
      from January 25, 2007; in Rhode Island from January 25,
      2003; and in any additional states which the Court
      determines to have sufficiently similar law to Connecticut
      without creating manageability issues, who purchased the
      Products primarily for personal, family or household
      purposes. Specifically excluded from this Class are: the
      Defendant, the officers, directors and employees of
      Defendant; any entity in which Defendant has a controlling
      interest; any affiliate, legal representative of Defendant;
      the judge to whom this case is assigned and any member of
      the judge's immediate family; and any heirs, assigns and
      successors of any of the above persons or organizations in
      their capacity as such.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Heidi Langan, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
          29 South Main Street
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6294
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: mkindall@ikrlaw.com

Defendant-Appellant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., is
represented by:

          Harold Paul Weinberger, Esq.
          KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
          1177 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 715-9132
          Facsimile: (212) 715-8132
          E-mail: hweinberger@kramerlevin.com


KAISER PERMANENTE: Sued in Cal. Over Disability Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Otillia Samora, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Kaiser Permanente International and Does 1 through
250, inclusive, Case No. BC662669 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2017),
is an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendant's
discrimination and retaliatory actions against the Plaintiff on
account of her disabilities and her request for accommodation for
her disability.

Kaiser Permanente International is an integrated managed care
consortium, based in Oakland, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
      Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
      Lauren N. Haag, Esq.
      Ronald L. Zambrano, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP
      555 E Ocean Blvd, Ste 818
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 432-8933
      Facsimile: (562) 435-1656
      E-mail: info@CarlinBuchsbaum.com


KEANE GROUP: "Hickson" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TONY HICKSON and LARRY VILLA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
KEANE GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC; KEANE FRAC TX, LLC; KEANE FRAC, LP;
KEANE FRAC GP LLC; and KEANE FRAC ND, LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 4:16-cv-03734 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to:

   1. conditionally certify two classes, for purposes of notice
      and discovery:

      "all salaried QHSE/HSE Coordinators employed by Keane
      during the last three years (QHSE Class Members)"; and

      "all salaried Wireline Supervisor 1, 2, and 3s, Service
      Quality Engineers, Service Quality Managers, and equivalent
      positions (such as Wireline Engineers 1 to 3, Site
      Supervisors 1 to 3, and Field Service Supervisor 1 to 2)
      employed in Keane's wireline division during the last three
      years (Wireline Supervisor Class)"

   2. order that a judicially approved notice be sent to all
      Class Members by mail and email and text message;

   3. approve the form and content of Plaintiffs' proposed
      judicial notice and reminder notice;

   4. order Keane to produce to Plaintiffs' Counsel the last
      known name, address, phone number, email address and dates
      of employment for each of the Class Members in a usable
      electronic format; and

   5. authorize a 90-day notice period for the Class Members to
      join this case.

Tony Hickson and Larry Villa filed this Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action to recover unpaid overtime wages and related
damages owed to current and former employees of Keane Group
Holdings, LLC, Keane Frac TX, LLC, Keane Frac, LP, Keane Frac GP
LLC and Keane Frac ND, LLC.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LhqIGfR3

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza No. 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877 8788

               - and -

          Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300 0375


KELLOGG CO: New York Court Dismisses "Mantikas" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York dismissed the case captioned
KRISTEN MANTIKAS, KRISTIN BURNS, and LINDA CASTLE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
KELLOGG COMPANY, Defendant, No. 16-cv-2552 (SJF)(AYS) (E.D. N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs commenced this purported class action against
Kellogg, seeking both monetary and injunctive relief.  The
Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that they "read and relied on
Kellogg's false and misleading labeling in purchasing Cheez-It
Whole Grain crackers, including the representation that the
crackers were 'WHOLE GRAIN.'"  According to the Plaintiffs,
Kellogg deliberately capitalizes on foreseeable consumer
misconceptions about Cheez-It Whole Grain crackers in its
marketing and sales scheme, and has therefore reaped, and
continues to reap, increased sales and profits.

Mantikas asserts causes of action arising under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law
Sections 349 and 350, both individually and on behalf of a
proposed subclass including all "persons residing in New York who
have purchased Cheez-It Whole Grain crackers for their own use
since May 19, 2010."

Burns and Castle assert causes of action arising under Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Section 17200 and 17500 and Cal. Civ. Code Section
1750, both individually and on behalf of a proposed subclass
including all "persons residing in California who have purchased
Cheez-It Whole Grain crackers for their own use since May 19,
2012."

All the Plaintiffs also assert a claim for unjust enrichment under
Michigan law, both individually and on behalf of "all persons
residing in the United States and its territories who have
purchased Cheez-It Whole Grain crackers for their own use (which
includes feeding their families), and not for resale, since May
19, 2010."

The Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  With respect to the Plaintiffs' claims
arising under New York's and California's consumer protection
laws, Kellogg argues, inter alia, that because the "Plaintiffs do
not dispute that whole grains are indeed one of the ingredients in
Cheez-It" crackers, the Plaintiffs "have failed to plausibly show
that a reasonable consumer would likely be deceived by the Cheez-
It packaging."  The Defendant further argues that the "Plaintiffs'
state consumer protection law claims must also be dismissed
because they are preempted under federal law."  With respect to
the Plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment under Michigan law,
the Defendant argues that: (i) as residents of New York and
California, the Plaintiffs lack standing to assert a claim arising
under Michigan law; (ii) the Plaintiffs' allegations fail to state
a plausible claim for unjust enrichment; and (iii) the Plaintiffs'
attempt to apply Michigan law to a nationwide class is improper.

Judge Feuerstein held that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim
arising under either New York's or California's consumer
protection laws, as the phrases "WHOLE GRAIN" and "MADE WITH WHOLE
GRAIN," when considered in the entire context of the Crackers'
packaging, would neither mislead nor deceive a reasonable
consumer.  As the Product's packaging truthfully states that the
Crackers are made with whole grain, and specifies the exact amount
of whole grain per serving, the Crackers' packaging would neither
deceive nor mislead a reasonable consumer, the judge pointed out.
Therefore, Kellogg's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second,
third, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action is granted.

The Plaintiffs also assert a claim for unjust enrichment under
Michigan law.  As Plaintiffs do not identify any connection they
had to Michigan other than the fact that the allegedly deceptive
and misleading practices originated in, and emanated from,
Michigan, and because a plaintiff "may only assert a state claim
if a named plaintiff resides in, does business in, or has some
other connection to that state," they lack standing to bring a
claim against Kellogg for unjust enrichment under Michigan law,
Judge Feuerstein further held.   Based upon the foregoing, the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for unjust
enrichment under Michigan law is granted.  The Plaintiffs are
granted leave to replead their claim for unjust enrichment
pursuant to the law of the states in which they reside.

Finally, the Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in the form of an
order: "(i) enjoining Kellogg from continuing to engage in the
deceptive practices described in the Complaint; (ii) requiring
Kellogg to provide public notice of the true nature of Cheez-It
Whole Grain crackers; and (iii) enjoining Kellogg from such
deceptive business practices in the future."  As Plaintiffs have
failed to demonstrate that the Crackers' packaging was deceptive,
they are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered an injury
in fact, the judge pointed out.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs are not
entitled to injunctive relief, and the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' seventh cause of action is granted.

The Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended complaint
within 30 days of the date of the Opinion and Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2017 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/oSTn9F from Leagle.com

Kristen Mantikas, Plaintiff, represented by Craig L. Briskin,
Mehri & Skalet, PLLC.

Kristen Mantikas, Plaintiff, represented by George Volney Granade,
II, Reese LLP, Maia Caplan Kats, CSPI, pro hac vice, Michael
Robert Reese, Reese LLP, William D. Thanhauser, Center for Science
in the Public Interest & Matthew B. Simon, Center for Science in
the Public Interest, pro hac vice.

Kristin Burns, Plaintiff, represented by Craig L. Briskin, Mehri &
Skalet, PLLC, George Volney Granade, II, Reese LLP, Maia Caplan
Kats, CSPI, pro hac vice, Michael Robert Reese, Reese LLP, William
D. Thanhauser, Center for Science in the Public Interest & Matthew
B. Simon, Center for Science in the Public Interest, pro hac vice.

Linda Castle, Plaintiff, represented by Craig L. Briskin, Mehri &
Skalet, PLLC.

Linda Castle, Plaintiff, represented by George Volney Granade, II,
Reese LLP, Maia Caplan Kats, CSPI, pro hac vice, Michael Robert
Reese, Reese LLP, William D. Thanhauser, Center for Science in the
Public Interest & Matthew B. Simon, Center for Science in the
Public Interest, pro hac vice.

Kellogg Company, Defendant, represented by Dean N. Panos, Jenner &
Block LLP, pro hac vice, Kenneth K. Lee, Jenner & Block & Kelly M.
Morrison, Jenner & Block LLP, pro hac vice.


L BRANDS: Faces "Ochoa" Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Ochoa, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. L Brands, Inc., Limited Brands, Inc., The Limited,
Inc., Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC, and Does 1 to l00, inclusive,
Case No. BC661822 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage and
overtime rates in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a fashion retailer company based in
Columbus, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LIBERTY BROADBAND: Stockholder Directed to File Addt'l Briefing
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MATTHEW SCIABACUCCHI, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY
BROADBAND CORPORATION, JOHN MALONE, GREGORY MAFFEI, MICHAEL
HUSEBY, BALAN NAIR, ERIC ZINTERHOFER, CRAIG JACOBSON, THOMAS
RUTLEDGE, DAVID MERRITT, LANCE CONN, and JOHN MARKLEY, Defendants,
and CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Nominal Defendant, C.A. No.
11418-VCG (Del. Ch.), Judge Sam Glasscock III of the Court of
Chancery of Delaware reserved decision on the Defendants' motions
to dismiss, pending supplemental briefing.

The directors of the Nominal Defendant, Charter Communications,
structured an acquisition of two other entities in the same
industry, communications media, as Charter.  Both acquisitions --
the purchase of non-party Bright House Networks, LLC ("Bright
House") and the merger with Time Warner Cable ("TWC") -- were
accomplished at the same time.  Those Acquisitions are not
themselves the direct cause of the Plaintiff's Complaint; all
parties agree that these transactions contributed value to
Charter.

The Plaintiff is a Charter stockholder.  His Complaint focuses on
two related transactions: The Defendant directors of Charter
issued equity to an insider, the largest stockholder of Charter,
Defendant Liberty Broadband Corp., purportedly to finance the
Acquisitions in part.  According to the Plaintiff, Liberty
Broadband controlled Charter, and caused the Defendant directors
and officers of Charter to structure the issuances of equity in a
way favorable to Liberty Broadband and detrimental to Charter.
The Complaint alleges that all these Defendants breached duties of
loyalty, owed to Charter as well as to its stockholders directly,
with respect to these transactions ("Issuances").  The Plaintiff
contends that the Issuances were not necessary to the financing of
the Acquisitions.  The Plaintiff also alleges breaches of duty in
connection with an additional transaction by which Liberty
Broadband received a 6% voting proxy ("Voting Proxy Agreement").
The Issuances and the Voting Proxy Agreement were approved in a
single vote by the majority of the stock of Charter not controlled
by or affiliated with Liberty Broadband, separate from the vote
approving the merger with TWC.

Judge Glasscock finds that the Complaint fails to plead sufficient
non-conclusory facts to make it reasonably conceivable that
Liberty Broadband controls Charter.

A determination on whether the claims are direct or derivative
will have a substantial effect in the lawsuit.  If the claims are
direct, the Plaintiff must plead only facts that disclose a
reasonable conceivability of liability in order to surmount the
Motion to Dismiss; he faces the steeper climb to show that the
Board could not bring its business judgment to bear on the demand
he forwent, before he may proceed derivatively consonant with Rule
23.1.  Judge Glasscock considers the briefing insufficient for him
to proceed efficiently on an analysis of the nature of the
Plaintiff's claims.  Therefore, Judge Glasscock reserved decision
on the Motions to Dismiss.  The parties should confer and provide
a stipulated supplemental briefing schedule on this issue.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2017 memorandum opinion is
available at from Leagle.com

Kurt M. Heyman and Melissa N. Donimirski, of Heyman Enerio Gattuso
& Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; of Counsel: Jason M. Leviton
and Joel A. Fleming, of Block & Leviton LLP, Boston,
Massachusetts, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Martin S. Lessner, David C. McBride, James M. Yoch, Jr., and Paul
J. Loughman, of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington,
Delaware; of Counsel: William Savitt and Anitha Reddy, of
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, New York, Attorneys for
Defendants Michael Huseby, Balan Nair, Eric Zinterhofer, Craig
Jacobson, Thomas Rutledge, David Merritt, Lance Conn, John
Markley, and Charter Communications, Inc.

Donald J. Wolfe, Jr., Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Brian C. Ralston, Tyler
J. Leavengood, Jaclyn C. Levy, and Aaron R. Sims, of Potter
Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; of Counsel: Richard
B. Harper, of Baker Botts LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for
Defendants Liberty Broadband Corporation, John Malone, and Gregory
Maffei.


LITTLE CAESARS PIZZA: Pizza Not "Halal", Bazzi Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in Michigan
court that a Dearborn-area Little Caesar's marketed a halal
pepperoni pizza that actually contained regular pork meat topping,
in the community with the highest concentrations of Muslims in
North America.

The case is captioned, Mohamad Bazzi, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. Little Caesars Pizza,
Little Caesars Enterprise, Inc., Denise, manager, and other John
Doe and Jane Doe, employees, Defendants, Case No. 17-007931-NO,
Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, May 25, 2017.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Majed A. Moughni, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MAJED A. MOUGHNI, PLLC
     290 Town Center Drive, Suite 322
     Dearborn, MI 48126
     Tel: 313-581-0800
     Fax: 313-581-0808


MACY'S FLORIDA: Adler Sues over Purchase of Used Mattresses
-----------------------------------------------------------
CINDY ADLER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. MACY'S FLORIDA STORES LLC and MACY'S
CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 56696914 (Fla.
Cir. Ct., 11th Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade Cty., May
19, 2017), seeks actual and/or compensatory damages, restitution,
and equitable relief, as well as such other and further relief as
may be available as a matter of law for herself and the
prospective Class.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff set out to purchase a
new mattress from Macy's. Instead of receiving the new mattress
for which she paid, she received a series of used mattresses.
After receiving her fourth used mattress -- a fifth mattress was
rejected prior to receipt when Macy's delivery personnel informed
Plaintiff by phone that it had a hole and the stuffing was
protruding from it -- Ms. Adler learned that this was more than a
series of unfortunate events. Instead, this purchase and sale of a
purportedly new mattress followed by the delivery of one or more
used mattresses was a pattern and practice of illegal behavior by
Macy's Florida Stores, LLC and Macy's Corporate Services, Inc.
This illegal practice defrauded not only Cindy Adler but, upon
information and belief, many other consumers as well. To put an
end to this deceptive practice, Plaintiff brings this lawsuit.

Macy's Florida Stores owns and operates a chain of department
stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Boyers, Esq.
          THE BOYERS LAW GROUP
          2333 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Penthouse 1120
          Coral Gables, Florida 33134
          Telephone: (305) 512-7600
          E-mail: Rob@BoyersLav.com

               - and -

          Manuel L. Dobrinsky, Esq.
          DOLAN, DOBRINSKY & ROSENBLUM
          2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 609
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 371 2692
          E-mail: mdobrinskv@DDRLawyers.com

               - and -

          EATON & WOLK, PL
          2 South Biscayne Blvd, Suite 3100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 249 1640
          E-mail: wwolk@eatnwolk.com
                  deaton@eatnwolk.com


MARKET AMERICA: "Yang" Class Suit Alleges Pyramid Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
two distributors for Market America claim the company's $7.3
billion valuation comes from millions of people who have lost
money after enrolling in the pyramid scheme, including Chinese-
Americans whom the company targets to sell products to relatives
in Asia.

Chaunjie Yang and Ollie Lan sued Market America and its founders
James Howard Ridinger, Loren Ridinger, and president and COO Marc
Ashley in a federal class action on May 27.

The racketeering lawsuit says that while the executives tell
distributors they can earn more than $560,000, only those at the
top make that kind of money. Ninety percent of sellers do not
receive a penny, according to the lawsuit.

"According to Market America, the only way to fail under Market
America's business model is to quit. Meanwhile, Market America and
its confederate conspirators now assert a business valuation of
$7.3 billion that they have made off the backs of millions of
people in their pyramid," the class claims in the lawsuit.

Yang says he handed over $35,000 to Market America and eventually
lost money in the venture. He says in the lawsuit that people
enrolling in the scheme have to pay a $399 startup fee and $129 a
month.

Market America requires distributors to invest between $130 and
$200 each month on third-party retail products. Distributors pay
to participate in training workshops, events and seminars,
including flashy pyrotechnic events hosted by Ashley and the
Ridingers, the lawsuit says.

The company targets Chinese-American immigrants, a vulnerable
population who sometimes do not have the resources to defend
themselves legally, the distributors say. Market America targets
Chinese-Americans because it wants distributors to sell products
to their family members in China.

"Further, these connections help Market America connect to
billions of potential victims thousands of miles away," the 46-
page lawsuit states.

Yan and Lan say that like hundreds of thousands Market America
lured into the scheme, they did not make any money despite their
hard work.

Their lawsuit says 90 percent of distributors lose money in the
scheme that rewards distribution for recruiting other
distributors, rather than selling products. Through the website
Shop.com, Market America offers various third-party retail goods
including apparel, food, electronics and beauty products.

According to the plaintiffs, the company faced a 2012 class action
claiming some of its products contained lead. Lan says his mother
became ill after she was exposed to Market America's products.

The complaint seeks a ruling that the arbitration provision in
agreements distributors sign with Market America is unenforceable.
They also seek restitution, damages, costs and an injunction for
unfair and deceptive practices, false advertising, Racketeer-
Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act violations , and federal
securities fraud.

Yan and Lan are represented by Blake Lindemann of Beverly Hills,
California

Market America did not immediately respond to an emailed request
for comment.

The case is captioned, CHUANJIE YANG, an individual; OLLIE LAN, an
individual; and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
MARKET AMERICA,  INC., a North Carolina Corporation; MARKET
AMERICA WORLDWIDE, INC., a North Carolina Corporation; JAMES
HOWARD RIDINGER, an individual; LOREN RIDINGER, an individual;
MARC ASHLEY, an individual; and DOES 1-100; Defendants, Case 2:17-
cv-04012 (N.D. Cal., May 30, 2017).

Attorneys For Plaintiffs:

     Blake J. Lindemann, Esq.
     LINDEMANN LAW FIRM APC
     433 N. Camden Drive, 4th Floor
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Telephone: (310)-279-5269
     Facsimile: (310)-300-0267
     E-mail: blake@lawbl.com

          - and -

     Daren M. Schlecter, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DAREN M. SCHLECTER, APC
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 830
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310)-553-5747


MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Local 589 Appeals Ruling to First Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Timothy C. Brown, Heriberto Cora, Patrick F. Hogan,
Andrew Hunter, David Jordan, Allen R. Lee, Local 589, Amalgamated
Transit Union, Stephen Maher, Dennis Perry, Tracey Spencer and
Jeffrey Williams filed an appeal from a court ruling in their
lawsuit titled Local 589, Amalgamated Transit, et al. v. MBTA,
Case No. 1:13-cv-11455-ADB, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Boston.

The appellate case is captioned as Local 589, Amalgamated Transit,
et al. v. MBTA, Case No. 17-1494, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 25,
2017, Defendant Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority filed
an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit.  That
appellate case is captioned as Local 589, Amalgamated Transit, et
al. v. MBTA, Case No. 17-1443.

The Plaintiffs, 10 named MBTA employees and their union, claim
that they are owed compensation for after-work and between-shift
travel, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Massachusetts
wage and hour laws.  The Plaintiffs initiated the putative class
action on June 17, 2013, on behalf of MBTA bus operators, train
operators, train attendants, streetcar operators, trackless
trolley operators and customer service agents, who were allegedly
required to travel from one assigned location to another during
their workday without compensation.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants LOCAL 589, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION,
PATRICK F. HOGAN, TIMOTHY C. BROWN, HERIBERTO CORA, ANDREW HUNTER,
DAVID JORDAN, STEPHEN MAHER, DENNIS PERRY, ALLEN R. LEE, TRACEY
SPENCER, JEFFREY WILLIAMS and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Paul T. Hynes, Esq.
          Brian Jay Rogal, Esq.
          ANGOFF GOLDMAN MANNING & HYNES PC
          100 River Ridge Dr., Suite 203
          Norwood, MA 02062
          Telephone: (781) 255-7700
          Facsimile: (781) 255-7750
          E-mail: brogal@angoffgoldman.com
                  phynes@angoffgoldman.com

               - and -

          Douglas Taylor, Esq.
          GROMFINE, TAYLOR & TYLER, P.C.
          1420 King Street
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 683-7780
          Facsimile: (703) 683-8616
          E-mail: dtaylor@lbgt.com

Defendant-Appellee MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY is
represented by:

          Mark W. Batten, Esq.
          Laura E. Deck, Esq.
          Alison M. Langlais, Esq.
          Rebecca Jane Sivitz, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          1 International Place, 15th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110-0000
          Telephone: (617) 526-9850
          E-mail: mbatten@proskauer.com
                  ldeck@proskauer.com
                  alanglais@proskauer.com
                  rsivitz@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Colin R. Boyle, Esq.
          MORGAN BROWN & JOY LLP
          200 State St., 11th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 523-6666
          E-mail: cboyle@morganbrown.com


MAZDA MOTOR: Campbell Sues Over Tower Assembly Safety Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
RITA CAMPBELL, Individually and on herself and all others
similarly situated, 1515 Michigan Ave. NE Washington, D.C. 20017,
the Plaintiff, v. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA INC., 7755 Irvine Center
Drive Irvine, CA 92618 Registered Agent: Hahn Nguyen 7755 Irvine
Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618; and CT CORPORATION SYSTEM 1015 15th
St NW Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20005, the Defendants, Case No.
003379 (D.C. Super. Ct., May 15, 2017), seeks award of damages,
including the costs of inspecting and replacing the
corrosion -- related separation of rear shock tower assembly from
the unibody sub-frame, and appropriate equitable relief, including
an order requiring Mazda to adequately disclose and repair the
Defect with new parts made of corrosion-resistant material.

This proposed class action is brought by Rita Campbell on behalf
of herself and other similarly situated citizens of the District
of Columbia who allege that Mazda concealed a known safety defect
from its customers: the corrosion - related separation of the
forward attachment of the lower control arm from the unibody sub-
frame (the Defect), which is present in all 2005 and 2006 Mazda
Tribute vehicles (Class Vehicles). The Defect is unreasonably
dangerous, as it can cause a driver to lose control of the vehicle
without warning.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has suffered harm as a
result of Mazda's decision not to disclose the Defect. Plaintiff
bought a 2005 Mazda Tribute, and Plaintiff has experienced extreme
corrosion to the rear wheel well, causing the shock tower to
become detached from the body of the vehicle, rendering the
vehicle unsafe to drive.

Mazda actively concealed and/or failed to notify the public of the
existence and nature of the Defect or of the possible safety
issues presented by the Defect. Mazda has not recalled the Class
Vehicles to repair the Defect; it has not offered to repair or
replace the defective parts to its customers free of charge; and
it has not offered to reimburse owners, present or past, who
incurred costs relating to the necessary shock tower and wheel-
well area repair or replacement. Mazda's conduct violates the
District of Columbia Consumer Protection and Procedures Act
(CPPA). This conduct is particularly unfair because Mazda
previously recalled the 2000-2004 model year Tribute vehicles that
had a virtually identical defect.

Mazda Motor, commonly referred to as simply Mazda, is a Japanese
multinational automaker based in Fuchu, Aki District, Hiroshima
Prefecture, Japan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street., NE, Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470 3520
          Facsimile: (202) 800 2730
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                  jrathod@classlawdc.com

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER
          & Graifman, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356 2570

               - and -

          Tracy S. Rezvani, Esq.
          THE REZVANI LAW FIRM LLC
          199 E Montgomery Avenue, Suite 100
          Rockville, MD 20850
          Telephone: (202) 350 4270
          Facsimile: (202) 351 0544
          E-mail: tracv@rezvanilaw.com


MDE LEARNING: Fawzy Seeks Unpaid Wages Under New Jersey Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA FAWZY on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MDE LEARNING ACADEMY CORP. d/b/a THE
LEARNING EXPERIENCE; THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE FRANCHISE CORP.; THE
LEARNING EXPERIENCE SYSTEMS, LLC; THE LEARNING EXPEREINCE HOLDING
CORP.; and JOHN DOES (1-300), the Defendants. Case No.MER-L-1064-
17 (N.J. Super. Ct., May 19, 2017), seeks to recover monetary
payment of monies in an amount to ensure Plaintiff and Members of
the Classes were paid minimum wage as required by law; repayment
of illegal deductions taken from employee pay; and payment of
earned vacation time at the time that Plaintiffs resigned from
their employment.

This action is brought on behalf of all New Jersey employees of
defendant(s) who were employed at daycare facilities operated
under the trade name "The Learning Experience". The Plaintiff
alleges that defendant(s) routinely paid employees less than the
minimum wage mandated by New Jersey law, made deductions from
employee paychecks in violation of New Jersey law and failed to
pay employees earned vacation time after their resignation in
breach of their employment agreements.

M.D.E. Learning Academy is a child care provider in Voorhees, New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
          Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
          James A. Barry, Esq.
          LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC
          801 N. Kings Highway
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 663 8200

               - and -

          Seth K. Lesser, Esq.
          Michael Reed, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934 9200


MDL 2353: Bid to Exclude Expert Testimonies Denied
--------------------------------------------------
Judge William J. Martini of the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey denied the motion to exclude the
testimony of three proffered expert witnesses prior to the class
certification phase in IN RE: TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE MARKETING AND
SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. MDL 2353 This Document Relates To: ALL
CASES, Civ. No. 2:11-07382 (D. N.J.).

The Plaintiffs are citizens from New Jersey, New York, California,
and Wisconsin, who purchased the Defendant's "not-from-
concentrate" orange juice from December 2005 to the present.

The Defendant moved to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Arvind
Narayanan, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer
Science at Princeton University who specializes in "privacy,
anonymity, and computer security research."  The Plaintiffs
retained Dr. Narayanan in this case to provide a method in which
to verify claims submitted by purported consumers of Tropicana
Pure Premium ("TPP") using data collected by retailers at the
point of sale from loyalty card programs and member only clubs.
The Defendant primarily challenges the reliability of Dr.
Narayanan's proposed verification methodology on the ground that
it has never been tested on real point-of-sale data from any
retailer of TPP.  The Court pointed out that the Defendant weakly
argues that Dr. Narayanan's proposed methodology does not "fit"
the case -- i.e., it is not relevant.  The Defendant repeats the
same points about Dr. Narayanan's assumption that point-of-sale
data exists and that he can properly incorporate it into his
methodology.  The Court is persuaded that Dr. Narayanan is
qualified and that his proposed methodology would be both reliable
and relevant to class certification, assuming the availability of
the requisite data.


The Plaintiffs moved to exclude the expert testimonies of Dr.
Keith Ugone, an economist.  The Defendant retained Dr. Ugone to
perform economic analyses and criticisms of Plaintiffs' damages
model, the expert opinions of Drs. Weir and Olivier Toubia, and
the feasibility of the Plaintiffs' proposed method of identifying
putative class members.  The Court is aware that Dr. Ugone is not
a computer scientist; however, Dr. Ugone has extensive experience
in commercial litigation, including numerous class actions, and he
is well equipped to opine on several issues.  The Court is capable
of weighing Dr. Ugone's opinions in light of the fact that he is
not an expert in computers.

The Plaintiff also moved to exclude the expert testimonies of Dr.
Ravi Dhar, a professor at the Yale School of Management with
expertise in "consumer behavior, consumer psychology, branding,
marketing management, marketing strategy, survey methodology and
evaluation."  The Defendant retained Dr. Dhar to "evaluate the
reasons that putative class members purchase TPP," to rebut
certain conclusions reached in the Toubia report, "to opine on
whether putative class members demonstrate a common perception of
TPP," and to opine on "whether preferences of putative class
members vary."  The Court finds Dr. Dhar's report and testimony to
be reliable and relevant to the issue of class certification.

In general, the Court finds that the parties' motions are
essentially premature arguments for and against class
certification.  Neither party presents a concerted challenge to
the qualifications of the experts they would have the Court
exclude.  Instead, they make various arguments purportedly
attacking the reliability and relevance of each expert's
testimony; however, the Court is well equipped to consider any
such deficiencies at class certification and afford them the
appropriate weight in deciding whether Plaintiffs have met their
Rule 23 burden.  For this reason, the Court denied all three
motions to exclude the expert testimonies.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/WZCWqI from Leagle.com

Michael Martinucci, Plaintiff, represented by Antonio Vozzolo,
Vozzolo, LLC.

Michael Martinucci, Plaintiff, represented by Donald A. Ecklund,
Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C., Lindsey H.
Taylor, Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brodt & Agnello, Yitzchak
Kopel, Bursor & Fisher PA & James E. Cecchi, Carella, Byrne,
Cecchi, Olstein, Brodt & Agnello, P.C..

Angelena Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Antonio Vozzolo,
Vozzolo, LLC, Donald A. Ecklund, Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein,
Brody & Agnello, P.C., Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella, Byrne, Cecchi,
Olstein, Brody & Agnello, Yitzchak Kopel, Bursor & Fisher PA &
James E. Cecchi, Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello,
P.C..

Bernadette Salerno, Plaintiff, represented by Donald A. Ecklund,
Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C., P.C., Yitzchak Kopel,
Bursor & Fisher PA & James E. Cecchi, Carella, Byrne, Cecchi,
Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C..

Aleksander Simic, Plaintiff, represented by Donald A. Ecklund,
Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C., P.C.,
Yitzchak Kopel, Bursor & Fisher PA & James E. Cecchi, Carella,
Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C..

Yxia Olivares, Plaintiff, represented by Donald A. Ecklund,
Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C., P.C.,
Yitzchak Kopel, Bursor & Fisher PA & James E. Cecchi, Carella,
Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C..

Dezzi Rae Marshall, Plaintiff, represented by Donald A. Ecklund,
Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C., Yitzchak
Kopel, Bursor & Fisher PA & James E. Cecchi, Carella, Byrne,
Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C..

John Albert Veal, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew S. Herring,
Counsel Not Admitted to USDC-NJ Bar & Yitzchak Kopel, Bursor &
Fisher PA.

Tropicana Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Liza M. Walsh,
Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga LLP, Christine Intromasso Gannon,
Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga LLP, Joseph L. Linares, Walsh Pizzi
O'Reilly Falanga LLP & Lucas Cody Townsend, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
LLP.

Pepsico, Inc., Defendant, represented by Liza M. Walsh, Walsh
Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga LLP.


MDL 2492: "Hudson" Suit v NCAA Goes to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ray Hudson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, the Defendant, Case No.
5:17-cv-00089, was transferred on May 31, 2017 from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-03953 to the proceeding.

The Hudson case is being consolidated with MDL 2492 in re:
National Collegiate Athletic Association Student-Athlete
Concussion Injury Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
December 18, 2013. The actions before the Panel seek medical
monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at
NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions.
Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the
risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents
to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes
and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap;
and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to
centralization are preferable. In its December 18, 2013 Order, the
MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern
District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to
allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained
while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including
damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Presiding Judges in the MDL is Hon. John Z. Lee,
United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

The NCAA is a non-profit association which regulates athletes of
1,281 institutions, conferences, organizations, and individuals.
It also organizes the athletic programs of many colleges and
universities in the United States and Canada, and helps more than
450,000 college student-athletes who compete annually in college
sports.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Matthew Stephens, Esq.
          MCCALLUM METHVIN & TERRELL PC - BIRMINGHAM AL
          2201 Arlington Ave S
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939 0199
          E-mail: mstephens@mmlaw.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ashley Marie Bauer, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP - SAN FRANCISCO CA
          505 Montgomery St, Ste 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          E-mail: ashley.bauer@lw.com


MEYERKORD & MEYERKORD: Averts Business Solicitation Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
saying plaintiffs would be hard pressed to demonstrate precisely
how otherwise-protected information may have ended up on police
vehicle crash reports, a Chicago federal judge has refused to
allow a class action lawsuit to proceed against a St. Louis-based
personal injury trial law firm accused of purchasing traffic crash
reports and using personal information from those reports to
solicit business from potential clients.

On May 22, U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve denied the request
from plaintiff Antonio Pavone to certify a class of potentially
thousands of other plaintiffs throughout Illinois in litigation
against the Meyerkord & Meyerkord law firm and iyeTek LLC, a
subsidiary company of online information provider LexisNexis Risk
Solutions.

The decision comes as the latest step in a two-pronged legal fight
launched by Mr. Pavone and his attorneys, the Zamparo Law Group,
of Hoffman Estates, and the firm of Francis & Mailman, of
Philadelphia, in 2015 against the Meyerkord firm and a Chicago
personal injury lawyer, Anthony Mancini.  Both Meyerkord and
Mancini had mailed letters to Mr. Pavone in the weeks following
Pavone's January 2015 traffic crash in Schaumburg, asking him to
hire them to represent him should he sue the other driver or
another party stemming from the traffic accident.

Mr. Pavone alleged in his lawsuits that the soliciting attorneys
had gleaned his information from an official traffic crash report,
which had been purchased along with a bundle of others from
iyeTek.  According to court documents, police agencies use an
iyeTek system, called iyeCrash in the court documents, to scan and
upload traffic crash reports to a database, to make them
accessible to other agencies which also use the LexisNexis system.

Mr. Pavone also added iyeTek and LexisNexis to his action against
Meyerkord, alleging the information technology vendor went too far
in selling the crash report information to lawyers without getting
the permission of those whose personal information was included in
those reports.

Specifically, Mr. Pavone has alleged the defendant lawyers and
other I.T. companies violated the federal Drivers Privacy
Protection Act, which limits the use of personal information
contained on official state motor vehicle records.

In this case, Pavone alleged Meyerkord violated his rights, as
well as many others in Illinois, in using his drivers license
number -- which he said is an official state motor vehicle record
-- to solicit business.

And Pavone asked the court to also allow a nationwide class action
to proceed against iyeTek over the same allegation.

In response, however, iyeTek and Meyerkord argued class
certification should not be allowed in this case because the
potential plaintiffs and class members would have too little in
common.  While the police reports may contain common information,
how that information ends up on the police reports can vary
markedly among police agencies, as there is no standard method of
creating crash reports either in Illinois or nationally. They
noted in some jurisdictions, drivers license numbers may not be
required information on crash reports.

St. Eve sided with Meyerkord and iyeTek on that question, noting
"whether crash reports contain personal information from a motor
vehicle record is an individualized inquiry that would predominate
over questions common to the class."

". . . Evidence reveals that police officers in Illinois -- and
throughout the country -- prepare iyeCrash reports using various
sources of information and not necessarily from a driver's license
like Plaintiff's claim," the judge wrote.  "In short, Plaintiff
cannot show that his claim arises from the same event or course of
conduct as all class members."

Further, St. Eve noted Mr.  Pavone's nationwide class action
against iyeTek would be hamstrung by iyeTek's move to terminate
Meyerkord's access to accident reports through iyeCrash "shortly
after Plaintiff's car accident due to it violating the terms and
conditions of its agreement with iyeTek."  This, she said, would
demonstrate Mr.  Pavone's demand for an injunction barring iyeTek
from selling crash reports to lawyers who might use the
information to market to clients, as iyeTek had already taken
steps to enforce the terms of its commercial account agreements
which prohibit "the use of accident reports for commercial
solicitation purposes."

"As such, Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is clearly
incidental to the monetary relief he seeks," St. Eve wrote.

St. Eve's denial of class certification, however, comes about two
months since a different federal judge, Matthew F. Kennelly, gave
Pavone the green light to press ahead with his lawsuit against
Mancini. In that decision in late March, Kennelly said Mr. Pavone
had established harm from Mancini's use of Mr. Pavone's traffic
crash report information.

In that ruling, Kennelly had determined "a reasonable jury could
find that it would be readily apparent to anyone in Mancini's
position that a driver's license number comes from a driver's
license -- that is, from a motor vehicle record as the DPPA uses
that term."

St. Eve, however, said Kennelly's conclusion doesn't defeat
Meyerkord's and iyeTek's argument that the inclusion of a drivers
license number on a police report doesn't necessarily mean the
information was obtained from a person's drivers license, provided
to the police officer who created the crash report.

Meyerkord is represented in the action by attorneys with the firm
of Barnow & Associates, of Chicago.

LexisNexis and iyeTek are represented by the firm of Troutman
Sanders LLP, with offices in Chicago, San Francisco, Irvine,
Calif., and Richmond, Va. [GN]


MILLENNIUM PRODUCTS: Kombucha Buyers Eligible for Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
WSAW reports that consumers that purchased Kombucha products from
March 11, 2011 to Feb. 27. 2017 may be eligible to take part in a
class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges Millennium Products Inc. and Whole Foods
Market Inc. misrepresented the alcohol, sugar, and antioxidant
content of certain GT's kombucha products.

The kombucha products covered by this class action settlement
include several varieties of GT's Classic Kombucha, Classic
Synergy, Enlightened Kombucha and Enlightened Synergy products.

Millennium and Whole Foods deny any wrongdoing, but have agreed to
pay up to $8.25 million to settle the lawsuit.

Customers with proof of purchase are able to claim $60, those
without proof of purchase are entitled to up to $35.

The deadline to file was May 30.

Consumers can file a claim online at https://is.gd/RHFBK2
[GN]


MISSOURI: Court Won't Review Denial of Inmate's Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, RANDALL JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. ISAAC SONNY
COLLINS, et al., Defendants, No. 2:15-04018-CV-NKL (W.D. Mo.),
Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri, Central Division, denied the
Plaintiff's motion to reconsider and vacate two orders previously
entered in this case: an order denying his motion for partial
summary judgment, and an order denying his second motion for class
certification.

The Plaintiff is an atheist.  Following convictions relating to
driving while intoxicated, he was incarcerated in Missouri
Department of Corrections prisons from 2006-2008 and 2010-2014.
He originally filed this case pro se in 2012, alleging that the
Missouri Department of Corrections violated his rights under the
First Amendment.  He alleged that he was subject to a parole
stipulation requiring him to attend and complete a substance abuse
program, and that the Department was coercing him to participate
in religion-based programming, Alcoholics Anonymous, in order to
gain access to the benefit of early parole.

The case was dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. Section
1915, but that decision was reversed on Jackson's appeal.  Jackson
then filed his First Amended Complaint, including class
allegations.

In May 2015, Jackson's first motion for class certification was
denied without prejudice, and permitted Jackson to file another
motion after discovery and rulings on summary judgment.

After discovery, Jackson moved for summary judgment on his claim
that certain Missouri Department of Corrections practices should
be declared unconstitutional and enjoined.  The Defendants moved
for summary judgment on all claims. Jackson's motion was denied
and granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect
to that claim.  The judge further granted the Defendants' motions
for summary judgment with respect to Jackson's claim that the
Department of Corrections' refusal to permit him to expressly
identify himself as an atheist on prison forms violated his First
Amendment rights, as well as Jackson's claim for individual
damages under RLUIPA.

Jackson then moved for class certification for a second time,
which wasdenied on the bases that Jackson failed to meet any of
the requirements of Rule 23(a), and that the mootness of Jackson's
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief meant the Rules
Enabling Act operated to prohibit Jackson from serving as a class
representative.  Jackson filed a petition for leave to file an
interlocutory appeal in the Eighth Circuit, which was denied.

According to Judge Laughrey, nothing in Jackson's motion to
reconsider convinces the Court that de novo review is appropriate.
Judge Laughrey also notes that none of the authorities Jackson
cited suggests that the timing of the recusal of the judge who
formerly handled his case suffices to show bias or partiality, nor
is the Court aware of any such authority.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/ESkxgL from Leagle.com

Randall Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher A. Hoffman,
Korein Tillery LLC.

Randall Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Steven M. Berezney,
Korein Tillery LLC.

Isaac Sonny Collins, Defendant, represented by Amy C. Haywood,
Missouri Attorney General's Office, Charles W. Adamson, Missouri
Attorney General's Office, Douglas G. Leyshock, Missouri Attorney
General & Kayla Kemp, Missouri Attorney General's Office.

George A. Lombardi, Defendant, represented by Amy C. Haywood,
Missouri Attorney General's Office, Charles W. Adamson, Missouri
Attorney General's Office, Douglas G. Leyshock, Missouri Attorney
General & Kayla Kemp, Missouri Attorney General's Office.

Douglas A. Worsham, Defendant, represented by Amy C. Haywood,
Missouri Attorney General's Office, Charles W. Adamson, Missouri
Attorney General's Office, Douglas G. Leyshock, Missouri Attorney
General & Kayla Kemp, Missouri Attorney General's Office.

Martha V. Nolin, Defendant, represented by Amy C. Haywood,
Missouri Attorney General's Office, Charles W. Adamson, Missouri
Attorney General's Office, Douglas G. Leyshock, Missouri Attorney
General & Kayla Kemp, Missouri Attorney General's Office.

Alan Earls, Defendant, represented by Amy C. Haywood, Missouri
Attorney General's Office, Charles W. Adamson, Missouri Attorney
General's Office, Douglas G. Leyshock, Missouri Attorney General &
Kayla Kemp, Missouri Attorney General's Office.

Cyndi Prudden, Defendant, represented by Amy C. Haywood, Missouri
Attorney General's Office, Charles W. Adamson, Missouri Attorney
General's Office, Douglas G. Leyshock, Missouri Attorney General &
Kayla Kemp, Missouri Attorney General's Office.

Gateway Foundation Corrections, Defendant, represented by Ryan E.
Karaim, Franke, Schultz & Mullen.

Dwayne Cummins, Defendant, represented by Ryan E. Karaim, Franke,
Schultz & Mullen - KCMO.


MISSOURI: Non-Parties' Bid for Joinder in "Church" Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SHONDEL CHURCH, et. al., Plaintiffs, v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-04057-NKL
(W.D. Mo.), Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Central
Division, denied the non-parties' pro se motion for joinder.

This lawsuit challenges funding for the Missouri State Public
Defender, which provides legal representation to all indigent
citizens accused or convicted of crimes in Missouri state court.
The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging Missouri
"has failed to meet its constitutional obligation to provide
indigent defendants with meaningful representation."

Roughly 300 non-parties move to join this lawsuit.  The Movants
are "indigent, incarcerated, past and present clients of the
Missouri State Public Defenders Office."  Both the Plaintiffs and
the State Defendants oppose the motion.

The Court held that joinder is mandatory only when the party is
necessary.  Here, joinder of the Movants is not required because
their absence would not impair the court's ability to accord
complete relief in the form of injunctive and declaratory relief,
Judge Laughrey ruled.  The Movants will benefit from whatever
prospective relief Plaintiffs secure as a result of belonging to
the putative class, the judge said.

Insofar as some of the Movants may have charges pending before the
state court, they are adequately represented by the class
representatives, who will protect their interests, the judge
added.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/zQ2O4u from Leagle.com

Shondel Church, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Scherzer, pro hac
vice.

Shondel Church, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Elizabeth Breihan,
MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis, Anthony E. Rothert,
American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, Easha
Anand, Orrick, pro hac vice, Evan Rose, Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe, Gillian R. Wilcox, American Civil Liberties Union of
Missouri Foundation, Jessie Steffan, American Civil Liberties
Union of Missouri Foundation, Mae C. Quinn, MacArthur Justice
Center at St. Louis, Matthew R. Shahabian, Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe, pro hac vice & Robert L. Sills, pro hac vice.

Randall Lee Dalton, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Scherzer, pro
hac vice, Amy Elizabeth Breihan, MacArthur Justice Center at St.
Louis, Anthony E. Rothert, American Civil Liberties Union of
Missouri Foundation, Easha Anand, Orrick, pro hac vice, Evan Rose,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Gillian R. Wilcox, American Civil
Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, Jessie Steffan, American
Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, Mae C. Quinn,
MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis, Matthew R. Shahabian,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, pro hac vice & Robert L. Sills,
pro hac vice.

Dorian Samuels, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Scherzer, pro hac
vice, Amy Elizabeth Breihan, MacArthur Justice Center at St.
Louis, Anthony E. Rothert, American Civil Liberties Union of
Missouri Foundation, Easha Anand, Orrick, pro hac vice, Evan Rose,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Gillian R. Wilcox, American Civil
Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, Jessie Steffan, American
Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, Mae C. Quinn,
MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis, Matthew R. Shahabian,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, pro hac vice & Robert L. Sills,
pro hac vice.

Viola Bowman, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Scherzer, pro hac
vice, Amy Elizabeth Breihan, MacArthur Justice Center at St.
Louis, Anthony E. Rothert, American Civil Liberties Union of
Missouri Foundation, Easha Anand, Orrick, pro hac vice, Evan Rose,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Gillian R. Wilcox, American Civil
Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, Jessie Steffan, American
Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, Mae C. Quinn,
MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis, Matthew R. Shahabian,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, pro hac vice & Robert L. Sills,
pro hac vice.

Brian Richman, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Scherzer, pro hac
vice, Amy Elizabeth Breihan, MacArthur Justice Center at St.
Louis, Anthony E. Rothert, American Civil Liberties Union of
Missouri Foundation, Easha Anand, Orrick, pro hac vice, Evan Rose,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Gillian R. Wilcox, American Civil
Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, Jessie Steffan, American
Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, Mae C. Quinn,
MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis, Matthew R. Shahabian,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, pro hac vice & Robert L. Sills,
pro hac vice.

State of Missouri, Defendant, represented by Laura E. Elsbury,
Missouri Attorney General's Office, Michael D. Quinlan, Missouri
Attorney General's Office & Dean John Sauer, Missouri Attorney
General's Office.

Eric Greitens, Defendant, represented by Laura E. Elsbury,
Missouri Attorney General's Office, Michael D. Quinlan, Missouri
Attorney General's Office & Dean John Sauer, Missouri Attorney
General's Office.

Michael Barrett, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Shipma,
Missouri State Public Defender.

H. Riley Bock, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Shipma,
Missouri State Public Defender.

Charles R Jackson, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Shipma,
Missouri State Public Defender.

Craig Chval, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Shipma, Missouri
State Public Defender.

A. Crista Hogan, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline Shipma,
Missouri State Public Defender.


NAILS BY VIVIAN: "Yu" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Yu Bo Song, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nails by Vivian, LLC, d/b/a
Nails by Vivian, Thuc Vy Pham, Vivian Pham and Rain Pham,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03157, (E.D. N.Y., May 24, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs
and compensation for failure to provide wage notice at the time of
hiring under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York
Labor Law.

Yu Bo Song worked for the Defendants' adult day care business
located at 535 Pike Street, Mattituck, NY 11952 from October 15,
2016 to April 8, 2017.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     Hang & Associates, PLLC
     136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Tel: (718) 353-8588
     Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


NANTHEALTH INC: Bucks County Sues Over Overpriced IPO
-----------------------------------------------------
Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nanthealth, Inc.,
Patrick Soon-Shiong, Paul A. Holt, Michael S. Sitrick, Kirk K.
Calhoun, Mark Burnett, Edward Miller, Michael Blasyzk, Jefferies
LLC, Co Wen and Company, LLC, First Analysis Securities
Corporation, Canaccord Genuity Inc., FBR Capital Markets & Co. and
Does 1-25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC662330 (Cal. Super.,
May 22, 2017), seeks compensatory damages including interest
thereon, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, reasonable
costs and expenses incurred including counsel fees and expert fees
and such equitable/injunctive or other relief for violation of the
Securities Act of 1933.

NantHealth, a cloud-based information technology healthcare
company, provides diagnostics tailored to specific molecular
profiles of patient tissues, integrating the molecular data with
real-time biometric signal and phenotypic data to track patient
outcomes and deliver precision medicine including the Genomic
Proteomic Spectrometry Cancer test that allegedly enables
diagnosis at the molecular level by measuring the whole genome and
proteome of a patient.

NantHealth issued offering documents for its Initial Public
Offering that failed to disclose that its founder, Soon-Shiong,
had donated funds through non-profit organizations to the
University of Utah for the purpose of funneling those funds back
into NantHealth; that the company violated federal tax laws; and
that the company reported false and inflated cancer test order
figures for its Genomic Proteomic Spectrometry results. [BN]

Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund purchased NantHealth
securities in the IPO at allegedly inflated prices.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James L. Jaconette, Esq.
     David C. Walton, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Fax: (619) 231-7423
     Phone: (619) 231-1058


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Walker" Suit Transferred to Chicago Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action
transferred to Chicago, Illinois, is led by a former Big 12 NCAA
athlete who suffered numerous concussions while playing football
at University of Texas in the late '90s.

The case was originally filed in the Southern District of Indiana.
The case is captioned, JOSEPH WALKER Plaintiff, v. THE NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, AND THE BIG 12 CONFERENCE, INC.
a/k/a THE BIG TWELVE CONFERENCE, INC. Defendants. Case: 1:17-cv-
03949 (S.D. Ind., May 10, 2017).

According to the complaint, "No matter the popularity and
profitability of any college sport, player safety must come first.
This is especially true of "amateur" college football, which has
over the past few decades rivaled the NFL and other professional
sports in popularity, and profitability. Yet Defendants sacrificed
player safety -- including the Plaintiff's and the Class' long-
term health and wellbeing -- in favor of profits and self-
promotion.

Attorney for Plaintiff:

     Vincent Circelli, Esq.
     CIRCELLI, WALTER & YOUNG, PLLC
     Tindall Square Warehouse
     500 E. 4th Street, Suite 250
     Fort Worth, Texas 76102
     Tel: (682) 703-2246
     E-mail: vinny@cwylaw.com


NELSON & WATSON: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Maldonado"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ALFREDO MALDONADO, on behalf of himself
and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NELSON, WATSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLC; CBE GROUP; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:15-cv-05940-MAH (D.N.J.), The Hon. Judge Michael A.
Hammer entered an order certifying a Settlement Class of:

      "all Consumers who reside in the State of New Jersey to
      whom Nelson, Watson & Associates, LLC or CBE Group mailed a
      written communication during the period beginning August 3,
      2014, and ending August 3, 2015, in an attempt to collect a
      debt on behalf of Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., which were
      mailed in a windowed envelope such that certain alpha
      numeric information associated with the consumer's debt was
      visible from the outside of the envelope".

In accordance with the terms of the Agreement, Defendants shall
make these payments:

   a. Defendants shall create a class settlement fund of
      $19,000.00 (Class Recovery), which the Settlement
      Administrator will distribute pro rata among those Class
      Members who did not exclude themselves from the Settlement
      ("Claimants"). Claimants will receive a pro rata share of
      the Class Recovery by check but such pro rata share shall
      not exceed $500.00 for each Class Member who submits a
      claim form. Checks issued to Claimants will be void 60 days
      from the date of issuance. Any checks that have not been
      cashed by the void date, along with any unclaimed funds
      remaining in the Class Recovery, will be donated as a
      cypres award to The Center for Social Justice at Seton Hall
      School of Law.

   b. Defendants shall pay Plaintiff $1,000.

   c. Defendants shall pay Class Counsel $28,000 for their
      attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the action. Class
      Counsel shall not request additional fees or costs from
      Defendants or Class Members.

Dahl Administration is the third party settlement administrator.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=m1yIzeRF


OSCAR DE LA RENTA: Intern's Bid to Remand Class Action Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Domanick, Esq. -- Timothy.Domanick@jacksonlewis.com -- of
Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for JDSupra, wrote that in a
somewhat unusual ruling, a New York federal court denied an unpaid
intern's attempt to remand a putative wage-hour class action
against Oscar de la Renta to state court even though the case was
removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA") approximately two years after the case was filed.

CAFA

Under CAFA, federal courts have jurisdiction over class actions if
the defendant establishes "a reasonable probability" that the
class has more than 100 members, the parties are minimally
diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.
Specific, enumerated exceptions to CAFA include the "local
controversy" and the "home state" exceptions.  Generally, under
both exceptions, the federal court cannot assert jurisdiction over
class actions that involve "local" parties and controversies
(i.e., involving parties and controversies from the forum state).

Removal After Two Years Considered Timely

Principle to the Court's finding was a rejection of Plaintiff's
argument concerning timeliness.  Plaintiff argued that notice of
removal was untimely since it was filed more than 30 days after
the employer could have determined that the amount in controversy
exceeded $5 million "with a reasonable amount of intelligence" by
reviewing its own records.

When Oscar de la Renta ultimately conducted its own internal
investigation, including a review of it s documents to determine
the number of individuals who interned during the statutory
period, it learned the proposed class contained approximately 600
individuals and the $5 million amount in controversy threshold was
satisfied.  As a result, it sought removal.

Plaintiff argued the employer needed to review its own records to
determine that the CAFA requirements were met, and that failing to
do so for two years was unreasonable.

The Court disagreed.  The Complaint stated the potential class
exceeded 40 individuals, and the Court found this alleged number
of proposed class members would not yield an amount in controversy
approaching $5 million.  Instead, with just 40 alleged class
members, the amount in controversy would be less than $500,000.
The Court held that CAFA does not require a defendant to look
beyond the pleadings and related documents to determine if the
requirements are met, and failure to conduct an investigation
earlier provided no basis for concluding that removal was
untimely.  The Court also found that the CAFA exceptions did not
apply as the Plaintiff failed to prove their application absent
anecdotal arguments.

Takeaway

While we would not go so far as to say that "it's never too late"
to apply CAFA, this ruling shows that, even years after filing,
the CAFA requirements can be met for the first time, and removal
to federal court may be an option.  As a result, defendants should
always take a fresh look at each stage of the litigation to see if
the requirements have been met in the first instance.  But once
the CAFA requirements are satisfied, remove quickly.  Failure to
do so may result in the removal application being denied.  After
all, "time makes fools of us all." [GN]


PACIFIC LINE: "Palafox" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Palafox as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pacific Line Clean-Up, Inc., a
California Corporation; and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case
No. 30-2017-00921632 (Cal. Super., May 22, 2017), seeks recovery
of unpaid wages and penalties under the California Business and
Professions Code, California Labor Code and applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders in addition to seeking declaratory
relief and restitution.

Defendants provide cleanup services for construction sites by
clearing and removing cement, trash and other debris. Plaintiff
was employed by Defendants from approximately February 2016 to
January 2017. He claims to be denied overtime pay, worked through
meal/rest periods and did not receive accurate wage statements.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
      Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
      PACHAINES LAW GROUP, APC
      2274 East Maple Ave.
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Tel: (424) 292-2350
      Fax: (424) 292-2355
      Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
             tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
             sblakely@haineslawgroup.com


PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: "Shamis" Hits Missed Meal/Rest Periods
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eduard Shamis, Plaintiffs, v. Pepperdine University and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, BC662341 (Cal. Super., May 22,
2017), is a class action seeking restitution of all monies due,
penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the applicable Industrial Welfare
and Commission Wage Orders, California Labor Code and the
California Business & Professions Code.

Shamis worked as a security guard within the university grounds.
He claims to have been denied meal and/or rest breaks. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
     K.L. Myles, Esq.
     KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
     550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
     Glendale, CA 91203-1922
     Telephone: (818) 547-5000
     Facsimile: (818) 547-5329
     Email: aej@kpclegal.com
            klm@kpclegal.com


PINNACLE MANAGEMENT: Prasad Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE PRASAD, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of a class
of those similarly situated or aggrieved, the Plaintiffs, v.
PINNACLE MANAGEMENT SERVICES COMPANY, LLC, and PINNACLE PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-02794-
HRL (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, as
well as all overtime compensation, due under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and California law.

This class, collective, and representative action case arises out
of Defendants' systemic unlawful treatment of Plaintiff and other
similarly situated current and former on-site property managers.
The Plaintiff alleges that she and other Property Managers
throughout the United States: were misclassified as exempt from
the overtime protections of the FLSA; are entitled to unpaid wages
from Pinnacle for work performed for which they did not receive
any compensation, as well as overtime work for which they did not
receive any overtime premium pay as required by law, and are
entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA.

Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that she and other Property
Managers in California were misclassified as exempt from the
overtime protections of California Labor Code; are entitled to
unpaid wages from Defendant for work performed for which they did
not receive any compensation as well as overtime work for which
they did not receive any overtime premium pay as required by law;
are entitled to meal and rest period premiums under Labor Code
section 226.7 for Pinnacle's failure to provide meal or rest
periods as required by the applicable Wage Order; are entitled to
statutory damages for Pinnacle's failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements under Labor Code section 226; will be
entitled to civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorney
General Act (PAGA) once these claims have been administratively
exhausted, and (vi) are entitled to restitution and an injunction
under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) Business and Professions
Code section.

Pinnacle handles property management for multifamily and office
properties nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Lohr, Esq.
          Alec L. Segarich, Esq.
          LOHR RIPAMONTI & SEGARICH LLP
          140 Geary Street, 4F
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 683 7266
          Facsimile: (415) 683 7267
          E-mail: jason.lohr@lrllp.com
                  alec.segarich@lrllp.com


PRECISION DRILLING: "Montes" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOEL MONTES on behalf of himself
individually, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs,
v. PRECISION DRILLING COMPANY LP, PD SUPPLY INC., and PRECISION
Sec. DRILLING CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01012
(S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to:

   1. conditionally certify this case a collective action with
      respect to:

      "class of welders who worked for Defendants at any time
      during the last three years";

   2. authorize delivery of the proposed notice and consent forms
      to all welders who worked for defendants in the past three
      years; and

   3. require Defendants to produce the names and all known
      addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, and email
      addresses for all Class Members so that notice may be
      implemented.

Mr. Joel Montes filed this collective action lawsuit under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) seeking to recover unpaid wages
that were wrongfully denied to him and similarly situated welders.
About 11 other current and former employees of Defendants joined
this lawsuit.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRIDE: Mobility Scooter Class Action in UK Faces Hurdle
-------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Ziegler, Esq. -- rachel.ziegler@blplaw.com -- of Berwin
Leighton Paisner LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that the
UK's first opt-out class action judgment, the Competition Appeal
Tribunal has refused to allow the Claimant to proceed unless it
reformulates its claim appropriately.  Whilst the Tribunal did
allow the opportunity for the Claimant to return with a
reformulated claim (suggesting the Tribunal is keen for these
claims to advance where possible), it has recently been confirmed
that the application is not being pursued.

Background

The ability to bring collective actions was introduced in October
2015 by the Consumer Rights Act.  Under the new rules, any person
can apply for permission to bring claims for competition law
infringements, acting as a representative for a class of persons
who are alleged to have suffered losses as a result of the
infringement.  The proposed class representative must first apply
for a Collective Proceedings Order from the Competition Appeal
Tribunal ("CAT") which will be granted if (a) the claim is
certified as eligible and (b) the class representative is
authorised as suitable.  In May 2016, Ms Dorothy Gibson -- the
General Secretary of the National Pensioners Convention -- made
the first such application, against Pride Mobility Scooters
Limited.

Ms Gibson's claim was a follow-on action in respect of
infringements found in the Office of Fair Trading's ("OFT")
Decision of 2014.  The Decision related to agreements between
Pride and eight of its retailers ("the Relevant Retailers") which
prohibited them from advertising certain models online at prices
below the recommended retail price ("the Prohibition").  The claim
sought damages on behalf of everyone who purchased a Pride
mobility scooter in the UK between 1 February 2010 and 29 February
2012 (including purchases from retailers who were not subject to
the Prohibition).  It was estimated that the class comprised of
between 27,000-32,000 people and losses were estimated at between
GBP2.7 million and GBP3.2 million (excluding interest).

Judgment

Follow-on claim

The problem Ms Gibson faced was that her claim had been formulated
as a follow-on claim but the Decision only found an infringement
in relation to the Relevant Retailers.  Ms Gibson sought to argue
that the damage suffered flowed from Pride's market-wide policy
and the conduct had affected the whole mobility scooter marker.
The CAT disagreed, saying that a follow-on claim could only be in
relation to losses suffered by consumers specifically as a result
of the infringements found by the OFT, and not those that flowed
from Pride's policy (a stand-alone claim could not be brought as
it would have been time barred under the new rules).  The judgment
stated: "If we were to adopt the approach urged by [Ms Gibson], we
would [. . .] allow [Ms Gibson] to circumvent the boundaries of a
follow-on action, and in effect recover for the represented class
by the back door what she could not recover by the front".

The CAT adjourned the application to allow Ms Gibson and her
economic advisers an opportunity to reformulate the claim. In
doing so (despite objections from Pride), the Tribunal pointed out
that claimants are usually allowed the opportunity to amend their
case in advance of trial: "we do not see that a harsher test
should apply just because these are collective proceedings".
Referring to the particularly vulnerable consumers that the
proposed class incorporated, the judgment states: "if there is a
plausible way in which [Ms Gibson] may be able to pursue
collective proceedings on their behalf, it would be harsh to deny
her that opportunity".  However, a court order dated 11 May 2017
makes clear that, in the event, Ms Gibson "has decided not to
pursue her application for a collective proceedings order".

Lessons for opt-out actions

Despite this, the judgment gave some useful guidance as to how the
CAT will view these sorts of cases in the future:

Canadian approach: The CAT took the opportunity to make it clear
that it did not intend to follow a US approach to class
certification, but indicated a willingness to consider Canadian
case law and in particular the test that any expert methodology
proposed must be "credible and plausible".

Expert methodology: The methodology being proposed by Ms Gibson's
economists was subject to a fair amount of scrutiny, with her
expert being called as a witness and questioned by the Tribunal
about his proposed methodology and the feasibility of his approach
to the calculation of damages.  This was in order to ascertain
whether a "sufficiently sound and proper basis" had been
established for the case to proceed.

Suitability of class representative: The CAT confirmed that it was
just and reasonable for Ms Gibson to act as class representative.
Although she had no prior litigation experience the Tribunal found
her to be an experienced campaigner and spokesperson for the
National Pensioners Convention who had properly instructed a law
firm and class action administration company with experience of
group litigation.  The CAT also seemed to adopt a fairly "light
touch" approach as regards adverse costs. Although it was noted
that the ATE cover that had been arranged by the Claimant was not
sufficient to cover all of Pride's costs, the Tribunal simply
noted that: "we do not at this stage consider that the question of
her ability to pay Pride's recoverable costs is a basis for
refusing to authorise Ms Gibson to act as class representative".

Disclosure from third parties: In inviting Ms Gibson to
reformulate her claim, the Tribunal suggested that "limited orders
for third party disclosure may be necessary", despite the fact
that disclosure, for the purposes of the CPO application, is
discouraged in the new rules.

BLP Assessment

The CAT's decision to adjourn the CPO application, rather than
dismissing it altogether, indicates a willingness on its part to
encourage opt-out claims.  One assumes, given the apparently
limited scope, on the facts, for any strictly follow-on claim,
that the costs/benefit analysis simply did not stack up for Ms
Gibson. Although, for those following these fledgling opt-out
class actions with interest, it is disappointing that this claim
will ultimately not be proceeding, the judgment gives a useful
insight for practitioners or individuals considering bringing
these claims in the future.  Some clarity has been provided in
relation to the approach the CAT will adopt in future cases as
regards issues such as the expert analysis required to test the
claim and the suitability of the proposed class representative.
[GN]


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Nelson Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL
LABORATORIES, INC,; QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED; QUEST
DIAGNOSTICS NICHOLS INSTITUTE; QUEST DIAGNOSTICS DOMESTIC HOLDER
LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC660722 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 15, 2017), seeks monetary relief
against Defendants on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated in California to recover, among other things, unpaid
wages and benefits, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses
and penalties pursuant to Labor Code.

Henry Nelson brings this putative class action against Defendants,
on behalf of himself individually and a putative class of non-
exempt employees employed by Defendants throughout California. The
Defendants provide laboratory services throughout California.
Through this action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have
engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under
tire California Labor Code and Industrial
Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders, all of which contribute to
Defendants deliberate unfair competition.

The Plaintiff alleges, that Defendants have increased their
profits by violating state wage and hour laws by failing to pay
all wages (including minimum wages and overtime wages); failing to
provide meal periods or compensation; failing to authorize or
permit rest breaks or provide compensation; failing to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; and failing to pay all wages
due upon separation of employment.

Quest Diagnostics is a Fortune 500 American company providing
clinical laboratory services with headquarters in Madison, New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251


RANBAXY INC: Faces Meijer Suit in District of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ranbaxy, Inc.  The
case is captioned as MEIJER, INC. and MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Petitioners, v. RANBAXY, INC.; RANBAXY LABORATORIES, LTD.; RANBAXY
U.S.A., INC.; and SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., the
Respondents, Case No. 3:17-cv-03613-AET-TJB (D.N.J., May 15,
2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Anne E. Thompson.

Ranbaxy Inc. manufacturers and distributes prescription, branded,
and over-the-counter drugs in the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King Of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667 7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667 7056
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com


REGIONS FINANCIAL: "Ratchford" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Ratchford, Kay Mitchell, Gina Nuckolls, Courtney Roberson and
Patty Becknell, on behalf of themselves and of all others
similarly situated who consent to representation, Plaintiffs v.
Regions Financial Corporation, Regions Bank, a subsidiary of
Regions Financial Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00100
(N.D. Ga., May 22, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, reasonable expenses of litigation and
attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants are full-service providers of consumer and commercial
banking, wealth management, mortgage, and insurance products and
services where Plaintiffs worked as Mortgage Loan Originators.
Ratchford worked in Defendants' Whitfield County, Georgia office.
Mitchell and Becknell worked in Defendants' Hamilton County,
Tennessee office. Nuckolls worked in Defendants' Pickens County,
Georgia office. Roberson worked in Defendants' Dawson, Hall and
Lumpkin County offices in Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
     J. Cameron Tribble, Esq.
     BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
     31 Atlanta Street
     Marietta, GA 30060
     Phone: (770) 227-6375
     Fax: (770) 227-6373
     Email: roy@barneslawgroup.com
            ctribble@barneslawgroup.com

             - and -

     R. Leslie Waycaster, Jr., Esq.
     Timothy H. Allred, Esq.
     R. LESLIE WAYCASTER, JR. P.C.
     130 W. King Street
     Dalton, GA 30720
     Phone: (706) 226-0100
     Email: 1eslie@waycaster-law.com
            tim@waycaster-law.com


RHODE ISLAND: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Disableds' FAPE Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff K.S. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled K.S. v. RI Board of Education, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-
00077-S-LDA, in the U.S. District Court for the District Court of
Rhode Island, Providence.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 17,
2017, Chief District Judge William E. Smith denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Summary Judgment and granted the Defendant's Cross-
Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Plaintiffs are a certified statewide class of disabled
individuals who, "but for turning 21, would otherwise qualify or
would have qualified for a free appropriate public education until
age 22 because they have not or had not yet earned a regular high
school diploma."  The Plaintiffs claim that Section 300.101 of
Rhode Island's Regulations Governing the Education of Children
with Disabilities, permitting local education agencies (LEAs) to
terminate disabled students' special-education services at age 21,
violates their Individuals with Disabilities Education Act right
to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) between the ages of
21 and 22.

The appellate case is captioned as K.S. v. RI Board of Education,
et al., Case No. 17-1517, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant K.S., through her parent C.S. on behalf of a
class of those similarly situated, is represented by:

          Paul Alston, Esq.
          ALSTON HUNT FLOYD & ING
          1001 Bishop St., Suite 1800
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 524-1888
          E-mail: PAlston@ahfi.com

               - and -

          Sonja Linnea Deyoe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SONJA DEYOE
          395 Smith Street
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 864-5877

               - and -

          Jason H. Kim, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          180 Montgomery St., Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          E-mail: jkim@schneiderwallace.com

Defendants-Appellees RHODE ISLAND BOARD OF EDUCATION, by and
through its Chair Barbara S. Cottam; WARWICK SCHOOL COMMITTEE, as
a representative of a class of Local Educational Agencies
similarly situated by and through its Chair Jennifer Ahearn;
BETHANY A. FURTADO, in her official capacity as Chair of the
Warwick School Committee; WILLIAM DAY; BARBARA S. COTTAM, in her
official capacity as Chair of the Rhode Island Board of Education;
and CHARIHO REGIONAL SCHOOL COMMITTEE, by and through its Chair,
Craig Louzon, are represented by:

          Jon Mason Anderson, Esq.
          BRENNAN RECUPERO CASCIONE SCUNGIO & MCALLISTER LLP
          362 Broadway
          Providence, RI 02909-0000
          Telephone: (401) 453-2300
          E-mail: janderson@brcsm.com

Defendants-Appellees RHODE ISLAND BOARD OF EDUCATION, by and
through its Chair Barbara S. Cottam; and BARBARA S. COTTAM, in her
official capacity as Chair of the Rhode Island Board of Education,
are represented by:

          Paul V. Sullivan, Esq.
          SULLIVAN SIGNORE WHITEHEAD & DE LUCA LLP
          86 Weybosset St., Suite 400
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 861-9900
          Facsimile: (401) 861-9977
          E-mail: psullivan@swdlawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee WARWICK SCHOOL COMMITTEE, as a representative
of a class of Local Educational Agencies similarly situated by and
through its Chair Jennifer Ahearn, is represented by:

          Andrew David Henneous, Esq.
          Michael John Polak, Esq.
          BRENNAN RECUPERO CASCIONE SCUNGIO & MCALLISTER LLP
          362 Broadway
          Providence, RI 02909-0000
          Telephone: (401) 453-2300
          Facsimile: (401) 453-2345
          E-mail: ahenneous@brcsm.com
                  mpolak@brcsm.com


RODAN + FIELDS: Sued in Cal. Over Automatic Renewal Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Tess Villegas and Gina Matthews, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Rodan + Fields, LLC, Case No. 3:17-
cv-03014-LB (N.D. Cal., May 25, 2017), arises from Rodan +
Fields's unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent practice of not
disclosing, in a clear and conspicuous manner, the existence of an
automatic renewal program and continuous service program in the
"PC Perks" program it offers to the general public.

Headquartered at 60 Spear Street, Suite 600, San Francisco,
California 94105, Rodan + Fields, LLC sells skincare products.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hank Bates, Esq.
      Allen Carney, Esq.
      CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
      519 West 7th Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      Telephone: (501) 312-8500
      Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
      E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
              acarney@cbplaw.com


SARGENTO FOODS: Stanton Sues Over Natural Cheese Branding
---------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Stanton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sargento Foods, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-02881 (N.D. Cal., May 19, 2017), seeks
compensatory damages, punitive damages, and restitution of any
illgotten gains due to Defendant's acts and practices.

The Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, that from September 19, 2012, to the date of
class certification, Defendant deceptively and misleadingly
marketed, and continues to deceptively and misleadingly market,
Sargento brand cheese products as "Natural" when, in fact, those
cheese products contain ingredients derived using unnatural
genetically modified organisms ("GMOs"); or from cows given
unnatural recombinant Bovine Soatotropin ("rbST"); or use the
methodologies to raise the cows and obtain their milk; or does not
meet the organic standard for cheese. The deceptive and misleading
cheese products include, but are not limited to the following, all
of Defendant's cheese products prominently labeled as "Natural".

The Defendant's "Natural" claim is deceptive and misleading
because the Products contain ingredients derived from genetically
modified organisms, which are not natural. Specifically, all of
the Products are produced from casein, a protein in milk. On
information and belief, the cows that produce the casein in the
Products are fed GMO corn and/or GMO soy, or given rbST, which are
not natural. Thus, the casein Defendant uses to make the Products
is not "Natural," and the final cheese Products are not "Natural."

Sargento Foods is an American food producer best known for its
cheese. It was established in 1953 in Plymouth, Wisconsin, by
Leonard Gentine and Joseph Sartori.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, New York 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643 0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253 4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
          Charles D. Moore, Esq.
          HALUNEN LAW
          1650 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605 4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605 4099
          E-mail: Wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
                  Moore@halunenlaw.com


SAUL CHEVROLET: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Rivera" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Saul Chevrolet, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Marcos Rivera v. Saul Chevrolet,
Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-05966-LHK, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose.

The Defendants-Appellants are SAUL CHEVROLET, INC., a California
corporation; CARDINALE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP OF TAHOE, INC., a
California corporation; CARDINALE AG NEVADA, INC., a Nevada
corporation; CARDINALE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP ARIZONA, INC., an Arizona
corporation; CARDINALE OLDSMOBILE GMC TRUCK, INC., a California
corporation; CARDINALE AG MOTORBIKE, INC., a California
corporation; CARDINALE NISSAN, INC., a California corporation; and
CARDINALE PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC., a California corporation.

The other Defendants are CARDINALE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, a California
business entity; CARDINALEWAY ACURA, a Nevada business entity;
VOLKSWAGEN HYUNDAI, a California business entity; CARDINALEWAY
MAZDA AT PEORIA, an Arizona business entity; and CARDINALEWAY
MAZDA AT SUPERSTITION SPRINGS, an Arizona business entity.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act for alleged failure to pay overtime for work
performed in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a car dealership company throughout
California.

The appellate case is captioned as Marcos Rivera v. Saul
Chevrolet, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-16028, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by June 16, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on July 17, 2017;

   -- Appellants Cardinale AG Motorbike, Inc., Cardinale AG
      Nevada, Inc., Cardinale Automotive Group Arizona, Inc.,
      Cardinale Automotive Group of Tahoe, Inc., Cardinale
      Nissan, Inc., Cardinale Oldsmobile GMC Truck, Inc.,
      Cardinale Protective Services, Inc. and Saul Chevrolet,
      Inc.'s opening brief is due on August 25, 2017;

   -- Appellee Marcos Rivera's answering brief is due on
      September 25, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee MARCOS RIVERA, individually, on behalf of the
general public, and all other similarly situated, is represented
by:

      Kyle Todd, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KYLE TODD
      611 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1112
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (323) 312-4890
      Facsimile: (323) 693-0822
      E-mail: kyle@kyletodd.com

Defendants-Appellants SAUL CHEVROLET, INC., a California
corporation; CARDINALE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP OF TAHOE, INC., a
California corporation; CARDINALE AG NEVADA, INC., a Nevada
corporation; CARDINALE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP ARIZONA, INC., an Arizona
corporation; CARDINALE OLDSMOBILE GMC TRUCK, INC., a California
corporation; CARDINALE AG MOTORBIKE, INC., a California
corporation; CARDINALE NISSAN, INC., a California corporation; and
CARDINALE PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC., a California corporation, are
represented by:

          Shaun Jordan Voigt, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
          2050 Main Street, Suite # 1000
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 851-2424
          Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
          E-mail: svoigt@fisherphillips.com


SCHOOL SAFETY: Sent Unsolicited Facsimile Ads, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. School Safety Czar, Inc. d/b/a Public Safety
Czar, Case No. 7:17-cv-03980 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2017), seeks to
stop the Defendant's practice of sending out over five thousand
unsolicited and solicited fax advertisements for goods and
services without proper opt-out notices to persons throughout the
United States.

Located at 101 Convention Center Drive, Suite 700, Las Vegas,
Nevada 89109-2007, School Safety Czar, Inc. sells security and
communications products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
      BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
      85 Miles Avenue
      White Plains, NY 10606
      Telephone: (914) 358-5345
      Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
      E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com


SILVER CARE: "Trischler" Suit Sues Over Employment Suspension
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Trischler, the Plaintiff, v. SCO, SILVER CARE OPERATIONS,
LLC; FUTURE CARE CONSULTANTS, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, the
Defendant, Case No. L-2000-17 (N.J. Super. Ct., May 15, 2017), is
filed pursuant to the Conscientious Employee Protection Act
(CEPA), alleging that plaintiff was terminated for refusing to
participate in conduct which she reasonably believed to be
unlawful.

Plaintiff was employed by the defendants from on or about January
4, 2016 until her unlawful termination on or about January 26,
2017. The Plaintiff was employed at a long term care nursey
facility previously known as Alaris Health and presently known as
Silver Care Center. When defendants submit to regular audits by
the state of New Jersey, they disclose and share the point click
care records. During the course of her employment, plaintiff was
regularly directed by Jessie Gonzalez, the social services
director, and Kathleen Cassidy, the director of nursing, to not
enter items into point click care but to instead note them in the
soft chart.

According to the complaint, in October or November 2016,
defendants issued plaintiff a performance improvement plan stating
that there had been a number of complaints to the department of
health regarding their facility. The complaints were not about
plaintiff specifically and the PIP was issued in retaliation for
plaintiffs CEPA protected conduct and to further discourage her
conduct going forward. Plaintiff continued documenting issues in
point click care, including into the first
week of January 2017 when she documented a complaint by a
resident's sister of ongoing missing personal items. The next day,
plaintiff was again advised not to place such items in point click
care, as it could expose the facility to liability, and to instead
only document them in the soft chart.

Plaintiff admitted that she was out on the dates in question, but
that she had called out in advance. Nonetheless, plaintiff was
suspended. A determinative and/or motivating factor in plaintiffs
suspension was plaintiff's CEPA protected conduct.

The Plaintiff requests that this Court order the defendants to
cease and desist all conduct inconsistent with the claims made
going forward, both as to the specific plaintiff
and as to all other individuals similarly situated.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727 9700


SIMM ASSOCIATES: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JESSICA SMITH, on behalf of plaintiff and a
class, the Plaintiff, v. SIMM ASSOCIATES, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00769-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), Jessica Smith asks the
Court to certify a class of:

   "(a) all individuals in Wisconsin (b) who were sent a letter
   by SAI, (c) that disclosed someone as the "client" but not as
   the current creditor or owner of the debt (d) and whose letter
   were sent at any time between a period beginning one year
   prior to the filling of this action and ending 21 days after
   the filing of this action".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that Stern Thomasson LLP and
Edelman, Combs, Lattuner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for
the class.

The Defendant has been seeking to collect from plaintiff an
alleged debt, incurred for personal, family or household purposes,
and not for business purposes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=a9i99p1q

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Edelman, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 419 4500
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-mail: dedelam@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Heather B. Jones, Esq.
          Philip T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081 1329
          Telephone: (973) 379 7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532 5868
          E-mail: heather@sternthomasson.com


SIMONTON BUILDING: Kiefer Appeals Order and Judgment to 8th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Lisa Kiefer, Adam Arvig, Lynette Andersen, Sheri
Squillace, Justin Smith, Joan Corby and Koch Family Trust filed an
appeal from the District Court's order and judgment, both dated
April 17, 2017, entered in their lawsuit styled Lisa Kiefer, et
al. v. Simonton Building Products, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-03540-
RHK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota -
Minneapolis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was brought on October 17, 2016, and was assigned to Judge Richard
H. Kyle.

Simonton Building manufactures replacement and new construction
windows.

The nature of suit is stated as contract product liability.

The appellate case is captioned as Lisa Kiefer, et al. v. Simonton
Building Products, et al., Case No. 17-2095, 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 27, 2017;

   -- Appendix is due on July 7, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellants Lynette Andersen, Adam Arvig, Joan
      Corby, Lisa Kiefer, Koch Family Trust, Justin Smith and
      Sheri Squillace is due on July 7, 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 Lisa Kiefer, Adam Arvig, Lynette Andersen,
Sheri Squillace, Justin Smith, Joan Corby and Koch Family Trust,
on their own behalves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Michael J. Lowder, Esq.
          Alex M. Nelson, Esq.
          William J. Rogers, Esq.
          BENSON, KERRANE, STORZ & NELSON, P.C.
          7760 France Avenue, S., Suite 1350
          Bloomington, MN 55435
          Telephone: (952) 466 7574
          E-mail: mlowder@bensonpc.com
                  anelson@bensonpc.com
                  wrogers@bensonpc.com

Defendants-Appellees Simonton Building Products, LLC, an Ohio
limited liability company, formerly known as Simonton Building
Products, Inc.; Simonton Windows, Inc., a West Virginia for-profit
corporation; Simonton Industries, Inc., a for-profit corporation;
and Simonton Windows & Doors, Inc., a for-profit corporation, are
represented by:

          Jerry Blackwell, Esq.
          S. Jamal Faleel, Esq.
          Benjamin Winters Hulse, Esq.
          BLACKWELL BURKE P.A.
          431 S. Seventh Street, Suite 2500
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 343-3232
          E-mail: blackwell@blackwellburke.com
                  jfaleel@blackwellburke.com
                  bhulse@blackwellburke.com


SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA: "Hardoby" Suit Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Maxwell Tyler Hardoby, the Plaintiff, v.
SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA Regional Jail Authority (SWVRJA), the
Defendant, Case No. 7:16-CV-00103 (W.D. Va.), Mr. Hardoby asks
Court for class certification.

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

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SPOTLESS GROUP: Faces Second Class Action Over Financial Guidance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Trute and Drew Cratchley, writing for The Australian
Associated Press, report that Spotless Group is facing a second
class action over financial guidance it provided in 2015 that
caused a massive plunge in its share price.

Law firm Slater & Gordon on May 25 filed proceedings in the
Federal Court alleging Spotless issued guidance for its 2015/16
financial performance that misled investors.

Spotless, one of Australia's biggest providers of facilities
management services, is already the subject of a class action
filed in February by William Roberts Lawyers, which centres on the
accuracy of the company's financial results for the 2014/15
financial year, which formed the basis of its forecasts for the
following year.

The new legal action comes as the company deals with a $1.26
billion takeover bid by Downer EDI, which Spotless has again urged
shareholders to reject as its board believes the offer fails to
properly value the company's potential.

Slater & Gordon senior associate Mathew Chuk said Spotless
forecast in August 2015 an improvement in its financial
performance, and then downgraded its guidance three months later,
which triggered a fall in its share price of more than 50 per cent
over four days.

Spotless knew well before it made the downgrade that it was
unlikely to be able to meet its forecast, Mr Chuk said.

"This class action alleges that Spotless should never have set
market expectations so high in such circumstances," he said.

In a statement issued late on May 25, Spotless denied the
allegations and said it would vigorously defend the proceeding.

Downer has extended its offer to Spotless shareholders until mid-
June, but Spotless chairman Garry Hounsell said the board believes
shareholders can do better over the medium term by retaining
control of the company.

"We have a clear strategy to deliver earnings growth and we are
executing on it," Mr Hounsell said in a statement.

Spotless has a growing pipeline of contacts and it is turning
around its loss-making commercial laundries business, he said.
[GN]


ST. JOHN'S: "Romero" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Vacation Leaves
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erika L. Romero on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. St. John's Well Child and Family Center,
Inc., St. John's Well Child Center, St. John's Well Child Care
Center, Inc. and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC662146 (Cal.
Super., May 22, 2017), seeks compensation for missed meal periods,
unpaid vacation wages, statutory penalties for failure to provide
accurate and complete wage statements, waiting time penalties in
the form of continuation wages, applicable civil penalties,
injunctive relief and other equitable relief and reasonable
attorney's fees pursuant to the California Labor Code.

St. John's Well Child and Family Center is an independent
community health center serving patients through a network of
Federally Qualified Health Centers and school-based clinics that
span the breadth of Central and South Los Angeles and Compton.
Plaintiff worked for the Defendant for four years. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lavi, Esq.
      Jordan Bello, Esq.
      LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
      8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 432-0000
      Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
      Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
             jbello@lelawfirm.com

            - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II
      18250 Ventura Boulevard
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807
      Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
      Email: sahagii@aol.com


STEAKS AND GAME: Faces "Walker" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steaks and Game. The
case is styled as Ricardo Walker, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Steaks and Game, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03264 (E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2017).

Seaks and Game offers gourmet speciality meats such as wagyu beef,
grass fed beef, buffalo, pork, poultry, venison, elk and other
exotic game meats.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


STOCKTON ENTERPRISES: "Predmore" Hits Misclassification, Tip Cuts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Predmore individually and acting in the interest of other
current and former employees and the public, Plaintiff, v.
Stockton Enterprises, LLC, Deja Vu Showgirls - Sacramento, LLC and
Does 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case 2:17-at-00541 (E.D. Cal.,
May 24, 2017) seeks penalties arising from Defendants' willful
misclassification of employees as independent contractors, from
the charging of fees or deduction of wages, compensation for all
hours worked at the state minimum and overtime rates, failure to
comply with rest and meal period requirements, failure to maintain
records and furnish accurate wage statements, failure to provide
timely compensation, reimbursement of expenses and withheld tips
under the California Labor Code and violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked as an exotic dancer for Defendants' Club, Deja
Vu. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
      Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
      Marco A. Palau, Esq.
      Joseph D. Sutton, Esq.
      Eric S. Trabucco, Esq.
      MALLISON & MARTINEZ
      1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
      Oakland, CA 94612-3547
      Telephone: (510) 832-9999
      Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
      Email: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
             HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
             MPalau@TheMMLawFirm.com
             JSutton@TheMMLawFirm.com
             ETrabucco@TheMMLawFirm.com


SWEET HOME: Jackson, et al. Seek to Certify Health Aides Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled NAKIA JACKSON, et al. the Plaintiffs, v.
SWEET HOME HEALTHCARE LLC., et al, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
cv-02353-BMS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a
class of:

   "all persons who worked for Defendants as Home Health Aides or
   Direct Care Workers in Pennsylvania from January 1, 2014 to
   the present and were paid straight time with no overtime
   premium or paid a reduced straight time with a reduced
   overtime premium when they worked more than 40 hours in one
   more workweek."

The Plaintiffs further seek to be appointed as Class
Representative and that their attorneys be appointed as Class
Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LPpQF4Ww

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven E. Angstreich, Esq.
          Carolyn C. Lindheim, Esq.
          Amy R. Brandt, Esq.
          WEIR & PARTNERS LLP
          1339 Chestnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 665 8181
          Facsimile: (215) 665 8464
          E-mail: sangstreich@weirpartners.com
                  clindheim@weirpartners.com
                  abrandt@weirpartners.com


TARDASIA HOTELS: $51MM Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK
-------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson and Y. Peter Kang, writing for Law360, report that a
California federal judge signed off on preliminary approval of a
$51.15 million proposed class action settlement fund to resolve
condo-hotel unit buyers' claims over a Hard Rock Cafe
International USA Inc. venture that allegedly violated land sale
regulations.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel preliminarily approved the
proposed settlement and certification of the class for settlement
purposes only, ordering class counsel by Aug. 9 to file a motion
for final approval of the class settlement and an application for
attorneys' fees and costs.  The judge also told the parties to
prepare for a Sept. 15 fairness hearing, where the court will
consider whether the proposed distribution plan is fair and
reasonable and whether it should enter a final judgment dismissing
the suit with prejudice.

The settlement proposed by condo buyers led by couple Laurie and
Dean Beaver would give class members payments averaging
approximately $95,000 after fees and costs, with developer
Tarsadia Hotels contributing $10 million and third-party defendant
Greenberg Traurig LLP contributing the remaining $41.15 million.
There will be no reversion of any funds to Tarsadia, Greenberg
Traurig or the law firm's insurers, according to the terms of the
settlement preliminarily approved by Judge Curiel.

"In this case, the proposed settlement is the product of over five
and one half years of litigation, two failed court-assisted
settlement conferences, a failed mediation in 2013, the recent
second mediation and follow-up negotiations," Judge Curiel said.
"The settlement's terms demonstrate procedural fairness and lack
of collusion."

The condo-hotel unit buyers on April 24 asked the court to approve
their preliminary settlement with the developers, saying the
parties agreed to the classwide settlement of $51.15 million in
cash.  Greenberg Traurig on May 12 filed a non-opposition to the
preliminary settlement.

In June 2016, the buyers told Judge Curiel that Greenberg Traurig,
which gave the buyers securities advice and drafted documents for
them in the sale, made a strategic decision in September 2013 to
stay out of the main action.  However, the buyers said, after the
Ninth Circuit affirmed a July 2, 2014, order from Judge Curiel
that granted summary judgment as to liability in favor of the
plaintiffs, Greenberg Traurig faced potential malpractice
liability for drafting disclosure documents for the Hard Rock
project that failed to comply with federal law.

"GT wants to turn back time and reopen discovery in the main
action to do what it should have done years ago," the condo buyers
said in urging the court to refuse the law firm's request to get
involved in the action.

A Greenberg Traurig spokesperson told Law360 in a statement on May
24, "We have always contended that our firm acted properly in this
matter, and are pleased to put it behind us rather than have to
continue diversionary and costly litigation."

The Hard Rock San Diego is a 12-story building with 420 condo-
hotel units that began to be developed in 2005, according to court
documents.  Located in the heart of the city's downtown, the
building sits across the street from the San Diego Convention
Center and a few blocks from the San Diego Marina and Seaport
Village.

The buyers, including Laurie and Dean Beaver, sued in May 2011,
claiming the developers of the hotel-condo project violated
California law by failing to tell them they could rescind their
purchases within two years of their signing date.  The case was
moved to the Southern District of California that August, and the
court ultimately dismissed all of the owners' claims except for
one based on the U.S. Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act.

In March 2016, a Ninth Circuit panel denied an interlocutory
appeal from Tarsadia and ruled that the putative class could move
forward, finding that a 2014 congressional amendment did not
shield the developers from liability.  The panel affirmed the
lower court's judgment in favor of the condo buyers' ILSA claim
alleging the developers violated California's Unfair Competition
Law by failing to disclose, as required by ILSA, that the buyers
could have canceled their contracts during a two-year window.

The appeals court rejected Tarsadia's assertion that the 2014
congressional amendment to ILSA -- enacted three years after the
2011 filing of the suit -- that exempted condo sales from the
act's disclosure requirements should preclude the hotel developers
from liability, saying the amendment was a substantive change that
can't operate retroactively.

Michael L. Schrag, a lawyer for the condo buyers, told Law360 in
an email on May 24, "We are already working to get the court-
ordered notice out to class members and look forward to moving the
case toward the fairness hearing in September."

Representatives for the hotel developers did not immediately
respond on May 24 to requests for comment.

The buyers are represented by Michael L. Schrag of Gibbs Law
Group, Michael J. Reiser of Reiser Law PC, Donald E. Chomiak of
Talisman Law PC, Tyler R. Meade of The Meade Firm PC and Wendy C.
Fostvedt of Fostvedt Legal Group LLC.

The hotel developers are represented by Perry Hughes --
phughes@coxcastle.com -- Frederick H. Kranz Jr. --
rkranz@coxcastle.com -- Alicia N. Vaz -- avaz@coxcastle.com -- and
Lynn T. Galuppo -- lgaluppo@coxcastle.com -- of Cox Castle &
Nicholson LLP.

Third-party defendant Greenberg Traurig LLP is represented by
Michael P. McNamara -- mmcnamara@jenner.com -- Kirsten H. Spira --
kspira@jenner.com -- and Wesley M. Griffith of Jenner & Block LLP.
[GN]

The case is Beaver et al. v. Tarsadia Hotels et al., case number
3:11-cv-01842, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.


TENNESSEE, USA: Tony Parker, et al. Appeal Graham Suit Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Doctor Marina Cadreche, Tony Parker and Doctor Kenneth
Williams filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled
Charles Graham, a/k/a Charles Stevenson, and Russell L. Davis, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Tony C.
Parker, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01954, in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought against Tony Parker, the Commissioner of the Tennessee
Department of Corrections, and other Officers of the Department.

Tennessee Department of Correction is a Cabinet-level agency
within the Tennessee state government responsible for the
oversight of more than 20,000 convicted offenders in Tennessee.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Tony Parker, et al.,
Case No. 17-506, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners TONY PARKER, Commissioner of the Tennessee
Department of Corrections; MARINA CADRECHE, Assistant Commissioner
of Rehabilitative Services, Tennessee Department of Corrections;
and KENNETH WILLIAMS, Medical Director, Tennessee Department of
Corrections, in their official capacities, are represented by:

          Pamela Sue Lorch, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 20207
          Nashville, TN 37202
          Telephone: (615) 532-2549
          E-mail: pam.lorch@state.tn.us

Plaintiffs-Respondents CHARLES GRAHAM, aka Charles Stevenson, and
RUSSELL L. DAVIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Thomas Hauser Castelli, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF TENNESSEE
          P.O. Box 120160
          Nashville, TN 37212
          Telephone: (615) 320-7142
          E-mail: tcastelli@aclu-tn.org


TETRAPHASE PHARMA: First Cir. Appeal Filed in "Harrington" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Newvana Ventures Limited and Plymouth County Retirement
System filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the cases
entitled Harrington, et al. v. Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals Inc., et
al., Case Nos. 1:16-cv-10133-LTS and 1:16-cv-10577-JTS, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

The appellate case is captioned as Harrington, et al. v.
Tetraphase Pharmacuticals Inc., et al., Case No. 17-1524, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 17,
2017, Judge Leo T. Sorokin allowed the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the cases.  The consolidated class action cases allege
that between March 5, 2015, and September 8, 2015, (the class
period) Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and three individual
defendants, Guy MacDonald, President and CEO, John Thompson, COO
during the class period, and David Lubner, CFO and senior vice
president during the class period, violated securities laws.  The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants (Tetraphase) knew that the
drug they were testing would fail long before that information was
released to the public.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Docketing
Statement, Transcript Report/Order form, and Appearance form were
due on June 5, 2017.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM is
represented by:

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
          Max Schwartz, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT LLP
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
                  mschwartz@scott-scott.com

Plaintiffs-Appellants PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM and
NEWVANA VENTURES LIMITED, and Plaintiff JOSEPH HARRINGTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          LEVI KORINSKY LLP
          733 Summer St., Suite 304
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 992-4523
          E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com

Plaintiffs DAN SCHLAPKOHL and GUSTAVO RIVERA DE LA FUENTE are
represented by:

          Jeffrey Craig Block, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal St., Suite 400
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com

Plaintiff DARYLL HANDELL is represented by:

          Christopher Anthony Duggan, Esq.
          SMITH & DUGGAN LLP
          55 Old Bedford Rd
          Lincoln, MA 01773-0000
          Telephone: (617) 228-4444
          E-mail: Chris.Duggan@SmithDuggan.com

Plaintiff MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT BOARD is represented by:

          Theodore Michael Hess-Mahan, Esq.
          HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN & ZEYTOONIAN LLP
          110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
          Wellesely Hills, MA 02481-0000
          Telephone: (781) 431-2231
          Facsimile: (781) 431-8726
          E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com

Defendants-Appellees GUY MACDONALD, JOHN CRAIG THOMPSON, DAVID
LUBNER and TETRAPHASE PHARMACUTICALS INC. are represented by:

          Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
          WILMERHALE LLP
          250 Greenwich St
          7 World Trade Center
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 937-7220
          E-mail: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Peter J. Kolovos, Esq.
          Sarah L. Murphy, Esq.
          WILMERHALE LLP
          60 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109-0000
          Telephone: (617) 526-6493
          E-mail: peter.kolovos@wilmerhale.com
                  sarah.murphy@wilmerhale.com


TEXAS: Inmate Mental Health Care Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Meredith Hoffman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
though a judge deemed her mentally unfit to stand trial fourteen
months ago, Jennifer Lampkin is still sitting in an Austin jail
cell because there are no free spots for her at the state's
psychiatric hospitals.

Ms. Lampkin, 35, has both intellectual disabilities and a mental
illness, and without treatment, the court couldn't reassess her
competency to stand trial on an assault charge for allegedly
slapping a child, which might at least allow her case to progress.

"I don't think she understands why she remains in jail," said her
attorney, Elsie Craven.  "She's stressed because she doesn't know
what's going to happen.  I don't believe she's getting the
treatment she needs.  How could she? She's in jail."

Ms. Lampkin is one of hundreds of mentally ill Texas inmates who
have been stuck in jail for months waiting for a spot at one of
the state's overcrowded and understaffed mental hospitals.  Though
such problems aren't unique to Texas, its inmates face among the
nation's longest waits to receive psychiatric treatment and the
problem is only getting worse despite recent efforts to improve
the situation.

The average wait for a maximum security inmate to get in-patient
psychiatric treatment has nearly doubled in the past two years, to
127 days, according to the Texas Health and Human Services
Commission.

For inmates like Ms. Lampkin with intellectual disabilities and a
mental illness, the average wait is more than three times as long,
at 417 days.  That's partly because the state only has one unit
dedicated to the treatment of such inmates, said Beth Mitchell,
the supervising attorney for the advocacy group Disability Rights
Texas.

"People who are charged but not convicted are supposed to be let
out on bond," said Ms. Mitchell, whose group has a class-action
lawsuit pending against the state that argues the long waits are
unconstitutional.  "But in this case, these people can't get put
out on bond because they don't have the capacity to agree to
bond."

Texas had the fourth-longest waits among states for inmates to
receive psychiatric treatment, according to a 2016 survey by the
Treatment Advocacy Center, a Virginia-based group dedicated to
getting treatment for the mentally ill. Since then, Texas' average
treatment delay has increased by more than 50 days, according to
the state's own figures.

"Texas is unique in that there have been multiple lawsuits dealing
with this issue and it is still coming up," said
John Snook, executive director of the Treatment Advocacy Center.
"Texas has been struggling for years to effectively address this
problem."

The state has tried to improve the situation in the past couple of
years and the Legislature plans to allocate more funds for mental
health before its current session ends May 29.  But thus far, the
efforts have only helped to slow a worsening problem, not reverse
its course.

Since ranking last in the nation in per resident mental health
spending in 2009, Texas increased funding in recognition that it
had a problem.  In 2015, during the last legislative session,
lawmakers allocated an additional $50 million to pay for the
treatment of non-inmate mentally ill patients at private
hospitals, which would open up spots in state-run facilities that
can treat mentally ill inmates.

Although state mental hospitals went from housing 1,144 inmates in
2015 to 1,239 at the start of this year, the increase hasn't kept
pace with the pace of Texas' population growth, said Four Price, a
Republican state representative from Amarillo who has pushed for
more funding for the treatment of mental illness.

Ms. Price said it's important for the state to identify and treat
the mentally ill before they get arrested, as once they end up in
the criminal justice system, they typically have more serious
mental illnesses that require longer hospital stays.

"In the past we were trying to build more hospital capacity, but
we want to add to that more effort on the front end," said
Ms. Price, who is pushing for more preventive services, including
outpatient treatment and community mental health services.
Currently individuals often seek help in the community or in state
mental hospitals, only to be turned away because of a lack of
space, advocates said. [GN]


TEXAS DE BRAZIL: Faces "Anderson" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Texas de Brazil (NY)
Corporation. The case is captioned as Derrick Anderson, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Texas de Brazil (NY) Corporation and Texas de Brazil
(Westchester), the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03263 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 31, 2017).

Texas de Brazil operates a restaurant in Ney York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


TG CIRCLE: Faces "Griggs" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TG Circle of Life,
LLC. The case is titled as MATILDE GRIGGS, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF
AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. TG CIRCLE OF
LIFE, LLC doing business as: ALWAYS BEST CARE, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-02466-MAK (E.D. Pa., May 31, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Mark A. Kearney.

TG Circle is a home health agency in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam D. Peavy, Esq.
          BAILEY PERRIN BAILEY
          440 Louisiana Street
          Suite 2100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 425 7100
          E-mail: apeavy@bpblaw.com


THEDACARE INC: Miller et al. Seek Certification of FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JUELAINE MILLER, et al., Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
THEDACARE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-00506-WCG (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiffs, pursuant to their claims under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, move the Court for an order granting final
collective and class certification of a class consisting of:

   "all persons who have been or are employed by ThedaCare at
   the ThedaCare Regional Medical Center - Appleton (formerly
   known as Appleton Medical Center ) or the ThedaCare Regional
   Medical Center - Neenah (formerly known as Theda Clark Medical
   Center) on an hourly basis at any time three years prior to
   the commencement of this lawsuit to the present whose
   scheduled hours included an automatic deduction for unpaid
   meal breaks and who were denied minimum wage or overtime wages
   for hours for compensable "on call" time and/or hours
   performing work during unpaid meal periods, and either:

   (1) carried with them and responded to a zone phone or pager
       during their unpaid meal periods;

   (2) were required to personally monitor acute patients, in
       person or remotely, during their unpaid meal periods; or

   (3) worked as a scheduler in ThedaCare's Staffing Resources
       Department and were responsible for responding to calls
       during their unpaid meal periods.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nathan D. Eisenberg, Esq.
          Sara J. Geenen, Esq.
          Erin F. Medeiros, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
          1555 N. RiverCenter Drive, S. 202
          P. O. Box 12993
          Milwaukee, WI 53212
          Telephone: (414) 271 4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271 6308
          E-mail: nde@previant.com
                  efm@previant.com

               - and -

          Gregory B. Gill, Sr., Esq.
          Barry P. Gill, Esq.
          501 S. Nicolet St.
          Appleton, WI 54914
          Telephone 920/739-1107
          Facsimile 920/739-3027
          E-mail: gillsr@gillandgillsc.com
                  bpgill@gillandgillsc.com


THEDACARE INC: Seeks to Decertify FLSA Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JUELAINE MILLER, KATHLEEN ALBERS, AND LINDA
AULER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THEDACARE, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00506-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Defendant move the Court
to decertify the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action
that was conditionally certified on August 29, 2016.

Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of establishing that they are
similarly situated to the 165 Opt-In plaintiffs as required by the
FLSA for maintenance of a collective action, ThedaCare argues.

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

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 5, 2016, Chief
Judge William C. Griesbach granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification with respect to this putative class:

     All persons who have been or are employed by ThedaCare at
     the Appleton Medical Center or Theda Clark Medical Center
     hospitals on an hourly basis as direct patient care
     providers, administrative associates, unit resource
     associates and employees of the Staffing Resources
     department at any time three years prior to the commencement
     of this lawsuit to the present whose scheduled hours
     included an automatic deduction for unpaid meal breaks and
     who were denied minimum wage or overtime wages for hours for
     compensable "oncall" time and/or hours performing work
     during unpaid meal periods.

A copy of the August 29, 2016 Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xIKdJRHk

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher L. Nickels, Esq.
          Sean M. Scullen, Esq.
          QUARLES & BRADY LLP
          411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2350
          Milwaukee, WI 53202-4426
          Telephone: (414) 277 5000
          E-mail: christopher.nickels@quarles.com
                  sean.scullen@quarles.com


TRANSGENOMIC INC: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC on May 25 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for The
District of Nebraska, case no. 4:17-cv-03021-JMG-FG3, on behalf of
unitholders of Transgenomic, Inc, ("Transgenomic " or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: TBIO) who held Transgenomic securities and
have been harmed by Transgenomic and its board of directors' (the
"Board") for alleged violations of Sections 14(a), and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in
connection with the sale of the Company to New Haven Labs Inc. and
Precipio Diagnostics, LLC.

Under the terms of the agreement, (i) the outstanding common units
of Precipio will be converted into the right to receive
approximately 160.6 million shares of common stock of New Precipio
("New Precipio common stock"), which will result in Precipio
common unit holders owning approximately 53% of the issued and
outstanding shares of New Precipio common stock on a fully diluted
basis, taking into account the issuance of shares of convertible
preferred stock of New Precipio ("New Precipio preferred stock")
in the merger and the private placement (the "fully diluted New
Precipio common stock") and (ii) the outstanding preferred units
of Precipio will be converted into the right to receive
approximately 24.1 million shares of New Precipio preferred stock
with an aggregate face amount equal to $3 million (based upon the
purchase price of the new preferred stock of New Precipio in the
new preferred stock financing), which will result in the Precipio
preferred unit holders owning approximately 8% of the fully
diluted New Precipio common stock. The complaint alleges that this
offer is inadequate and alleges that the Registration Statement in
Form S-4 (the "Proxy") provides materially incomplete and
misleading information about the Company's financials and the
transaction, in violation of Sections 14(a), and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from May 25, 2017.  Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action, or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact:

         Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
         MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
         The Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405
         New York, NY 10118
         United States of America
         jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
         Tel: (212) 971-1341

Click here for more information:
www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/ It is free and there is
no cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm committed that has recovered
millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders
and consumers from corporate wrongdoing.  Monteverde & Associates
PC lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect
investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.
[GN]


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: 9th Cir. to Hear Appeal on Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the Ninth Circuit on
May 30, said it would hear an expedited appeal brought by a late
objector to the Trump University class action settlement,
reminding the parties that requests for deadline extensions will
be frowned upon if not rejected outright.

The case is captioned, SONNY LOW; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
SHERRI B. SIMPSON, Objector-Appellant, v. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC,
AKA Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, a New York limited liability
company and DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendants-Appellees. Case 3:10-cv-
00940-GPC-WVG (9th Cir.).

                           *     *     *

Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the Trump University settlement suffered a major complication as
one woman is appealing the final deal, threatening to hold up the
$25 million payment.

Florida attorney Sheri Simpson is appealing the large settlement
between the now-defunct Trump University and its former students
who claimed they were duped into paying for classes that were
little more than an infomercial.

"Having swept Trump's fraud under the rug, yesterday's filing
tries to nail that rug to the floor," Simpson's attorney Gary
Friedman said in an email to Courthouse News. "It is a desperate
attempt to choke off an appeal that the settling parties know they
will lose."

Lawyers for the class members on the verge of getting paid on May
24, asked the judge overseeing the case to force Simpson to pay a
$220,000 appeals bond, essentially a down payment on attorney fees
and court costs she would have to pay if her appeal is not
granted.

"Simpson's appeal is delaying settlement payments to class members
that they may need to get out of debt, replenish retirement funds,
or confidently enter retirement," class attorney Rachel Jensen in
a memo filed with the court. "As the appeal may well take years to
resolve, payments will be delayed too long for many class members
who may declare bankruptcy, lose homes, decline in health to the
point where they cannot enjoy the money, or die before it is
over."

In March, Simpson -- who had previously filled out a claim form to
be reimbursed for the money spent on Trump University -- filed an
objection and asked to opt out of the settlement.

Friedman said she did this because the settlement was meager
compared to what plaintiffs were promised.

"Instead of being forced to pay back all the ill-gotten gains of
Trump U, automatically tripled under the RICO statute, plus
interest (for a total of $170 million or so), Trump settled for
$23 million -- or as he tweeted, 'a small fraction of the
potential award,'" Friedman said.

When that objection was denied by the court, Simpson filed an
appeal questioning the merits of the entire settlement. Her appeal
threatens to delay payments a decade in the making, class
attorneys say.

In exchange for the delay, plaintiffs say Simpson should have to
put up money in case a judge finds her claims meritless and awards
the class attorney fees.

"An appropriate bond is needed in this case so that the class
members are not left holding the bag once Simpson and her
attorneys are done appealing a settlement that she admits is a
'laudable result,'" Jensen says in the memo.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel granted final approval of the
settlement in late March over the objections of Simpson and
Friedman.

Those following the case will watch closely to see if Curiel will
require the appeals bond, which could be a significant amount. If
Curiel does grant the motion and Simpson is sufficiently worried
to drop the appeal, it will mark the end of a seven-year case.

If Simpson goes forward with her appeal, it will be heard by the
Ninth Circuit.

Former students of Trump's former real estate school filed class
actions against the business mogul-turned-world leader over
promises they'd learn his insider real estate secrets by
instructors he'd handpicked.

Students said they paid upwards of $35,000 for an education they
said provided little more insight than an infomercial.

Trump acknowledges no wrongdoing or liability as part of the
finalized settlement.


TURKEY HILL: Faces "Badger" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Turkey Hill, L.P.
The case is captioned as JOSIE BADGER and ANGELA HUNTER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. TURKEY HILL, L.P., doing business as, TURKEY HILL
MINIT MARKETS; THGP CO., INC.; and THLP CO., INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00082 (W.D. Pa., May 15, 2017).

Turkey Hill, doing business as Turkey Hill Dairy, Inc., produces
and sells frozen dairy treats in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322 9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231 0246
          E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com


UBER TECH: Judge Raises Concern over $7.5MM Class Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service reported that a
federal judge in San Francisco on June 1, seemed wary of approving
only $7.5 million to Uber drivers who were kicked off the app
based on background checks the company ran without their
knowledge.

At a hearing on a motion for preliminary approval, U.S. District
Judge Edward Chen criticized the settlement as small, and said
attorneys for the class should have known there were "main risk
factors that were apparent from day one."

Chen said class members will probably see only $4.9 million of the
total settlement after administrative costs are paid.
"If you look at the potential recovery, maximum verdict value can
be between $100 million to a billion in a class like this. So
that's the question. This is a relatively very small recovery,"
the judge said.

Class attorney Tina Wolfson said serious risks were not evident
until discovery began: for instance, that electronic records
showed that lead plaintiffs Ronald Gillette and Abdul Kadir
Mohamed actually did receive notices about the background checks
from Uber.

Former Uber contractors Mohamed and Gillette sued Uber in November
2014, claiming they were suddenly denied access to the Uber system
without reason. Mohamed claimed Uber told him he could no longer
drive after two years with the company because it found new
information in his background check, which it never showed him.

Gillette accused Uber of failing to pay employees promptly upon
termination and misclassifying drivers as independent contractors.

While Chen had ruled that arbitration agreements the drivers
signed are invalid and unenforceable, the Ninth Circuit reversed
that ruling in September last year.

On June 1, Chen said that while the arbitration question was
always a major risk to the case, he wanted to know what other
information the parties learned through the course of litigation.
"What did you learn that you didn't know at the outset?" he asked.
"This case was filed presumably with the expectation that this
would be a substantial case, but the main risk factors were
apparent from day one."

Uber attorney Rod Fliegel said that through discovery it became
clear that Uber did not have a systematic policy of running
surreptitious background checks on drivers and then firing them
based on unsavory results.

"Between the discovery showing that the notice process was in
place and the exhibits that corroborated the process, that
illuminated how that claim was weak," Fliegel said, adding that
Uber had an "adverse notice practice in place."

The agreement covers all plaintiffs who worked or applied to work
for Uber and claimed they were fired or denied employment based on
background check information obtained without their knowledge or
consent.

Chen asked for more briefing on the settlement, particularly on
the claims process that would require class members to submit a
claim form to get their share, and an email notice that he's
concerned might get deleted by spam filters.  He also seemed
disinclined to approve a $2.5 million attorneys' fee award, which
constitutes a third of the settlement.

"I frankly don't see how one can say there were extraordinary
results obtained, because as you can see this is a small
settlement based on risk factors that were evident early and even
weaker as the case went on," Chen said.

"So to be blunt, I have trouble seeing an award of 33 percent in
this case."

The settlement could be hailed as a victory for a company fending
off a variety other legal challenges in federal courts.

Uber is steeped in patent infringement litigation with Waymo, a
former Google company that has accused Uber of swiping its
driverless car technology. Waymo says ex-engineer Anthony
Levandowski downloaded thousands of confidential files before he
quit in 2016 to launch his own competing company called Otto,
which Uber later bought for $680 million.

Uber has also come under fire from the Department of Justice,
which launched a criminal investigation into its use of a software
tool called "Greyball" that helps its drivers evade local
authorities trying to clamp down on the popular ride service.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Hidden Charges
---------------------------------------------------------
Priscilla DeGregory and Julia Marsh, writing for The New York
Post, report that passengers are incurring hidden charges with
Uber's "upfront" pricing model -- resulting in a $7.4 million
windfall per month to the app-ride company from New York City
trips alone, according to a new class-action lawsuit.

Uber launched its upfront fares last summer, promising a "no math
and no surprises" system that would calculate the actual cost of a
trip before customers booked a ride.

But Uber is charging riders approximately $2 more than the actual
cost of the trip, according to the Brooklyn lawsuit filed by Coney
Island resident Jacqueline Gayed.

For example, while the rider pays $14 for a trip, the driver's
Uber platform shows a fare of just $12.

"Uber simply pockets the difference," the suit says.

The company pulls off the scheme by showing riders a less
efficient route than the one drivers take, according to court
papers.

The suit cites a recent investigation by the website The Rideshare
Guy, which found that Uber is hitting half of riders taking the
daily 250,000 trips in New York City with the extra $2 charge.  So
Uber is making about $250,000 a day or $7.4 million a month "in
New York City alone" from the hidden fee, the suit says.

Ms. Gayed assumes Uber is taking in similar windfalls in other
cities.

The suit was filed the day after Uber admitted it owes drivers
tens of millions of dollars in back pay for taking its fee before
deducting taxes and other surcharges.

California drivers filed a similar class-action lawsuit over the
upfront pricing model in April.

A spokeswoman for Uber was looking into the claims. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Cavallo" Suit Dismissed, Sent to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey dismissed the case captioned CARLO CAVALLO,
on behalf of himself and all those similarly-situated, Plaintiff,
v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and, RASIER, LLC, Defendants, Civ.
Action No. 16-4264 (FLW) (D. N.J.) and compelled arbitration
because the Plaintiff is bound by the arbitration clause in the
Raiser Software License and Online Services Agreement that the
Plaintiff signed before driving for Uber.

The Plaintiff, an Uber driver, filed this action against the
Defendant alleging that the Defendant (i) misclassified him and
other similarly situated New Jersey Uber drivers as independent
contractors, rather than employees; (ii) failed to pay overtime
compensation; and (iii) improperly interfered with Plaintiff's
ability to accept gratuities.

The Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint and compel
arbitration, arguing that the Plaintiff is bound by the
arbitration clause in the Raiser Software License and Online
Services Agreement that Plaintiff signed before driving for Uber.
For the reasons set forth, the Court finds that a valid
arbitration agreement between the parties exists.  The Defendant's
motion is granted.

Judge Wolfson held, "The Arbitration Provision requires
transportation drivers, such as the Plaintiff, -- if they do not
opt out -- to individually arbitrate all disputes arising out of,
or relating to, the Raiser Agreement, or their relationship with
Uber, including disputes alleging breach of contract, wage and
hour, and compensation claims.  The Arbitration Provision also
contains a delegation clause, requiring the arbitrator to decide
issues of arbitrability.  Notably, after the Plaintiff confirmed
that he had reviewed and accepted the Raiser Agreement, including
the Arbitration Provision, the Plaintiff was provided with an
additional 30 days to opt-out of the Arbitration Provision.
Notwithstanding these provisions, the Plaintiff filed this suit."

The Court concludes that the parties entered into a valid and
enforceable arbitration agreement, and the Plaintiff must
arbitrate his claims.  Typically, having made such a finding, the
Court would proceed to the second step of the arbitration analysis
under the FAA to determine whether the parties' disputes fall
within the scope of the Agreement. However, because the parties
have agreed to permit the arbitrator to decide issues of
arbitrability under the Agreement's delegation clause, that
determination will be reserved for the arbitrator, the Court said.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 31, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/CZCsTa from Leagle.com

Carlo Cavallo, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew John Dressel,
Napoli Shkolink PLLC.

Carlo Cavallo, Plaintiff, represented by Seth Asher Nadler, Imbesi
Law P.C..

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by William James
Simmons, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Paul Calvin Lantis, Littler
Mendelson, P.C..

Rasier, LLC, Defendant, represented by William James Simmons,
Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Paul Calvin Lantis, Littler Mendelson,
P.C..


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Order in "Metter" Suit to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Julian Metter v. Uber Technologies,
Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-06652-RS, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as Julian Metter v. Uber
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 17-16027, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 25,
2017, the Court denied Uber's motion to compel arbitration of
phony cancellation fees it charges riders, with the federal judge
calling the Company's notice process of waiving the right to sue
"deficient."

Judge Richard Seeborg found on April 17 that lead plaintiff Julian
Metter showed he never agreed to Uber's terms of service and its
arbitration agreement, because the terms of service alert was
blocked by the keypad on Metter's smartphone.

Mr. Metter sued in November 2016 on behalf of a proposed class of
Uber riders, claiming the company doesn't tell riders it might
charge a cancellation fee.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by June 16, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on July 17, 2017;

   -- Appellant Uber Technologies, Inc.'s opening brief is due on
      August 25, 2017;

   -- Appellee Julian Metter's answering brief is due on
      September 25, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee JULIAN METTER, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, is represented by:

          Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
          Robert Kenneth Friedl, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          E-mail: Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com

               - and -

          Francis Joseph Flynn, Jr., Esq.
          CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
          8235 Forsyth Blvd.
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-7700
          Facsimile: (314) 721-0905

Defendant-Appellant UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, is represented by:

          William L. Stern, Esq.
          Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
          Claudia Maria Vetesi, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7637
          E-mail: wstern@mofo.com
                  tcheung@mofo.com
                  cvetesi@mofo.com


VIRTU CATHEDRAL: "Zdun" Action Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Brent Zdun, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. Virtu Cathedral Associates, LLC, a
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00579,
(M.D. Fla., May 22, 2017), seeks overtime compensation with
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and
expenses of the litigation, pre-judgment interest and such other
and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Virtu Cathedral is the owner of 24 Cathedral Place St. Augustine,
FL 32084, a commercial building where Zdun worked as a maintenance
man providing services to the building tenants. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul M. Botros, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     600 N. Pine Island Rd., Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Telephone: (954) 318-0268
     Facsimile: (954) 333-3517
     E-mail: PBotros@forthepeople.com


VOLAR LLC: Faces Class Action Over Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that employees of Sakesa Sushi and Bistro in San Francisco allege
they were not properly compensated for overtime work.

Qingyun Li and Gou Wei Zhen filed a complaint on behalf of all
others similarly situated on April 14 in the San Francisco County
Superior Court against Volar LLC and Does 1 through 20 alleging
violation of state labor codes.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they worked
for more than 40 hours per workweek without being paid any
overtime wages.  The plaintiffs holds Volar LLC and Does 1 through
20 responsible because the defendants also allegedly failed to
provide meal and rest periods, accurate wage statements and failed
to pay earned wages upon termination.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek unpaid overtime
wages, interest, unpaid meal periods, unpaid rest periods, all
legal fees and any other relief as the court deems just.  They are
represented by Michael H. Kim and Melanie Massey of Michael H. Kim
PC in Millbrae. [GN]

San Francisco County Superior Court Case number CGC17558187


WALK SCORE: Faces "West" Suit in Southern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walk Score
Management, LLC. The case is captioned as Mary West, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Walk
Score Management, LLC, the Defendant, Case No 1:17-cv-04075
(S.D.N.Y., May 31, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


WHOLE FOOD: 2nd Cir. Revives Suit over Weight of Prepack Food
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Russel, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
reviving a federal class action in Manhattan against Whole Foods,
the Second Circuit found on June 2, that customers have plausibly
alleged that the supermarket gouges them at the register by
routinely exaggerating the weight of prepackaged foods.

Identified in the 13-page ruling as a frequent cheese and cupcake
shopper, lead plaintiff Sean John brought the underlying complaint
last year after the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs
blew the whistle on mislabeled products at Whole Foods Market.

Citing a federal standard for how much the weight of a product can
deviate from its labeled weight, the DCA announced in June 2015
that 89 percent of prepackaged Whole Foods products it put on a
scale clocked in at impermissibly lower weight.

"The overcharges ranged from $0.80 for a package of pecan panko to
$14.84 for a package of coconut shrimp," according to the DCA's
press release.

John, who patronized two of the eight Whole Foods in New York City
that the DCA investigated, sought to represent a class of all
shoppers who purchased at least one of 14 types of prepackaged
products over the past six years.

Though Whole Foods confirmed the DCA's allegations with respect to
cheese and cupcakes, a federal judge dismissed John's case in
Manhattan.

The court said John failed to show that he had personally been
overcharged for a specific purchase, but a three-judge panel of
the Second Circuit concluded on June 2, that this was too tough a
standard at this early stage of the case.

Noting that it was the DCA that called the mislabeling by Whole
Foods was "systematic" and "routine," the federal appeals court
said "a facial attack on the pleadings is not the proper stage to
determine whether the DCA's sampling methods justified its
declaration of widespread overcharging."

"At the pleading stage, John need not prove the accuracy of the
DCA's findings or the rigor of its methodology; he need only
generally allege facts that, accepted as true, make his alleged
injury plausible," U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier wrote for the
court.

A spokesperson for Whole Foods Market emphasized that the case is
still in its early stages. "While we are disappointed in the
court's decision, which procedurally allows the case to move
forward, we will continue to vigorously defend against the
plaintiff's meritless claims," the company said in a statement.

Lohier spoke to this point as well, noting that John might still
lose if he cannot meet the court's more demanding standards at
summary judgment or trial.

"Of course, we understand the District Court's concern that John
faces what may be significant evidentiary obstacles on the merits;
but targeted discovery might show whether those obstacles can be
surmounted," Lohier wrote. "For present purposes, John has
plausibly alleged a nontrivial economic injury sufficient to
support standing: according to the DCA's investigation, Whole
Foods packages of cheese and cupcakes were systematically and
routinely mislabeled and overpriced, and John regularly purchased
Whole Foods packages of cheese and cupcakes throughout the
relevant period. Taking these allegations as true and drawing all
reasonable inferences in his favor, it is plausible that John
overpaid for at least one product. John's complaint thus satisfies
the 'low threshold' required to plead injury in fact."

Shareholders brought a class action against the Texas-based
supermarket as well, noting that the Whole Foods' common stock
closed at $36.08 on July 30, 2015, a fall of $4.74 per share, or
11.61 percent, after the DCA's announcement.

Whole Foods settled New York City's labeling investigation for a
half-million-dollars in December 2015.

A year later, Whole Foods employees brought a class action that
accused the supermarket of manipulated its "gainsharing" program
to stiff workers of money they earned in a bonus profit-sharing
arrangement.


YUMS INC: "Wei" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wei Guo Shi and Li Ming Yan individually and on behalf all other
employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Yum's, Inc. (d/b/a
Yum's Subs) and James Chan, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-21921
(W.D. Tenn., May 24, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own a chain of restaurants located in Memphis,
Tennessee, where Wei Guo Shi and Li Ming Yan worked as restaurant
staff for Defendants' location at 3141 S Perkins Road, Memphis.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     Hang & Associates, PLLC
     136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Tel: (718) 353-8588
     Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


* CMA Includes Class Action Chapter in Updated Listing Rules
------------------------------------------------------------
Mulhim Hamad Almulhim, writing for Arabian Business, reports that
Saudi Arabia has taken many measures to provide a flexible
environment for investors and encourage them to envision the
Kingdom as a promising place for investment in many different
sectors.

One may observe these evolutionary steps in terms of Saudi's laws
and regulations because the body of Saudi laws that govern its
financial system is constantly updated with new information.  A
great many of these laws have been updated, changed or replaced.
Keeping up with these changes may seem like a burden for
investors; but, in many ways, the vital, living nature of this
legislation improves the way investments in Saudi Arabia are
handled.  Saudi Arabia's new laws have provided more protection
for investors than existed in the past, and they cover many
investment-related issues about which Saudi law had been silent
for many years.

The Capital Market Authority (CMA) in Saudi Arabia, along with the
Ministry of Commerce and Investment (MOCI), are key players in the
financial and commercial arena.  A new Saudi Companies Law was
issued in 2016, and while many things remain unresolved in this
law, it does attempt to fix some of the issues that have arisen
over the past 50 years.  Most importantly, the new Law assigned
the CMA the power to regulate listed companies, and to provide
additional rules regarding listed companies when necessary.  As a
result, the CMA has issued regulations with respect to corporate
governance that are considered to be more advanced than those that
came before.  The CMA has also updated its listing rules and the
M&A Regulations, and it issued a class-action lawsuit chapter that
will be added -- upon approval -- to the Resolution of Securities
Disputes Proceedings Regulations. Recently, the CMA published a
series of regulations for public consultation to develop its
implementing regulations including class-action lawsuit chapter.
Once a class-action lawsuit is approved and implemented.  This
marks the first time that class-action lawsuit regulations have
been introduced to Saudi's legal community.

The Ministry of Commerce and Investment published a Bankruptcy Law
for public consultations, which is another indication of the new
movement to enact laws long awaited by investors and corporations.
In fact, the Saudi Bankruptcy law seems to favour businesses, in
that it provides struggling corporations the opportunity to
salvage themselves and start over if they have reasonable plans to
restructure and treat creditors fairly.

These reforms and new laws have elevated Saudi's investment-
related legal structure to a more satisfactory level, but it must
be developed further.  The above examples show movement towards
enhancing Saudi's legal framework for corporations and investors
in general.  Those corporations and investors interested in
investing in Saudi will need to take advantage of such laws and be
very well-versed in them to ensure their investments continue to
grow on solid ground. [GN]


                         *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *