CAR_Public/170614.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Wednesday, June 14, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 118



                            Headlines

1-800-FLOWERS: Employee Class in "Rodkey" Conditionally Certified
111 SW 2ND AVE: "Valencia" Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads
3M CO: St. Paul Council Settles River Pollution Suits for $1MM
ALABAMA: "Reynolds" Class Settlement Has Final Court Approval
ALTERNATIVE ENTM'T: Action Waivers Violate NLRA, 6th Cir. Says

AMAZON.COM INC: Kentucky Court Dismisses "Busk" Suit
ANDERSON HOUSING: Westvale Manor Lawsuit Moving Toward Resolution
APLINGTON KAUFMAN: Nay Moves to Certify Two Classes Under FDCPA
ARS NATIONAL: Thomas Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
ART VAN: "Bowman" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Call

ASANKO GOLD: Lundin Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: "Alberts" Asserts Right to Privacy Interests
AVIS RENT: Mandatory Arbitration Provision Does Not Block Suit
BLATT HASENMILLER: Class Certification Sought in "Spice" Suit
BRAZTECH INT'L: "Bedwell" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.

BUTLER AREA: Asks Court to Dismiss Tainted Drinking Water Suit
CAPITAL CONTRACTORS: Court Denies "Sanchez" Class Certification
CGR SERVICES: Class Certification Sought in "Harris-Stewart" Suit
CHIPOTLE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages in NJ
CLARFIELD OKON: Wins Final Approval of "Rojas" Suit Settlement

CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE: Court Certifies "West" Suit
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE: Court Certifies "West" Suit
CVS HEALTH: "Bewley" Sues Over Price-Rigging of Insulin
DAIMLER AG: Calif. Judge Allows Investor Class Action to Proceed
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: "Romero" Suit Asserts FACTA Violation

DISH NETWORK: Bids for Judgment, New Trial in "Krakauer" Denied
DRF HOSPITALITY: "Segarra" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
DUNKIN' BRANDS: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Class Action
FIELDTURF: Panel Orders NJ Judge to Oversee Artificial Turf Cases
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in "Ayer" Suit

GRUBHUB INC: Seeks Stay of TCPA Suit Until D.C. Circuit Ruling
HEALTHSMART: Court Rules in Favor of Attorneys in Anti-Slapp Case
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN: Atty. Says Protection System Needs Overhaul
HENRY COUNTY, IN: Ct. Refuses to Review Dismissal of Plaintiffs
HOME PROPS: Lease-Termination Fee Class Fails Requirement

HOSPITAL HOUSEKEEPING: Scheduling Conf. in "Bentley" on Aug. 1
IDAHO: Says Prisoners Exaggerated Claims in Medical Care Suit
JEWELRY CHANNEL: Court Denies Bid to Certify "Kabbash" Class
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Expands Team of Lawyers to Fight Talcum Cases
KATE SPADE & CO: "Rosenfeld" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal

KIEKERT AG: "Ascher" Files Antitrust Suit Over Latch Price-fixing
KING DIGITAL: Judge Approves $18.5 Million Securities Deal
LA FOX BP: "Martinez" Labor Suit Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
LANDLORD LEASING: "Armstrong" Hits Undisclosed Consumer Report
LAR-BEV OF HOWELL: Prelim. OK of "Machesney" Settlement Denied

LINCOR EATERY: "Martin" Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit
LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Final Approval of "Bailes" Class Deal Denied
LIVANOVA PLC: "Pickrell" Sues Over Bacterial Infection
MAIL TRANSPORT: Court Certifies Ex-Workers Class in "Elkins" Suit
MASTERCARD: 27 Firms Take Legal Action Over Processing Fees

MILSTEAD & ASSOCIATES: Fequiere Seeks Final OK of Suit Settlement
NALCOR ENERGY: Faces Potential Class Suit Over Mud Lake Flooding
NORTHLAND HEATING: "Watson" Seeks Overtime, Reimbursements
OCWEN LOAN: Snyder Moves to Certify TCPA Classes and Subclass
ODWALLA INC: Lead Plaintiff Drops Misrepresentation Class Action

OPTUM INC: Has Until June 15 to Respond to "Mauthe" Suit
OUR FAMILY RESTAURANT: "Hernandez" Sues Over Missed Meals Breaks
PETCO ANIMAL: "Hecker" Suit Moved to S.D. Cal.
PHILIP MORRIS: Jury Awards $1.9MM to Smoker Who Escaped Cuba
PITA PAL: "Bassil" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

QIAO XING: "Fayun" Class Certified, Rosen Named as Class Counsel
ROSEBUD RESTAURANTS: Settles Race Discrimination Suit for $1.9MM
ROSS STORES: Jacobo Seeks Certification of Cal. Customers Class
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Cooper" Seeks Washing Machine Warranty
SANOFI: Plaintiffs Attorneys Seek Sanctions in Taxotere Case

SENDINGIO INC: "Bardales" Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
SHAMROCK FOODS: Court Grants Protective Order in "Chavez"
SHELTER MUTUAL: Court OK's "Goodner" Settlement, Dismisses Suit
SOUTHERN KOMFORT: Class Certification Sought in "Bryant" Suit
SPAN-AMERICA: "Porter" Files Suit Over Sale to Savaria Corp.

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Sciabacucchi" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
TATE PUBLISHING: Odds of Class Action in Oklahoma Uncertain
TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: "Bushansky" Files Notice of Dismissal
UBER: Judge Wary of Approving $7.5MM Settlement Agreement
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Okla. Driver Granted Leave to Amend FLSA Suit

UNITED STATES: 4th Cir. Affirms Trump's Travel Ban Injunction
VALERO MARKETING: Bautista Moves to Certify Class of Consumers
VISA: Fights Antitrust Allegations
WATERLOO, ON: Faces Class Suit Over Systematic Discrimination
WAYNE COUNTY, WV: Court Narrows "Hurley" Suit

WERNER ENTERPRISES: Abarca Moves to Certify Truck Drivers Classes
WORTH COUNTY, GA: Sheriff's Dept. Could Face Potential Class Suit
WILMINGTON TRUST: Aug. 2016 Report & Recommendation Unsealed
WILMINGTON TRUST: Bid to Produce Docs in Securities Suit OK'd
WILMINGTON TRUST: Can Compel Answers to Interrogatories

WIX.COM,INC: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violation
ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action Lawsuit

* Defendants Can Appeal NC Class Certs Decisions to Supreme Court
* Hospitals' Pension Class Action Victory May be Short-Lived
* John Rabiej Calls for Clear Rules for Managing MDL Cases
* Saudi Arabia Conducts Workshop on Draft Regulation of CA Suits



                            *********


1-800-FLOWERS: Employee Class in "Rodkey" Conditionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PAMELA RODKEY and CHERIE CUMMINGS, on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated employees
nationwide, and on behalf of the Ohio and Oregon Classes,
Plaintiffs, v. HARRY AND DAVID, LLC, 1-800-FLOWERS SERVICE SUPPORT
CENTER, INC., and DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-
cv-311 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Thomas M. Rose of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division, Dayton, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification and Court-authorized notice.

Plaintiff Rodkey is a former employee of Service Support Center,
and Cummings is a former employee of Harry and David.  Both of the
Defendants are subsidiaries of 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc.  The
Plaintiffs allege that they were denied compensation that they
were entitled to under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") due
to the Defendants' policy and practice of excluding incentive pay,
commissions, and bonuses in calculating nonexempt employees'
overtime compensation.  They assert class and collective claims
against Service Support Center, Harry and David, and several as-
yet-identified Defendants (Does 1-20) for violations of the FLSA
and Ohio and Oregon law.

The Plaintiffs request an order conditionally certifying a
collective action under the FLSA and authorizing notice to all
nonexempt employees who were employed by the Defendants and paid
overtime and incentive pay, commissions and/or other bonuses,
within the past three years preceding the Complaint filing date.

Fourteen individuals have already filed notices of their intent to
opt-in to this action, if the Court certifies the proposed class.
The Defendants argue that conditional certification should be
denied because the class is overbroad; the Plaintiffs are not
similarly situated to all class members; and the Plaintiffs have
not shown that Defendants shared an unlawful "common policy or
plan."

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have made the showing required
to obtain conditional certification at this stage of the
litigation.  Accordingly, the Court granted the Motion for
Conditional Certification and Court-Supervised Notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/lElss5 from Leagle.com.

Pamela Rodkey, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce H. Meizlish --
brucelaw@meizgray.com -- Meizlish & Grayson.

Pamela Rodkey, Plaintiff, represented by Rachhana T. Srey --
srey@nka.com -- pro hac vice, Alan J. Leiman, pro hac vice,
Brittany B.

Skemp -- bskemp@nka.com -- pro hac vice, Drew G. Johnson, pro hac
vice, Jason D. Friedman -- jfriedman@nka.com -- pro hac vice &
Deborah R. Grayson -- dborahg@meizgray.com -- Meizlish & Grayson.

Cheri Cummings, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce H. Meizlish,
Meizlish & Grayson, Rachhana T. Srey, pro hac vice, Alan J.
Leiman, pro hac vice, Drew G. Johnson, pro hac vice, Jason D.
Friedman, pro hac vice & Deborah R. Grayson, Meizlish & Grayson.

1-800 Flowers.com, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel L.
Messeloff, Tucker Ellis LLP.

Harry and David, LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel L.
Messeloff -- daniel.messeloff@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP.

1-800-FLOWERS SERVICE SUPPORT CENTER, INC., Defendant, represented
by Daniel L. Messeloff, Tucker Ellis LLP.

Does 1-20, Defendant, represented by Daniel L. Messeloff, Tucker
Ellis LLP.


111 SW 2ND AVE: "Valencia" Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads
----------------------------------------------------
Crystal J. Valencia, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 111 SW 2nd AVE, LLC (d/b/a Sway
Nightclub), Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-61017 (S.D. Fla., May 23,
2017), seeks an injunction prohibiting Defendant from using an
automatic telephone dialing system to call and text message
telephone numbers assigned to cellular telephones without the
prior express permission of the called party.  The suit further
seeks actual and statutory damages and such further and other
relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant hired Songwhale, LLC, a text-message marketing company,
to promote Defendant's nightclub. Defendant's unsolicited text
messages constitute invasion of Plaintiff's privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion and trespass and also
inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to her daily life,
says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
      HIRALDO P.A.
      401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 400-4713
      Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

            - and -

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Tel: (305) 479-2299
      Fax: (786) 623-0915
      Email: efilings@sflinjuryattorneys.com


3M CO: St. Paul Council Settles River Pollution Suits for $1MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Metropolitan Council in St.
Paul has agreed to pay a manufacturing firm about $1 million to
settle lawsuits over Mississippi River pollution.

The settlement ends the lawsuits between 3M Co. and the council, a
regional planning and policy-making board for the Twin Cities
metro area.  The council and company blamed each other for
chemicals found in the river in 2007, The Pioneer Press reported.

The company manufactured chemicals called perfluorochemicals and
legally dumped them in landfills up until the 1970s.  Traces of
the chemicals were later found in groundwater.

The Metropolitan Council also joined a lawsuit in 2011 filed by
the Minnesota attorney general against 3M for damage to the
environment from the chemicals, which were found in Minnesota
rivers, lakes and groundwater.

The company filed a countersuit in 2012, saying the council's
seven sewage plants were also to blame.  The company stopped
producing the chemicals in 2002, and 3M attorneys argued the
pollutants must have come from a different source.

Metropolitan Council spokeswoman Bonnie Kollodge said the
settlement saves ratepayers from the expense of prolonged
litigation.

"It ensures that funds will be used for the good of the
environment," Ms. Kollodge said.

The company will use the money to remove chemicals from
groundwater and drinking water in and around St. Paul and
Minneapolis.  Documents show the company has already spent more
than $100 million on cleanup since 2012.

In an email, 3M attorney William A. Brewer III said the company
was "pleased to have settled all outstanding matters with the Met
Council."

The Metropolitan Council now has dropped out of the attorney
general's lawsuit.  A trial date for that lawsuit against the
company has not yet been set.


ALABAMA: "Reynolds" Class Settlement Has Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOHNNY REYNOLDS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 2:85cv665-MHT (M.D. Ala.), the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division,
granted final approval of the settlement and the parties' motions
with respect to final class certification and associated issues.

Before the Court is the final chapter in a long story for the non-
black Intervenors who joined this case in the 1990s.  They joined
the lawsuit to ask the Court to reconsider certain race-conscious
provisions in a proposed consent decree between the original
Plaintiffs to this action and the original Defendants, which
included the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT).  As a
result of their intervention, a consent decree was entered in 1994
without the race-conscious provisions to which they objected.
After a partial settlement agreement with the Defendants resolving
their claims for monetary relief through May 29, 2001, the
Intervenors brought individual-contempt claims by which they
asserted that the Defendants' contempt caused them further harm.
As of this moment, the only remaining claims between the
Intervenors and the Defendants are claims relating to actions
under Article 15, paragraph 1 of the consent decree; these claims
involved 213 individuals.

The Intervenors and the Defendants reached a proposed settlement
agreement of the remaining individual contempt claims.  Upon their
joint motion, the Court considered and preliminarily approved that
settlement agreement and provisionally certified the proposed
settlement class.  After preliminarily approving the settlement
agreement and provisionally certifying the proposed settlement
class, the Court directed that the parties provide notice to the
members of the proposed settlement class and to all current ALDOT
employees.

After allowing time for the filing and reporting of objections,
the Court convened a final fairness hearing on May 12, 2017.  The
Court, having considered the objections to the proposed
settlement, the argument of the parties, and the issues presented
by these claims, granted final approval of the settlement and the
parties' motions with respect to final class certification and
associated issues.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, $213,000 will be released
from the court registry fine fund, and $1,000 will be paid to each
of the 213 members of the intervenor-contempt-relief settlement
class ("ICR Settlement Class") in full resolution of all remaining
claims for individual-contempt relief concerning reclassification.
The 213 non-black members of the ICR Settlement Class are those
members of the intervenor class whom defendants identified as due
to be reclassified based on April 1994 duties and who were
employed after the May 29, 2001, fairness hearing and are either
currently employed with ALDOT or were employed prior to 2007.
These ICR Settlement Class members have potentially valid claims
for individual-contempt relief for potential lost pay after May
29, 2001, arising from the Defendants' alleged failure to
implement timely the reclassification that Article 15 of the
consent decree required.

The parties agreed that the payments will not be considered in
calculating retirement benefits for employees under the State
Retirement System.  They also agreed that the members of the ICR
Settlement Class will be responsible for payment of all taxes and
fees payable as a result of the receipt of the funds.

In exchange for the payments, the Intervenors release all further
claims, demands, causes of action, or requests for any further
relief of any kind in the Reynolds litigation, including any
request for contempt relief.  The parties further agreed that the
clerk of the Court will pay $150,000 to the Intervenors' counsel
from the Court registry fine fund for all remaining attorney's
fees and expenses of the Intervenors.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/nyIq6F from Leagle.com.

Johnny Reynolds, Plaintiff, represented by Ann K. Wiggins --
awiggins@wigginschilds.com -- Wiggins Childs Pantanzis Fisher and
Goldfarb LLC.

Johnny Reynolds, Plaintiff, represented by Henry Wallace Blizzard,
III -- wblizzard@wigginschilds.com -- Wiggins Childs Quinn &
Pantanzis, PC, Jon Craig Goldfarb --  jgoldfarb@wigginschilds.com
-- Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantanzis, PC, Julian Lenwood
McPhillips, Jr., McPhillips Shinbaum L.L.P., Rebecca J. Anthony,
USDC, Richard Hamilton Gill, Copeland Franco Screws & Gill PA,
Robert Fletcher Childs, Jr. -- rchilds@wigginschilds.com --
Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantanzis, PC, Robert Lee Wiggins, Jr. --
rwiggins@wigginschilds.com -- Wiggins Childs Pantanzis Fisher
Goldfarb, Russell Wayne Adams -- radams@wigginschilds.com --
Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb, LLC, Stanley W. Logan,
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC & Steven Lee Atha,
Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantanzis, PC.

Jerry Pogue, plaintiff and individual-contempt plaintiff,
Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Cecil Parker, Intervenor Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Cecil Parker, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Jon Craig
Goldfarb, Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantanzis, PC, Julian Lenwood
McPhillips, Jr., McPhillips Shinbaum L.L.P., Rebecca J. Anthony,
USDC & Robert Lee Wiggins, Jr., Wiggins Childs Pantanzis Fisher
Goldfarb.

Robert Johnson, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Jon Craig
Goldfarb, Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantanzis, PC, Julian Lenwood
McPhillips, Jr., McPhillips Shinbaum L.L.P., Rebecca J. Anthony,
USDC & Robert Lee Wiggins, Jr., Wiggins Childs Pantanzis Fisher
Goldfarb.

Frank Reed, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Jon Craig
Goldfarb, Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantanzis, PC, Julian Lenwood
McPhillips, Jr., McPhillips Shinbaum L.L.P., Rebecca J. Anthony,
USDC & Robert Lee Wiggins, Jr., Wiggins Childs Pantanzis Fisher
Goldfarb.

Ouida Maxwell, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Jon Craig
Goldfarb, Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantanzis, PC, Julian Lenwood
McPhillips, Jr., McPhillips Shinbaum L.L.P., Rebecca J. Anthony,
USDC & Robert Lee Wiggins, Jr., Wiggins Childs Pantanzis Fisher
Goldfarb.

Martha Ann Boleware, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Jon
Craig Goldfarb, Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantanzis, PC, Julian
Lenwood McPhillips, Jr., McPhillips Shinbaum L.L.P., Rebecca J.
Anthony, USDC & Robert Lee Wiggins, Jr., Wiggins Childs Pantanzis
Fisher Goldfarb.

Peggy Vonsherie Allen, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Jon
Craig Goldfarb, Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantanzis, PC, Julian
Lenwood McPhillips, Jr., McPhillips Shinbaum L.L.P., Rebecca J.
Anthony, USDC & Robert Lee Wiggins, Jr., Wiggins Childs Pantanzis
Fisher Goldfarb.

Department of Transportation, State of Alabama, Defendant,
represented by Christopher Marlowe Mitchell --
cmitchell@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale, Christpher
William Weller -- Chris.Weller@chlaw.com -- Capell Howard PC,
Ellen Ruth Leonard, Office of the Attorney General, George Robert
Prescott, Jr., Alabama Dept. of Transportation, Laszlo Daniel
Morris, Jr., Alabama State Personnel Department, Mai lan F. Isler
-- aiLan.Isler@chlaw.com -- Capell & Howard PC, pro hac vice,
Patrick Hanlon Sims -- phs@cabaniss.com -- Cabaniss Johnston
Gardner Dumas & O'Neal, Robert Austin Huffaker --
RAH2@rushtonstakely.com -- Rushton Stakely Johnston & Garrett PA,
William H. Pryor, Jr., Office of the Attorney General, Barbara
Jean Wells, Capell & Howard, P.C., Nathan Andrew Forrester, Tara
S. Hetzel, Alabama State Personnel Department & Alice Ann Byrne,
Alabama State Personnel Dept..

Department of Personnel, State of Alabama, Defendant, represented
by Alice Ann Byrne, Alabama State Personnel Dept., Ellen Ruth
Leonard, Office of the Attorney General, William H. Pryor, Jr.,
Office of the Attorney General, Barbara Jean Wells --
Barbara.Wells@chlaw.com -- Capell & Howard, P.C., Tara S. Hetzel,
Alabama State Personnel Department & Christopher William Weller,
Capell Howard PC.

Anne Regina Yuengert, Defendant, represented by Christopher
William Weller, Capell Howard PC.

Robert Bentley, Defendant, represented by David Bryson Byrne, Jr.,
State of Alabama, Governor's Office, Christopher William Weller,
Capell Howard PC, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Office of the Attorney
General & Troy Robin King -- Troy@troykinglaw.com. -- The Law
Offices of Troy King.

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Amicus,
represented by Barbara R. Arnwine -- barnwine@barbaraarnwine.com -
- Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Richard T.
Seymour -- www.rickseymourlaw.com -- Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights Under Law, Teresa A. Ferrante, Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights Under Law & Thomas J. Henderson, Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights Under Law.

Thomas G. Flowers, Defendant, represented by Christopher William
Weller, Capell Howard PC, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Office of the
Attorney General, William H. Pryor, Jr., Office of the Attorney
General & Tara S. Hetzel, Alabama State Personnel Department.

Lena Burroughs, Movant, Pro Se.

Carlos Gonzalez, Hon., Special Master, represented by Carlos A.
Gonzalez.

Joseph McInnes, Defendant, represented by Christopher William
Weller, Capell Howard PC, Ellen Ruth Leonard, Office of the
Attorney General & Tara S. Hetzel, Alabama State Personnel
Department.

Elaine M. Coley, Movant, Pro Se.


ALTERNATIVE ENTM'T: Action Waivers Violate NLRA, 6th Cir. Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Moss, Esq., and Adam Primm, Esq., at Benesch, in an article
for JD Supra, wrote that on May 26, the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals became the latest federal appellate court to weigh in on
whether or not arbitration agreements that include class action
waivers violate federal labor law, specifically, the National
Labor Relations Act ("NLRA").

The case is NLRB v. Alt. Entm't, Inc., No. 16-1385, 2017 U.S. App.
LEXIS 9272 (6th Cir. May 26, 2017).

In a 2-1 decision, the Court agreed with the National Labor
Relations Board's ("NLRB") position that mandatory arbitration
agreements that require employees to waive their right to bring
claims as a class or collective action interfere with employees'
right to engage in concerted protected activity for their mutual
aid or protection, a right protected under Section 7 of the NLRA.

This issue has been percolating at the appellate court level since
2013 and at least six federal appellate courts have now considered
the issue. With the Sixth Circuit's decision, circuits now have
split evenly on the issue, 3-3.

In D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013), the
Fifth Circuit rejected the NLRB's ruling that requiring employees
to agree to mandatory arbitration and forego class and collection
actions as a condition of employment violates the NLRA. The Fifth
Circuit refused to enforce the NLRB's order, holding that it
violated the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). The Fifth Circuit
dismissed the NLRB's argument that the FAA's savings clause
(providing that arbitration agreements shall be enforceable except
"upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation
of any contract") renders an arbitration agreement with a class
action waiver invalid. The Fifth Circuit also found that the NLRA
did not contain a congressional command exempting the statute from
application of the FAA. Thus, the arbitration agreement was
enforceable. The Second and Eighth Circuits subsequently agreed.
Sutherland v. Ernst & Young, 726 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2013);
Patterson v. Raymours Furniture Co., 659 Fed. Appx. 40 (2d Cir.
2016); Owen v. Bristol Care, Inc., 702 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2013);
Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC v. NLRB, 824 F.3d 772 (8th Cir.
2016). The Fifth Circuit reiterated its position in 2015 and again
rejected the NLRB's argument that class action waivers contained
in arbitration agreements violate the NLRA. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
v. NLRB, 808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir. 2015).

On the other side, the Sixth Circuit has now joined the Seventh
and Ninth Circuits in following the NLRB's position that such
class action waivers violate Section 7 of the NLRA. Lewis v. Epic
Systems Corp., 823 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2016); Morris v. Ernst &
Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016). The Sixth Circuit
pronounced that the NLRA and FAA must "work in harmony" and that
an arbitration agreement that violates the NLRA is not enforceable
under the FAA. The Sixth Circuit determined that no conflict
exists between the FAA and the NLRA because the NLRA protects all
concerted activity. The Court further maintained that interference
with such concerted activity -- such as enforcing a class action
waiver in a mandatory arbitration agreement -- violates the NLRA.
The Sixth Circuit concluded that the right to concerted legal
action, whether substantive or procedural, is a right guaranteed
by Section 7 of the NLRA. Consequently, any arbitration provision
that operates to prohibit this Section 7 right is explicitly
illegal and, as such, falls within the savings clause of the FAA.

The Supreme Court has already granted certiorari to hear the
Murphy Oil (5th Circuit), Epic Systems (7th Circuit), and Ernst &
Young (9th Circuit) cases to resolve the split. [GN]


AMAZON.COM INC: Kentucky Court Dismisses "Busk" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Judge David J. Hale of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, dismissed with
prejudice the case captioned IN RE: AMAZON.COM, INC., FULFILLMENT
CENTER FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND HOUR
LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO Busk v. Integrity Staffing
Solutions, Inc., Master No. 3:14-md-2504, Case No. 3:14-cv-139-DJH
(W.D. Ky.).

The "Busk" action was filed in Nevada in October 2010.  That court
dismissed the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint for failure to
state a claim, agreeing with Integrity Staffing Solutions (which
was then the only defendant) that time spent going through
security screenings or walking to and from lunch was not
compensable work time under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  As to
the Plaintiffs' claims under Nevada law for unpaid wages arising
from the security checks and shortened meal periods, the Nevada
district court found that the plaintiffs properly asserted a
private cause of action under Nevada Revised Statutes Section
608.140 but failed to allege sufficient facts to support their
claim.

The Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the
dismissal of the mealperiod claims but reversed as to the
security-check claims.  The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that
the time related to the security checks was not compensable under
the FLSA.  Specifically, the Court found that the security
screenings were "noncompensable postliminary activities" under the
Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 254(a)(2).  Following that
decision, the Plaintiffs again amended their complaint.  The third
amended complaint asserts claims under Nevada and Arizona law for
unpaid wages and overtime, as well as minimum-wage violations.
The Defendants seek dismissal of all four claims.

Judge Hale sees no indication that Nevada courts would reject the
Supreme Court's reasoning as to whether time spent on security
screenings is compensable.  There is no material difference
between Nevada statutes and the FLSA on this point, and Nevada
courts look to federal wage-and-hour law where state precedent is
lacking, the judge pointed out.  Thus, regardless of whether a
private right of action is available, the Nevada Plaintiffs have
failed to state a plausible claim for relief with respect to
overtime or unpaid wages, the judge held.

Judge Hale also does not read the Section 608.115(2) regulation as
excluding hourly employees from the workweek standard, as the
Plaintiffs contend.  Thus, even if time spent waiting for or
undergoing security screenings were compensable under Nevada law,
the Nevada Plaintiffs' minimum-wage claim would fail because they
do not allege that there was a week for which they were paid less
than minimum wage, the judge added.

The Arizona Plaintiffs' claims fail for similar reasons, the judge
said.  In short, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they
are entitled to compensation under Arizona law for time spent
undergoing, or waiting to undergo, security screenings.

Judge Hale held that the third amended complaint fails to state a
plausible claim for relief under Nevada or Arizona law.
Accordingly, and the Kentucky Court being otherwise sufficiently
advised, granted Amazon's and Integrity's motions to dismiss.  All
claims having been resolved, the matter is dismissed with
prejudice and stricken from the Court's docket.  The motion for
hearing and motion for status conference are denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2017 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/b5C9UP from Leagle.com.

Kay Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison --
dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett Johnston Martin &
Garrison, LLC, David O'Brien Suetholz -- dave@unionsidelawyers.com
-- Kircher Suetholz & Grayson, LPA, J. Chris Sanders, Jacob R.
Rusch -- JRUSCH@JOHNSONBECKER.COM -- Johnson Becker, PLLC, Jason
J. Thompson -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C.,
Jerry E. Martin -- jmartin@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett Johnston
Martin & Garrison, LLC, Jesse L. Young -- jyoung@sommerspc.com --
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Peter D. Winebrake, Winebrake & Santillo,
LLC, R. Andrew Santillo, Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, Scott P. Tift
-- stift@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett Johnston Martin &
Garrison, LLC, Seth M. Hyatt -- shyatt@barrettjohnston.com --
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Timothy J. Becker --
TBECKER@JOHNSONBECKER.COM -- Johnson Becker, PLLC.

Cylinda Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, David O'Brien Suetholz,
Kircher Suetholz & Grayson, LPA, J. Chris Sanders, Jacob R. Rusch,
Johnson Becker, PLLC, Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C.,
Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Jesse L.
Young, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Peter D. Winebrake, Winebrake &
Santillo, LLC, R. Andrew Santillo, Winebrake & Santillo, LLC,
Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Seth M.
Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Timothy J.
Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC.

Lisa Williams, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, David O'Brien Suetholz,
Kircher Suetholz & Grayson, LPA, J. Chris Sanders, Jacob R. Rusch,
Johnson Becker, PLLC, Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C.,
Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Jesse L.
Young, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Peter D. Winebrake, Winebrake &
Santillo, LLC, R. Andrew Santillo, Winebrake & Santillo, LLC,
Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Seth M.
Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Timothy J.
Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC.

Melody Brown, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, David O'Brien Suetholz, Kircher
Suetholz & Grayson, LPA, J. Chris Sanders, Jacob R. Rusch, Johnson
Becker, PLLC, Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Jesse L. Young,
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Peter D. Winebrake, Winebrake & Santillo,
LLC, R. Andrew Santillo, Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Timothy J. Becker, Johnson
Becker, PLLC.

Anthony Stargle, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, David O'Brien Suetholz,
Kircher Suetholz & Grayson, LPA, J. Chris Sanders, Jacob R. Rusch,
Johnson Becker, PLLC, Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C.,
Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Jesse L.
Young, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Peter D. Winebrake, Winebrake &
Santillo, LLC, R. Andrew Santillo, Winebrake & Santillo, LLC,
Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Seth M.
Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Timothy J.
Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC.

Phyllis West, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, David O'Brien Suetholz, Kircher
Suetholz & Grayson, LPA, J. Chris Sanders, Jacob R. Rusch, Johnson
Becker, PLLC, Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Jesse L. Young,
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Peter D. Winebrake, Winebrake & Santillo,
LLC, R. Andrew Santillo, Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Timothy J. Becker, Johnson
Becker, PLLC.

Karen Greene, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, David O'Brien Suetholz, Kircher
Suetholz & Grayson, LPA, J. Chris Sanders, Jacob R. Rusch, Johnson
Becker, PLLC, Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Jesse L. Young,
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Peter D. Winebrake, Winebrake & Santillo,
LLC, R. Andrew Santillo, Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Timothy J. Becker, Johnson
Becker, PLLC.

Joe Dickson, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, David O'Brien Suetholz, Kircher
Suetholz & Grayson, LPA, J. Chris Sanders, Jason J. Thompson,
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin &
Garrison, LLC, Jesse L. Young, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Peter D.
Winebrake, Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, R. Andrew Santillo,
Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin
& Garrison, LLC, Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin &
Garrison, LLC & Timothy J. Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC.

Sheila S. Dickson, MDL Plaintiff, represented by David W.
Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, David O'Brien
Suetholz, Kircher Suetholz & Grayson, LPA, J. Chris Sanders, Jacob
R. Rusch, Johnson Becker, PLLC, Jason J. Thompson, Sommers
Schwartz, P.C., Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin &
Garrison, LLC, Jesse L. Young, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Peter D.
Winebrake, Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, R. Andrew Santillo,
Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin
& Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin &
Garrison, LLC.

Earl Barnett, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, David O'Brien Suetholz, Kircher
Suetholz & Grayson, LPA, J. Chris Sanders, Jacob R. Rusch, Johnson
Becker, PLLC, Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Jesse L. Young,
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Peter D. Winebrake, Winebrake & Santillo,
LLC, R. Andrew Santillo, Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, Scott P. Tift,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Timothy J. Becker, Johnson
Becker, PLLC.

Amazon.com, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alison B. Willard,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Chelsea D. Petersen -
CDPetersen@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Colm F. Connolly
-- colm.connolly@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Daniel Clayton Barr -- DBarr@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP,
Jill Louise Ripke -- JRipke@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP,
John E. Anderson -- janderson@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson
Wright PLLC, Joseph A. Nuccio -- joseph.nuccio@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kathryn A. Quesenberry --
kathy.quesenberry@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Michael J.
Puma -- michael.puma@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Morris Reid Estes, Jr. -- restes@dickinsonwright.com --
Dickinson Wright PLLC, Rebecca D. Eisen, Morgan Lewis & Bockius,
LLP, Richard G. Rosenblatt -- richard.rosenblatt@morganlewis.com -
- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Sacha M. Steenhoek --
ssteenhoek@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Scott
M. Mahoney -- smahoney@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips,
LLP, Theresa Mak -- theresa.mak@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, LLP & William O. Mandycz, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Amazon.com.KYDC, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph A. Nuccio,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kathryn A. Quesenberry, Dinsmore &
Shohl LLP, Rebecca D. Eisen, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Richard
G. Rosenblatt, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Theresa Mak, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius, LLP.

Amazon.com.KYDC, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joseph A. Nuccio,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kathryn A. Quesenberry, Dinsmore &
Shohl LLP, Rebecca D. Eisen, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Richard
G. Rosenblatt, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Theresa Mak, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius, LLP.

Zappos.com, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph A. Nuccio,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kathryn A. Quesenberry, Dinsmore &
Shohl LLP, Rebecca D. Eisen, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Richard
G. Rosenblatt, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Theresa Mak, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius, LLP.

Zappos Fulfillment Centers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph
A. Nuccio, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kathryn A. Quesenberry,
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Rebecca D. Eisen, Morgan Lewis & Bockius,
LLP, Richard G. Rosenblatt, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Theresa
Mak, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP.

Kelly Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ashley C. Workman,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. -- gmaatman@seyfarth.com
-- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Matthew Gagnon -- mgagnon@seyfarth.com --
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Rebecca P. Bromet -- rbromet@seyfarth.com --
Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Reema Kapur, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by C.
Eric Stevens -- estevens@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, pro
hac vice, Cory G. Walker -- cgwalker@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C., J. Andrew Inman --  jinman@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.S.C., Martha J. Keon --  mkeon@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, PC, Neil M. Alexander -- nalexander@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, Peter D. Navarro, Jack, Lyon & Jones, Rachel R.
Rosenblatt --  rrosenblatt@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Rick D. Roskelley -- rroskelley@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,
PC, Roger L. Grandgenett, II -- rgrandgenett@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, PC & Sarah B. Fask -- sfask@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, PC.

Amazon.com.DEDC, LLC, Defendant, represented by Colm F. Connolly,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Joseph A. Nuccio, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Michael J. Puma, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Morris
Reid Estes, Jr., Dickinson Wright PLLC, Rebecca D. Eisen, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Richard G. Rosenblatt, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Theresa Mak, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, William O.
Mandycz, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Alison B. Willard, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Kathryn A. Quesenberry, Dinsmore & Shohl
LLP, Rebecca D. Eisen, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Sacha M.
Steenhoek, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP.

SMX, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amelia D. Winchester --
elizabeth.muyskens@skofirm.com -- Ongaro PC, Cara R. Sherman --
csherman@ongaropc.com -- Ongaro PC, David R. Ongaro --
dongaro@ongaropc.com -- Ongaro PC, Elizabeth S. Muyskens, Stoll
Keenon Ogden PLLC , Garrett R. Ferencz, TrueBlue, Inc. & Richard
G. Griffith -- richard.griffith@skofirm.com -- Stoll Keenon Ogden
PLLC.

AF Operations, Defendant, represented by Alison B. Willard, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Joseph A. Nuccio, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Morris Reid Estes, Jr., Dickinson Wright PLLC, Rebecca D.
Eisen, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Richard G. Rosenblatt, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP.


ANDERSON HOUSING: Westvale Manor Lawsuit Moving Toward Resolution
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Hirsch, writing for The Herald Bulletin, reports that like
"The Little Engine That Could," a federal lawsuit alleging racial
discrimination and unhealthy living conditions against the
Anderson Housing Authority is slowly chugging its way to
resolution.

In a joint motion to U.S. Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch
last September, lawyers for residents of Westvale Manor who filed
the class-action lawsuit, and lawyers for the Anderson Housing
Authority asked to suspend settlement talks.

They told Lynch they had reached an agreement on monetary terms,
which were not revealed; subjects to be addressed in a three-year
consent, which were not disclosed; and the general terms of most,
but not all, subject matters to be covered in the consent decree,
which were not discussed.

In addition, the attorneys said the language for the decree had to
be approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), the Anderson Housing Authority's board of directors, and
disclosed to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Furthermore, the parties optimistically predicted all those tasks
could be completed within 30 days, according to the document filed
in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

Now, eight months later, those tasks have apparently not yet been
completed, according to the most recent status report in the case
issued on May 31.

According to that court document, HUD signed off after making some
changes to the proposed decree, which the Housing Authority board
tentatively approved.

The Justice Department, however, completed an investigation of the
Housing Authority and claims raised by Westvale tenants "that
overlapped with, or were similar to those raised by plaintiffs in
this litigation."

As a result, the Housing Authority asked for additional time to
resolve those claims.

In May, the Justice Department submitted a proposed settlement to
the Housing Authority, which said it needs more time to consider
the proposal, according to the status document.

Residents at the 45-unit Westvale Manor apartments, near 22nd
Street and Madison Avenue, filed the class-action lawsuit last
year.

They alleged residents suffered sexual harassment, racial
discrimination and health problems related to conditions
management failed to address.

For more than a year, requests for apartment repairs by residents
went unanswered, according to the lawsuit. [GN]


APLINGTON KAUFMAN: Nay Moves to Certify Two Classes Under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order determining that
the action captioned KIMBERLY L. NAY and BRUCE E. NAY, on behalf
of plaintiffs and a class v. APLINGTON, KAUFMAN, MCCLINTOCK,
STEELE & BARRY, LTD.; ROBERT B. STEELE, and COLLECTION
PROFESSIONALS, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-04028 (N.D. Ill.), may
proceed as a class action against the Defendants pursuant to the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The Plaintiffs seek to
certify two classes, which overlap:

   (1) Class A consists of (a) all individuals in Illinois, (b)
       against whom Aplington, Kaufman, McClintock, Steele &
       Barry, Ltd. filed a complaint, (c) including a "notice of
       debt," (d) which complaint was filed on or after a date 1
       year prior to the filing of this action, and prior to a
       date 21 days after this action; and

   (2) Class B consists of (a) all individuals in Illinois, (b)
       against whom Collection Professionals, Inc., filed a
       complaint, (c) including a "notice of debt," (d) which
       complaint was filed on or after a date 1 year prior to the
       filing of this action, and prior to a date 21 days after
       this action.

The Plaintiffs further ask that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aDF4ceVK

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Emiliya Gumin Farbstein, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  efarbstein@edcombs.com


ARS NATIONAL: Thomas Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves for an order certifying the case titled ERICA
K. THOMAS, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
ARS NATIONAL SERVICES, INC. and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-
cv-03635-JAD (D.N.J.), to proceed as a class action and granting
preliminary approval of the parties' class settlement agreement.

The class is defined as:

     All Consumers residing in the State of New Jersey to whom
     ARS National Services, Inc. mailed a written communication
     in a windowed envelope between May 29, 2014, and May 29,
     2015, to collect a debt on behalf of Comenity Capital Bank,
     where the bar code containing the file number associated
     with the consumer's debt was visible from the outside of the
     envelope, and/or which identified the creditor as "Bill Me
     Later."

Ms. Thomas filed the class action lawsuit pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act alleging that ARS violated the FDCPA
by mailing consumers collection letters in a windowed envelope
such that the bar code containing the file number associated with
the consumer's debt was visible from the outside of the envelope,
among other allegations.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
          E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com

               - and -

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 200
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


ART VAN: "Bowman" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Call
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bowman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Art Van Furniture, Inc., a Michigan
corporation, Defendant, Case No. BC662135 (Cal. Super., May 22,
2017), seeks disgorgement of any ill-gotten funds acquired as a
result of Defendant's unlawful telephone calling practices, an
injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited
prerecorded calling activities and prohibiting from using or
contracting the use of an automatic telephone dialing system
without obtaining recipient's prior express written consent, an
award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other and
further relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Defendant is a retail furniture business throughout Michigan and
the Midwest and have turned to unsolicited telemarketing as a way
to increase its customer base. Plaintiff has received multiple
calls to his cell phone from Art Van promoting their services and
sales. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradley J. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BRADLEY J. FRIEDMAN, ESQ.
      30300 Northwestern Hwy, Suite 106
      Farmington Hills, MI 48334
      Tel: (800) 496-4137
           (248) 932-1734

             - and -

      Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
      Woodrow & Peluso, LLC
      3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80210
      Telephone: (720) 213-0675
      Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
      Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com


ASANKO GOLD: Lundin Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, announces the filing of
a class action lawsuit against Asanko Gold Inc. ("Asanko" or the
"Company") (NYSE MKT: AKG) for possible violations of federal
securities laws between October 24, 2014 and May 31, 2017
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact
the firm prior to the July 31, 2017 lead plaintiff motion
deadline.

You can also call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-
713-1033, or e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com.

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

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Asanko
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: Asanko Gold's Mineral Resource Estimates are flawed; that
some of the Company's resources models exhibit signs that they
have been "smeared," which would cause estimates of their ore
contents to be inflated; and that as a result of the above,
Asanko's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. On May 31, 2017, research firm Muddy Waters
published a report asserting, among other things, that: Asanko
made investments based on flawed geology in Nkran, its satellite
pits, and Esaase that Muddy Waters believes "will never be
recovered;" and that there are indicia that some of the Company's
resources models have been "smeared," which would cause estimates
of their ore contents to be inflated. Upon release of this news,
Asanko shares decreased in value, which caused investors harm
according to the Complaint.

Lundin Law PC was founded by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator
based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights.
[GN]

     Brian Lundin, Esq.
     Lundin Law PC
     Tel: 888-713-1033
     Fax: 888-713-1125
     E-mail: brian@lundinlawpc.com


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: "Alberts" Asserts Right to Privacy Interests
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Alberts, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. Asset Acceptance, LLC and Does 1-2, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00467, (W.D. Mich., May 23, 2017), seeks statutory
damages, actual damages and attorney's fees and costs of suit as
allowed by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Michigan
Regulation of Collection Practices Act.

Asset Acceptance is in the business of purchasing charged off
consumer debts. In attempting to collect a debt, Defendant used an
envelope that published that Plaintiff is a "judgment debtor."
Plaintiff claims the legal substantive right to not having
disclosed on an envelope that she is a debtor, including the same
right to privacy interests and seclusion. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
      WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
      350 S. Northwest HWY., Ste. 300
      Park Ridge, IL 60068
      Tel: (847) 701-5290
      Email: cwarner@warner.legal

             - and -

      B. Thomas Golden, Esq.
      GOLDEN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      2186 West Main Street, P.O. Box 9
      Lowell, MI 49331
      Tel: (616) 897-2900
      Email: btg@bthomasgolden.com


AVIS RENT: Mandatory Arbitration Provision Does Not Block Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq., at Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article
for Lexology, wrote that the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey denied Avis Rent A Car System, L.L.C.'s
motion to compel arbitration in a putative Telephone Consumer
Protection Act class action.

In that action, the named plaintiff claims that when renting a car
via Avis's website, each consumer is "presented with a checkbox
asking whether the consumer consents to receiving alerts via text
message." However, according to the named plaintiff, even if the
customer does not consent to receive text messages, Avis
automatically sends text messages anyway, in violation of the
TCPA. In response to the complaint, Avis filed a motion seeking to
compel the named plaintiff to arbitrate his claim. After
considering Avis's motion, the Court denied the requested relief,
but allowed Avis to conduct limited discovery and refile the
motion as one for summary judgment.

Why Was Avis's Motion to Compel Arbitration to Defeat the TCPA
Class Action Denied?

In its motion papers, Avis argued that the named plaintiff is an
Avis Preferred Member and as such, therefore, agreed to Avis's
"Preferred Rental Transaction Terms and Conditions" in signing up
to become a member. The Avis preferred membership program terms
and conditions contain a mandatory arbitration provision with "a
conspicuous, broad, and unambiguous" class action waiver
provision. However, the named plaintiff opposed the motion and
asserted that he did not enter his Avid Preferred Member
information when making the reservation at issue. Avis replied,
adamantly stating that the named plaintiff did, in fact, use his
Avis Preferred Membership when making the instant reservation, and
suggested that the Court allow for limited discovery on this
discreet issue. After conducting a review of the legal standard in
considering Avis's motion, the Court held that it "cannot decide
the present motion without first ordering limited discovery as to
the question of arbitrability." Once the facts are clarified
during discovery, the Court stated, it will revisit Avis's motion
to compel arbitration.

We have previously blogged about the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau's plan to limit or prohibit class action waivers in
consumer arbitration agreements. Although courts throughout the
country have found class action waivers in consumer arbitration
agreements enforceable, the Avis action underscores the need to
consult with experienced attorneys to ensure that your class
action waiver holds up. [GN]


BLATT HASENMILLER: Class Certification Sought in "Spice" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Spice asks the Court to certify the action entitled GLORIA
SPICE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
BLATT, HASENMILLER, LIEBSKER & MOORE LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00366-
WCL-SLC (N.D. Ind.), as a class action, to appoint her as class
representative, and to appoint her counsel as class counsel.

The proposed class consists of:

     All individuals in the State of Indiana to whom Defendant
     sent, within one year before the date of the original
     complaint and in connection with the collection of a debt, a
     letter based upon the Template.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2g5vPAaM

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Panvini, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 388-8875
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          E-mail: jpanvini@consumerlawinfo.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jennifer Kalas, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
          322 Indianapolis Blvd., Suite 201
          Schererville, IN 46375
          Telephone: (219) 864-4521
          E-mail: jkalas@hinshawlaw.com

               - and -

          David Schultz, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
          222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 704-3527
          E-mail: dschultz@hinshawlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Manhart, Esq.
          BLATT, HASENMILLER, LEIBSKER & MOORE
          8605 Broadway
          Merrillville, IN 46410
          Telephone: (800) 228-8996
          Facsimile: (219) 769-6671
          E-mail: cmanhart@bhlmlaw.com


BRAZTECH INT'L: "Bedwell" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Suzanne M. Bedwell, Plaintiff, v. Braztech
International, LC, Defendant, No. 3:16-cv-00217 JWS (D. Alaska),
Judge John W. Sedwic of the United States District Court for the
District of Alaska granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss,
stay, or transfer the action; and granted the Plaintiff's motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint.

Bedwell commenced this class action on Sept. 16, 2016.  Although
the caption of her complaint states that she is proceeding "as
mother and next friend of R.Z.B.," Bedwell is not actually suing
on behalf of her minor son under Rule 17(c).  Instead, she is
proceeding strictly on her own behalf as the owner of an allegedly
defective Rossi .357 Magnum.  Bedwell's First Amended Class Action
Complaint states claims for (i) breach of warranty; (ii) negligent
failure to warn; (iii) negligent failure to test; (iv) strict
liability; and (v) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA").  The putative class is defined as
"All individuals in the United States and its territories who own
a Rossi brand .357 Magnum revolver."

Bedwell's complaint expressly disclaims any personal injury claims
or damages.  On the same day that Bedwell filed this action,
Bedwell's husband Ernest D. Bedwell filed a complaint in the
Alaska Superior Court against Braztech and the company that sold
Bedwell the Rossi .357 Magnum, Three Bears Alaska, Inc.  Mr.
Bedwell's complaint seeks damages for personal injuries that
R.Z.B. suffered and emotional distress that he suffered as a
result of the accident.  Braztech and Three Bears have counter-
sued Bedwell for apportionment of fault.  The Alaska Action is
currently pending.

Approximately four months before Bedwell filed her putative class
action, two Alabama residents, William and Oma Louise Burrow,
filed a nationwide class action in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida against Braztech and
Forjas Taurus, S.A., the Brazilian company that manufactures Rossi
.357 Magnum revolvers and Rossi .38 Special revolvers.  Mr. and
Mrs. Burrow allege that they own a Rossi .38 Special revolver, and
Mrs. Burrows was injured when she dropped it, causing it to
accidentally discharge a round of ammunition that struck her in
the leg.  The Burrows allege that both types of Rossi revolvers
are unreasonably dangerous and defective because they are prone to
accidental discharge when dropped.  The Burrows' complaint states
claims for (i) violation of the FDUTPA; (ii) negligence (including
failure to test); (iii) strict liability; (iv) breach of express
warranty; (v) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (vi)
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (vii) negligent
failure to disclose, failure to warn, concealment, and
misrepresentation; (viii) fraudulent concealment and intentional
failure to warn; and (ix) declaratory relief.  The putative class
is defined as "All individuals in the United States who own a
Revolver," which includes several models of Rossi .38 Special
revolvers and all four models of Rossi .357 Magnum revolvers that
are at issue in Bedwell's complaint.

In light of the Florida Action, Braztech moves for an order
dismissing, staying, or transferring this action pursuant to the
first-to-file rule.  After briefing on Braztech's motion was
complete, Bedwell filed her pending motion for leave to amend her
complaint to add her husband as a plaintiff and the same two state
law claims that he is currently litigating in the Alaska Action
(with Mrs. Bedwell also added to those claims).  Mr. Bedwell
states in his affidavit that if the Court grants Bedwell's motion
then he will file for voluntary dismissal of the Alaska Action.

The Alaska Court finds that a transfer of this case to the
Southern District of Florida will best serve the purpose of the
first-to-file rule in promoting judicial efficiency and avoiding
the possibility of conflicting judgments.  Once the two cases are
before the same court, they might be joined for certain purposes
or consolidated under Rule 42(a).  Although Braztech argues that
dismissal is more appropriate than transfer, the premise of this
argument is that the Florida Action could provide full and
adequate relief to Bedwell.  That is no longer the case in light
of the new claims added by Bedwell's SACAC.

For these reasons, Braztech's move pursuant to the "first-to-file"
rule for an order dismissing, staying, or transferring this action
is granted and Bedwell's move pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) for leave
to file a second amended complaint is granted.  The Plaintiffs
shall file the Second Amended Class Action Complaint within 7
days.  Within 10 days Mr. Bedwell shall move for voluntary
dismissal of the action he filed in the Alaska Superior Court.
Fourteen days after the date of the Order the Clerk will transfer
this case to the Southern District of Florida.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2017 order and opinion is
available at https://is.gd/xcbTlY from Leagle.com

Suzanne M. Bedwell, a minor, Plaintiff, represented by Brian W.
Warwick -- bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com -- Varnell & Warwick,
P.A..

Suzanne M. Bedwell, a minor, Plaintiff, represented by Christian
Bataille, Flanigan & Bataille.

Braztech International LC, Defendant, represented by John B.
Thorsness, Clapp, Peterson, Tiemessen, Thorsness & Johnson, LLC,
John P. Marino -- jmarino@sgrlaw.com -- Smith, Gambrell & Russell,
LLP, John F. Weeks -- jweeks@sgrlaw.com -- IV, Smith, Gambrell &
Russell, LLP & Kristen W. Bracken -- kbracken@sgrlaw.com -- Smith,
Gambrell & Russell, LLP.


BUTLER AREA: Asks Court to Dismiss Tainted Drinking Water Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that a western
Pennsylvania school district and several former administrators
asked a federal judge on June 1 to toss claims brought by a class
of parents alleging they hid the presence of hazardous copper and
lead levels in the water of an elementary school for months,
arguing the claims were preempted by the federal Safe Drinking
Water Act.

The Butler Area School District said the court should follow the
lead of the Michigan federal judge who tossed a proposed civil
rights class action over the Flint water crisis, finding that
their private claims were wiped out by the federal statute.

The district acknowledged that the court was not obligated to
follow the Michigan decision, but it noted the judge there relied
on precedent from the First Circuit

"Butler knows such decision is not binding. There are nonetheless
many reasons for following its guidance. It is from an area where
lead water cases have been pending since 2015. It addresses
federal claims of the same type alleged here. It relies on U.S.
Supreme Court authority that does bind this court. And it is well-
reasoned and persuasive," the district said.

Jennifer Tait sued the district and its former superintendent in
February, saying the district received test results for the
school's water in August, but did not notify parents until the
middle of January. Throughout that time, Tait said her daughter
and others drank the contaminated water, which increased the
possibility of lead or copper poisoning. She later amended the
complaint to add the former assistant superintendent and
maintenance director as defendants.

According to the complaint, officials at Butler, which is less
than 50 miles north of Pittsburgh, conducted the tests at Summit
Elementary, which revealed lead in the water to be at 200 to 300
percent higher than allowed. Copper levels were also elevated to a
hazardous point, the complaint said.

The school district cautioned that its effort to defeat the
lawsuit quickly did not mean that it was not taking the
allegations against it seriously.

"Butler has confronted and continues to respond to issues related
to the water at the affected school because of independent
motivations that Butler has always had, as a body serving and
representing the most important resource of its community; this
lawsuit was not the trigger for such behavior," it said.

The school district also asserted that the complaint said it
engaged in no more than passive inaction, which is not enough to
sustain a federal negligence claim.

"There are no allegations that defendants themselves added lead or
copper to the existing environmental levels of those substances in
the water. There are no allegations that they intentionally and
affirmatively disabled the water treatment systems," it said.
"There are no allegations that they intentionally and
affirmatively changed the results of the water testing that was
reported. There are no allegations that they compelled the
students to drink the water."

In a separate response, the former superintendent and assistant
superintendent made a similar argument about the lack of any
affirmative actions, and also argued that the parents did not have
standing to bring tort claims on behalf of their children in the
matter.

Brendan Lupetin, who represents Tait, said the motions to dismiss
were standard practice.

"We will absolutely be filing opposition papers and are optimistic
that the case will proceed forward and justice will be had for the
affected children and their families," he added.

Tait is represented by Douglas J. Olcott, Esq. and Caitlin M.
Harrington, Esq. of Dallas Hartman PC and Brendan B. Lupetin, Esq.
of Meyers Evans Lupetin & Unatin LLC.

The school district is represented by Patrick Sorek, Esq. and Lyle
D. Washowich, Esq. -- lwashowich@burnswhite.com -- of Burns White
LLC.

Defendants Dale Lumley and Mary Wolf are represented by James
Miller, Esq. -- jmiller@dmclaw.com -- of Dickie McCamey &
Chilcote.

Defendant Glenn Terwilliger is represented by Jon Hogue, Esq. --
jhogue@mhandl.com -- of Murray Hogue & Lannis.

The case is Tait et al v. Butler Area School District et al., case
number 2:17-cv-00182 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania. [GN]


CAPITAL CONTRACTORS: Court Denies "Sanchez" Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LILLIANA SANCHEZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
CAPITAL CONTRACTORS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-02622-MMC
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

In their operative complaint, the Second Amended Complaint, the
Plaintiffs allege that Capital provides cleaning services to major
industrial clients throughout California.  They further allege
that each of them entered into an "Independent Contractor
Agreement," under which each such Plaintiff agreed to provide the
janitorial services themselves for Capital's clients and/or engage
janitorial workers to perform the janitorial services for
Capital's clients.

The Plaintiffs allege that Capital, consistent with the title of
the written agreement each Plaintiff signed, classified the
Plaintiffs as "independent contractors."  According to them, each
of them should have been properly classified as a non-exempt
hourly employee of Capital, and that Capital did not provide them
with rights available to an employee under California law, such as
paying them "overtime wages" and providing "rest breaks."  The
Plaintiffs bring their claims on behalf of a putative class and
seek on behalf of all plaintiffs, both named and proposed,
declaratory/injunctive and monetary relief.

In its answer, Capital denies that the Plaintiffs and the members
of the putative class were employees.

The Plaintiffs, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, seek an order certifying a class for purposes of
resolving their claims.  The class proposed by the Plaintiffs
consists of all persons who, from April 25, 2010 to final
judgment, have been (i) employed by Capital pursuant to contract
in the State of California to perform cleaning services at
Capital's clients' locations; and (iii) classified as an
'independent contractor' while performing cleaning services and/or
supervising the performance of cleaning services at Capital's
clients' properties.

The Court held, "As Capital has pointed out, the Plaintiffs are
"former alleged employees."  The Plaintiffs point to no evidence
that they are "realistically threatened" by Capital's
classification decisions and alleged violations of the California
Labor Code as they arguably might be if they were in the process
of seeking reinstatement to their former positions, or seeking
work from that employer.  Under such circumstances, the Plaintiffs
have failed to show that any of them has any likelihood of being
injured in the future by Capital's practices.  Consequently, the
Plaintiffs are not entitled to seek on behalf of a class
declaratory or injunctive relief with respect to Capital's
practices.  Accordingly, irrespective of whether the Plaintiffs
would be able to satisfy the four prerequisites set forth in Rule
23(a), they have failed to show certification under Rule 23(b)(2)
is proper.  Therefore, their motion for class certification is
denied."

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/bU0r5T from Leagle.com.

Lilliana Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin R. Allen --
kallen@vzfirm.com -- Velton Zegelman PC.

Lilliana Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Robert Allen,
Allen Attorney Group, Daniel Velton -- dvelton@vzfirm.com --
Velton Zegelman PC & Hannah Ruth Salassi, Lvovich & Szucsko, P.C..

Yolanda Camey, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin R. Allen, Velton
Zegelman PC, Kevin Robert Allen, Allen Attorney Group & Daniel
Velton, Velton Zegelman PC.

Juan Carlos Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin R. Allen,
Velton Zegelman PC, Kevin Robert Allen, Allen Attorney Group &
Daniel Velton, Velton Zegelman PC.

Capital Contractors Inc., Defendant, represented by Kamran
Mirrafati -- kmirrafati@foley.com -- Foley Lardner LLP, Archana R.
Acharya -- aacharya@foley.com -- Foley and Lardner LLP,
Christopher Gary Ward -- cward@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP,
Krista M. Cabrera -- kcabrera@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP &
Yesenia Garcia Perez -- ygarciaperez@foley.com -- Foley and
Lardner LLP.

Capital Contractors Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by Archana
R. Acharya, Foley and Lardner LLP, Christopher Gary Ward, Foley &
Lardner LLP, Krista M. Cabrera, Foley & Lardner LLP & Yesenia
Garcia Perez, Foley and Lardner LLP.

Yolanda Camey, Counter-defendant, represented by Kevin R. Allen,
Velton Zegelman PC & Daniel Velton, Velton Zegelman PC.

Juan Carlos Ramirez, Counter-defendant, represented by Kevin R.
Allen, Velton Zegelman PC & Daniel Velton, Velton Zegelman PC.

Lilliana Sanchez, Counter-defendant, represented by Kevin R.
Allen, Velton Zegelman PC & Daniel Velton, Velton Zegelman PC.


CGR SERVICES: Class Certification Sought in "Harris-Stewart" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the action captioned VERA HARRIS-STEWART, on behalf of herself and
a class v. CGR SERVICES, INC., STEVEN J. FINK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.,
and STEVEN J. FINK, Case No. 1:17-cv-04032 (N.D. Ill.), alleging
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act may proceed as
a class action against the Defendants.

Ms. Harris-Stewart seeks to certify two classes for Count I,
alleging an FDCPA claim.  The CGR Services, Inc. class consists of
(a) all individuals (b) with respect to whom defendant CGR
Services, Inc., filed a lawsuit or sent or caused to be sent a
letter (directly or by an agent or attorney) (c) to collect a
retail installment contract for the sale of goods (d) entered into
in Illinois (e) more than four years after the later of default,
repossession or chargeoff, (e) which letter was sent or lawsuit
was filed during a period beginning one year prior to the filing
of this action and ending 20 days after the filing of this action.

The Fink class consists of consists of (a) all individuals (b)
with respect to whom Steven J. Fink & Associates, P.C. or Fink
filed a lawsuit or sent or caused to be sent a letter (c) to
collect a retail installment contract for the sale of goods (d)
entered into in Illinois (e) more than four years after the later
of default, repossession or chargeoff, (e) which letter was sent
or lawsuit was filed during a period beginning one year prior to
the filing of this action and ending 20 days after the filing of
this action.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify one class for Count II, alleging an
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claim against CGR.  The class consists
of (a) all individuals (b) with respect to whom defendant CGR
Services, Inc., filed a lawsuit or sent or caused to be sent a
letter (directly or by an agent or attorney) (c) to collect a
retail installment contract for the sale of goods (d) entered into
in Illinois (e) more than four years after the later of default,
repossession or chargeoff, (e) which letter was sent or lawsuit
was filed during a period beginning 3 years prior to the filing of
this action and ending 20 days after the filing of this action.

Ms. Harris-Stewart seeks to certify two classes for Count III,
alleging an FDCPA claim.  The CGR Services, Inc. class consists of
(a) all individuals (b) with respect to whom defendant CGR
Services, Inc., filed a lawsuit (c) including the "notice of debt"
(defined below) in the complaint (d) during a period beginning one
year prior to the filing of this action and ending 20 days after
the filing of this action.

The Fink class consists of consists of (a) all individuals (b)
with respect to whom Steven J. Fink & Associates, P.C. or Fink
filed a lawsuit (c) including the "notice of debt" in the
complaint (d) during a period beginning one year prior to the
filing of this action and ending 20 days after the filing of this
action.

Ms. Harris-Stewart further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BZV9v8Vm

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          Corey Varma, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  cmiller@edcombs.com


CHIPOTLE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Mulvaney, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Carmen Alvarez said she was crushed when her employer, Chipotle
Mexican Grill Inc., reversed its decision to pay her and her
fellow workers overtime late last year, despite a new federal rule
that she believed enabled her to receive time-and-a-half for work
over 40 hours.

The 55-year-old, who worked for the fast-food chain in New Jersey
since 2013, said she finally received the boost, along with
millions of other workers newly eligible for overtime pay.  It was
then quickly pulled away thanks to a court decision that
temporarily halted the U.S. Department of Labor from enforcing the
regulation, according to a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court of New Jersey on June 7.

The lawsuit claims the overtime rule is still in effect, despite
the injunction, and companies that decided not to comply are
violating federal labor laws.  In 2016, the Labor Department
updated the federal salary threshold for overtime eligibility for
the first time in 12 years, from $23,660 to $47,476.  It made 4.2
million workers newly eligible for overtime pay.

"This case isn't just about Chipotle, though.  Millions of
Americans are working long hours and not getting paid the money to
which they are entitled," said Ms. Alvarez, who no longer works
for Chipotle, in a statement accompanying the suit.  "It's time
for that to stop."

The regulation came under fire in a lawsuit filed by 21 states and
a coalition of business groups that argued the Labor Department's
enforcement of the rule would be harmful to their bottom lines.
That case is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.

Companies were expected to comply with the regulation by last Dec.
1.  A Texas judge in late November blocked the rule, and the Labor
Department filed an appeal in the Fifth Circuit. The case is
pending there.

The injunction inspired many companies to hedge their bets and
keep the status quo for their workers as the issue was tied up in
the courts, observers have said.

Yet, the lawsuit filed against Chipotle argues that private
companies must still comply with the rule unless it is overturned
and the appeals court ruling applies only to certain state
government employees.

"Chipotle is denying overtime pay to thousands of workers that
live paycheck to paycheck and rely on their weekly income to make
ends meet," said Joseph Sellers, a partner at Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, which represents the lead plaintiff in the suit.
"More broadly, Chipotle is not the only company to avoid paying
overtime to its employees by illegally hiding behind a ruling that
does not apply to them."

Attorneys from Cohen Milstein, Outten & Golden and Green Savits
are representing the Chipotle workers in this case.

Chipotle spokesman Chris Arnold said the company's policy is to
not comment on ongoing legal proceedings.  He said all of the
chain's employment practices are compliant with applicable laws.
He added, "A lawsuit is nothing more than allegations, and the
filling of a suit is in no way proof of any wrongdoing."

The Labor Department did not respond to a request for comment.
Peter Fox, counsel with the National Employment Law Project, said
companies that did not comply with the overtime rule could have
made a mistake.  He said a preliminary injunction stops only the
parties before the court, and in this case that would be the
Department of Labor.  It does not stop the private right to action
to give employees the right to sue under the regulation.

"I think that would be a risky decision on their part," Mr. Fox
said.  "If a company consulted administrative lawyers, I think
they would have said 'we don't have an order to set aside this
rule.' They still risk private lawsuits."


CLARFIELD OKON: Wins Final Approval of "Rojas" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joan M. Azrack entered a final order approving the
parties' class settlement agreement in the lawsuit entitled HENRY
A. ROJAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. LAW OFFICES OF CLARFIELD, OKON, SALOMONE & PINCUS, P.L. and
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03268-JMA-SIL
(E.D.N.Y.).

The Settlement Class is certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

     (i) all persons with a New York address (ii) to whom Law
     Offices of Clarfield, Okon, Salomone & Pincus, P.L. sent a
     letter referencing the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
     ("FDCPA") in substantially the same form as "Exhibit A" to
     the Complaint in this action; (iii) during a period
     beginning on June 4, 2014, and ending on January 31, 2016.

Upon the Effective Date, as that term is defined in the Agreement,
COSP will make these payments:

   (a) COSP will create a notional fund of $26,911, which the
       Class Administrator will distribute pro rata among the
       Class Members, who did not exclude themselves and who
       returned an Approved Claim.  Claimants will receive a pro
       rata share of the Settlement Fund by check.  Checks issued
       to Claimants will be void 90 days from the date of
       issuance.  If any portion of the Settlement Fund remains
       after the void date on the Claimants' checks, these
       remaining funds will be returned to COSP;

   (b) COSP will pay $1,000 to the Plaintiff for his statutory
       damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(a)(2)(B)(i);
       and

   (c) COSP will pay Law Offices of Gus Michael Farinella, PC,
       $23,000 for their attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
       the action.  Law Offices of Gus Michael Farinella, PC,
       will not request additional fees or costs from COSP or
       Ocwen or the Settlement Class members.

The Final Approval Order will operate as a final judgment and
dismissal without prejudice of the claims in the action.

A copy of the Final Approval Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dHimf5Du


CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE: Court Certifies "West" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARK WEST et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONTINENTAL
AUTOMOTIVE, INC., and PENSION PLAN FOR HOURLY-PAID EMPLOYEES OF
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE, INC. and CERTAIN AFFILIATE COMPANIES,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-502-FDW-DSC (W.D. N.C.),
Judge Frank D. Whitney of the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, granted
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification to certify claims
for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

The Plaintiffs are participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan,
which is an employee pension benefit plan governed by ERISA and
sponsored by Continental Automotive.  The Plaintiffs and Plaintiff
Anne Marie Ross' husband Joseph Ross worked at Continental Tire
North America, Inc.'s Charlotte facility. They assert in their
Complaint that the Defendants violated ERISA by improperly
excluding and thereby miscalculating their Vesting and Eligibility
Service under the Plan for the period of time they were laid off
with recall rights.

In this action, the Plaintiffs are pursuing both a denial of
benefits claim under ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B) (Count I), and a
breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA Section 502(a) (Count
II), and are seeking recalculation of their benefits under the
Plan as well as an injunction requiring the Plan to calculate the
benefits in the future to include Vesting and Eligibility Service
for the period of time that participants were laid off with recall
rights.

The Court, having held a hearing on the Motion on April 6, 2017,
finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the prerequisites for
class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  Accordingly, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/JTecaE from Leagle.com.

Mark West, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Hale Walton, Essex
Richards.

Mark West, Plaintiff, represented by Edward G. Connette --
econnette@essexrichards.com -- Essex Richards, PA & Norris Arden
Adams, II.

Rickie Don Bash, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Hale Walton --
cwalton@essexrichards.com -- Essex Richards, Edward G. Connette,
Essex Richards, PA & Norris Arden Adams, II --
nadams@essexrichards.com.

Raynard Stewart Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Hale
Walton, Essex Richards, Edward G. Connette, Essex Richards, PA &
Norris Arden Adams, II.

Sharlene Knight, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Hale Walton,
Essex Richards, Edward G. Connette, Essex Richards, PA & Norris
Arden Adams, II.

Anna Marie Ross, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Hale Walton,
Essex Richards, Edward G. Connette, Essex Richards, PA & Norris
Arden Adams, II.

Bruce Adams, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Hale Walton, Essex
Richards, Edward G. Connette, Essex Richards, PA & Norris Arden
Adams, II.

Brian Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Hale Walton,
Essex Richards, Edward G. Connette, Essex Richards, PA & Norris
Arden Adams, II.

Michael McManus, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Hale Walton,
Essex Richards, Edward G. Connette, Essex Richards, PA & Norris
Arden Adams, II.

Steven Price, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Hale Walton, Essex
Richards, Edward G. Connette, Essex Richards, PA & Norris Arden
Adams, II.

Continental Automotive, Inc., Defendant, represented by Meredith
Anne Pinson -- mpinson@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP &
Susan Pyle Dion -- sdion@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP.

Pension Plan for Hourly-Paid Employees of Continental Automotive,
Inc. and Certain Affiliate Companies, Defendant, represented by
Meredith Anne Pinson, McGuire Woods LLP & Susan Pyle Dion,
McGuireWoods LLP.


CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE: Court Certifies "West" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARK WEST et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONTINENTAL
AUTOMOTIVE, INC., and PENSION PLAN FOR HOURLY-PAID EMPLOYEES OF
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE, INC. and CERTAIN AFFILIATE COMPANIES,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-502-FDW-DSC (W.D. N.C.),
Judge Frank D. Whitney of the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, granted
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification to certify claims
for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

The Plaintiffs are participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan,
which is an employee pension benefit plan governed by ERISA and
sponsored by Continental Automotive.  The Plaintiffs and Plaintiff
Anne Marie Ross' husband Joseph Ross worked at Continental Tire
North America, Inc.'s Charlotte facility. They assert in their
Complaint that the Defendants violated ERISA by improperly
excluding and thereby miscalculating their Vesting and Eligibility
Service under the Plan for the period of time they were laid off
with recall rights.

In this action, the Plaintiffs are pursuing both a denial of
benefits claim under ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B) (Count I), and a
breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA Section 502(a) (Count
II), and are seeking recalculation of their benefits under the
Plan as well as an injunction requiring the Plan to calculate the
benefits in the future to include Vesting and Eligibility Service
for the period of time that participants were laid off with recall
rights.

The Court, having held a hearing on the Motion on April 6, 2017,
finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the prerequisites for
class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  Accordingly, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/JTecaE from Leagle.com.

Mark West, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Hale Walton, Essex
Richards.

Mark West, Plaintiff, represented by Edward G. Connette --
econnette@essexrichards.com -- Essex Richards, PA & Norris Arden
Adams, II.

Rickie Don Bash, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Hale Walton --
cwalton@essexrichards.com -- Essex Richards, Edward G. Connette,
Essex Richards, PA & Norris Arden Adams, II --
nadams@essexrichards.com.

Raynard Stewart Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Hale
Walton, Essex Richards, Edward G. Connette, Essex Richards, PA &
Norris Arden Adams, II.

Sharlene Knight, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Hale Walton,
Essex Richards, Edward G. Connette, Essex Richards, PA & Norris
Arden Adams, II.

Anna Marie Ross, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Hale Walton,
Essex Richards, Edward G. Connette, Essex Richards, PA & Norris
Arden Adams, II.

Bruce Adams, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Hale Walton, Essex
Richards, Edward G. Connette, Essex Richards, PA & Norris Arden
Adams, II.

Brian Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Hale Walton,
Essex Richards, Edward G. Connette, Essex Richards, PA & Norris
Arden Adams, II.

Michael McManus, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Hale Walton,
Essex Richards, Edward G. Connette, Essex Richards, PA & Norris
Arden Adams, II.

Steven Price, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Hale Walton, Essex
Richards, Edward G. Connette, Essex Richards, PA & Norris Arden
Adams, II.

Continental Automotive, Inc., Defendant, represented by Meredith
Anne Pinson -- mpinson@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP &
Susan Pyle Dion -- sdion@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP.

Pension Plan for Hourly-Paid Employees of Continental Automotive,
Inc. and Certain Affiliate Companies, Defendant, represented by
Meredith Anne Pinson, McGuire Woods LLP & Susan Pyle Dion,
McGuireWoods LLP.


CVS HEALTH: "Bewley" Sues Over Price-Rigging of Insulin
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bewley, 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., Eli Lilly
and Company and Novo Nordisk Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00802, (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
glucagon, disgorgement of all profits and unjust enrichment
Defendants obtained, 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 manufacture insulin used to treat diabetes and sell
through bulk drug distributors known as pharmacy benefit managers
that serve as middlemen between health insurers and drug
manufacturers and are alleged of excessive profiting of the said
drug.

Plaintiffs claim to have bought insulin at exorbitant prices, and
thus seek redress. [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


DAIMLER AG: Calif. Judge Allows Investor Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Shepardson writing for Reuters reports that a federal judge
in California will allow a U.S. investor class action lawsuit
against Daimler AG (DAIGn.DE) and several senior executives to
proceed over allegations the company did not disclose excess
emissions.

The German automaker faces ongoing investigations by U.S. and
German authorities into excess diesel emissions. German
prosecutors searched Daimler's offices as part of an investigation
into diesel pollution.

U.S. District Judge S. James Otero in a ruling filed late on May 1
rejected requests by Daimler to dismiss the lawsuit, filed in 2016
by municipal pension funds and other investors. He said he would
allow the suit to proceed against Daimler and senior executives
Dieter Zetsche, Bodo Uebber and Thomas Weber.

"We consider these class action suits to lack merit. We will
defend ourselves by all legal means," Daimler spokesman Han Tjan
said on June 1.

In April, Daimler said investigations by authorities of diesel
emissions and auxiliary emission control devices could lead to
significant penalties and recalls.

In May, Daimler said it had dropped plans to seek U.S. approval to
sell 2017 Mercedes-Benz U.S. diesel models but had not decided
whether to exit the American passenger diesel market.

There has been growing scrutiny of diesel vehicles in the United
States since Volkswagen AG admitted in September 2015 to
installing secret software on 580,000 U.S. vehicles that allowed
them to emit up to 40 times legally allowable emissions while
meeting standards when tested by regulators.

VW was sentenced in April after pleading guilty in the emissions
scandal. In total, VW has agreed to spend up to $25 billion in the
United States to address claims from owners, environmental
regulators, states and dealers, and offered to buy back about
500,000 polluting U.S. vehicles.

In January, another U.S. judge ruled Volkswagen and former Chief
Executive Martin Winterkorn must defend a similar investor lawsuit
in California over the company's diesel emissions cheating
scandal.

Mercedes-Benz USA said in May diesel vehicles in the United States
in 2016 accounted for less than 1 percent of U.S. sales.

Daimler won approval in late April to sell U.S. diesel Sprinter
commercial vans after months of talks with regulators.

The U.S. government filed a civil lawsuit accusing Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles NV (FCHA.MI) of illegally using software to bypass
emission controls in 104,000 diesel vehicles sold since 2014. [GN]


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: "Romero" Suit Asserts FACTA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosie Romero, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., a Florida
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-61098 (S.D. Fla., May 31,
2017), seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and
attorney fees for violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act.

Darden is a full-service restaurant company that owns and operates
1,536 restaurants through subsidiaries in the United States and
Canada under the Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, The Capital
Grille, Yard House, Seasons 52, Bahama Breeze and Eddie V's Prime
Seafood and Wildfish Seafood Grille.

Defendants allegedly printed more than the last 5 digits of her
credit card number on receipts provided to debit card cardholders
transacting business with Defendants. They printed the first 6
digits and the last 4 digits of the debit card number on debit
card receipts. This exposes the Plaintiffs to identity theft and
credit and debit card fraud. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott D. Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235
      Hollywood, FL 33019
      Tel: (954) 589-0588
      Fax: (954) 337-0666
      Email: scott@scottdowens.com

             - and -

      Bret L. Lusskin, Esq.
      BRET LUSSKIN, P.A.
      20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 302
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Tel: (954) 454-5841
      Fax: (954) 454-5844
      Email: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com

             - and -

      Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
      Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
      Michael Hilicki, Esq.
      KEOGH LAW, LTD.
      55 W. Monroe St, Suite 3390
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 726-1092
      Fax: (312) 726-1093
      Email: Keith@KeoghLaw.com

             - and -

      Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
      110 SE 6th St., 17th Floor
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 907-1136
      Fax: (844) 542-7235
      Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


DISH NETWORK: Bids for Judgment, New Trial in "Krakauer" Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned THOMAS H. KRAKAUER, Plaintiff, v DISH
NETWORK L.L.C., Defendant, No. 1:14-CV-333 (M.D.N.C.), Judge
Catherine C. Eagles of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina denied the Defendant's motions
for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) and for a new
trial under Rule 59(a)(1)(A).

The Plaintiff filed suit in 2014 alleging that the Defendant
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act when its agent,
Satellite Systems Network, made over 51,000 telephone
solicitations to a class of Plaintiffs on the National Do Not Call
Registry between 2009 and 2011.  The Court certified the class,
covering the period from May 2010 to August 2011 and largely
denied summary judgment.

Trial on class issues began on Jan. 10, 2017.  On Jan. 19, 2017,
the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs.  The jury
found that SSN was the Defendant's agent and that, for every class
member, SSN made "at least two telephone solicitations to a
residential number" on the Registry.  The jury awarded $400 per
call.  The Defendant moves for judgment as a matter of law,
contending that there was insufficient evidence SSN acted as the
Defendant's agent, that the Plaintiffs' expert was unreliable, and
that the Plaintiffs lacked standing.  In the alternative, it moves
for a new trial, contending that the jury's verdict is against the
weight of the evidence and is a miscarriage of justice.

Judge Eagles held that the evidence at trial showed that the
Defendant had broad contractual rights to control SSN's
telemarketing practices; that it promised 46 state attorneys
general that it would monitor and control the telemarketing
practices of its marketers, including SSN; that it was aware SSN
had a long history of non-compliance with the TCPA; that it
learned just before the class period began that SSN was soliciting
people on the Do Not Call Registry and yet it took no action to
prevent SSN from making those calls on its behalf; and that during
the class period SSN made thousands of phone calls to residential
numbers on the Registry attempting to sell Dish products.  The
Court further incorporates facts in its May 22, 2017, opinion,
which found that the Defendant's violations of the TCPA were
willful and knowing.  The evidence at trial easily supports the
jury's findings, the judge said.

The judge added that the Plaintiffs offered credible evidence that
SSN made thousands of telemarketing phone calls on the Defendant's
behalf and as the Defendant's agent to residential numbers on the
Do Not Call Registry in violation of federal law.  The Defendant
had a full opportunity to dispute the Plaintiff's evidence and
there was no miscarriage of justice, the judge pointed out.
Because the evidence fully supports the jury's verdict and the
Defendant received a fair trial, the Court denied the motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2017 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/lH9fKT from Leagle.com

Thomas H. Krakauer, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony I. Paronich
-- anthony@broderick-law.com -- Broderick & Paronich, P.C..

Thomas H. Krakauer, Plaintiff, represented by Brian A. Glasser --
bglasser@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser, LLP, Edward A.
Broderick, Broderick Law, P.C., John W. Barrett --
jbarrett@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser, LLP, John J. Roddy
-- jroddy@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser, LLP, Mathew P.
McCue -- mmccue.massattorneys.net -- Law Office of Mathew P.
McCue, Patrick Muench -- pmuench@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey &
Glasser, LLP & Jacob Matthew Norris, The Norris Law Firm.

Dish Network L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Allegra A. Noona --
noonan@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Benjamen
E. Kern --  bkern@beneschlaw.com -- Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan &
Aronofff, LLP, David M. Krueger -- dkrueger@beneschlaw.com --
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronofff, LLP, David Litterine-
Kaufman -- dlitterinekaufman@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP, Elyse D. Echtman -- eechtman@orrick.com -- Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Eric L. Zalud, Benesch, Friedlander,
Coplan & Aronofff, LLP, Jeremy Gilman, Benesch, Friedlander,
Coplan & Aronofff, LLP, John L. Ewald -- jewald@orrick.com --
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Julie Gorchkova --
jgorchkova@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Laura
E. Kogan --  lkogan@beneschlaw.com -- Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan
& Aronofff, LLP, Louisa S. Irving -- lirving@orrick.com -- Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Peter A. Bicks -- pbicks@orrick.com --
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Richard J. Keshian, Kilpatrick
Townsend & Stockton LLP & Shasha Y. Zou -- szou@orrick.com --
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.


DRF HOSPITALITY: "Segarra" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
LUIS "MILTON" SEGARRA, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DRF Hospitality Management LLC (d/b/a
Barto Restaurant) and Donald R. Finley, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-03276 (E.D. N.Y., May 31, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid spread of hours premium,
statutory penalties, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

DRF Hospitality Management LLC operates as Barto Restaurant
located at 1024 Northern Blvd., Rosyn NY where Plaintiff worked as
a waiter, stocker and cleaner. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
     4008 Case Street, 2nd Floor
     Elmhurst, NY 11373
     Tel: (646) 342-2019
     Fax: (646) 661-1317


DUNKIN' BRANDS: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
A. Kirsner, Esq., and Glenn Newman, Esq., of Greenberg Traurig
LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the 2nd Circuit Court
of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of a class action case
against Dunkin' Donuts and New York franchisees for charging
customers sales tax on pre-packaged coffee because the plaintiffs'
sole remedy is to seek a refund of the tax from the New York
taxing authority.

This decision can be viewed as a victory for retailers who
inadvertently charge sales tax on exempt items and pay the tax to
the state. Additionally, many other states have similar sales tax
refund remedy rules and this decision may be useful in defending
consumer class actions for overcharging sales tax in those states
as well.

This New York case involved claims that franchisees charged sales
tax on an exempt item -- pre-packaged coffee. While food and
beverage items sold for immediate consumption in restaurants or
prepared hot and ready to eat are subject to sales tax, such items
not served hot, ready to eat, and for consumption off-premises are
exempt. So although the cup of coffee a customer purchases at a
Dunkin' Donuts restaurant is subject to sales tax, the purchase of
a pre-packaged bag of coffee to brew at home is not. The
plaintiffs in this consumer class action case alleged that the
overcharging of sales tax violated the state's deceptive trade
practices act. Similar class actions have been filed around the
country in recent years. These class actions put the retailer
between the hammer of the state tax agency if they do not charge
enough tax and the anvil of the class action plaintiff's firm for
charging too much.

In Estler, the District Court dismissed the class action, citing
New York law stating that the sole remedy for overcharging sales
tax is to file a refund claim with the state's Department of
Taxation. The plaintiffs appealed to the 2nd Circuit, arguing that
they were seeking relief under the state's deceptive trade
practice law, not merely seeking a refund of the tax. The 2nd
Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the sales tax refund
statute clearly states that the refund procedure is the sole and
exclusive remedy.

Many, but not all states have statutes similar to New York's,
stating that a consumer's exclusive remedy for being overcharged
sales tax is to seek a refund from the state tax agency. For these
states, this case is likely to help when defending retailers
against class actions for charging too much tax; however, for this
defense to hold up, it is critical that the retailer can prove
that all of the sales tax that was collected has been timely paid
over to the state.

Although this precedent is good news for retailers in many states,
it is also important for them to perform regular reviews of their
sales tax procedures to make certain that they are correctly
charging or exempting tax on all of their goods and services - not
just the products, but also for ancillary charges like extended
warranties, delivery, and installation. For the states that do not
have a similar exclusive administrative refund remedy statute,
such a review is just as, if not more important. A careful review
of sales taxability will be worthwhile, save time, and be helpful
in avoiding problems in the future. [GN]

The case is Estler et al. v. Dunkin' Brands Inc. et al., case
number 16-3762, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.


FIELDTURF: Panel Orders NJ Judge to Oversee Artificial Turf Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal judicial panel has ordered a New Jersey judge to oversee
more than a dozen lawsuits alleging that high-end artificial turf
installed at high schools and other athletic facilities has
quickly crumbled apart.

The suits allege that FieldTurf USA Inc., which is based in
Calhoun, Georgia, installed artificial turf in 1,700 soccer,
baseball and other sports venues in the United States from 2005 to
2012, generating $570 million.  The lawsuits, half of which are
class actions, were filed after a series of articles published in
December by NJ Advance Media reported that the turf was defective.

FieldTurf, a division of France's FieldTurf Tarkett SAS whose
international headquarters is in Montreal, had moved to coordinate
the litigation before U.S. District Judge Esther Salas of the
Newark division, who has previous MDL experience.

In its June 1 order, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation agreed that New Jersey was the right venue, noting that
"the district enjoys the support of not only FieldTurf but also
some plaintiffs."  But the panel skipped over Salas, adding that
"centralization in the District of New Jersey enables us to assign
the litigation to Judge Michael A. Shipp, an able and experienced
jurist who has not yet had the opportunity to preside over an
MDL," the panel wrote.  Judge Shipp sits at the Trenton division
and was appointed in 2012 by President Barack Obama.

The panel has increasingly sought to expand the field of
transferee judges by sending cases to those who haven't handled an
MDL before, many of whom are relative newcomers to the bench.

FieldTurf attorneys Theodore Wells, co-chairman of the litigation
department at New York's Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison,
and Gavin Rooney, chairman of the class action litigation group at
Lowenstein Sandler in Roseland, New Jersey, did not respond to
requests for comment.

"FieldTurf stands behind its products and customers, and we are
fully confident that when considered in full, the facts will show
that customers were well-served by FieldTurf," the company said in
an emailed statement on June 1.

"Notably, many of the cases against us have involved Duraspine
fields that have surpassed their warranty period, and are still in
use," it added.  "Going forward we will continue to take care of
customers while fully defending ourselves against any attempts to
take advantage of our company or to misrepresent the facts."
In a statement following publication of the NJ Advance Media
articles, FieldTurf CEO Eric Daliere defended the products, citing
turf's normal wear and tear and a problem with one of its
suppliers.  "FieldTurf has been proactive in dealing with this
problem, and began manufacturing its own fiber to ensure quality
control," he said.

In 2011, FieldTurf filed a $30 million suit against a supplier,
TenCate Thiolon Middle East LLC, over defective fiber used in its
turf. The companies settled during trial in 2014.

The new suits claim that FieldTurf continued to sell the defective
turf even though it knew the fields would deteriorate before the
guaranteed 10 years.

"The fields were being sold as being basically superior and safer
than grass," said Daniel Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- founding
partner of Whitfield Bryson & Mason in Raleigh, North Carolina,
who has filed many of the cases.  "But in [a] short time period,
the synthetic grass was falling over, it was limp, and the fibers
would split."

Schools and towns, which used tax dollars for the fields, have
filed most of the suits.  All but one plaintiffs attorney in the
FieldTurf cases had supported coordination.  Other plaintiffs
attorneys had argued for the Central District of California,
Minnesota, and the Southern District of Texas.


FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in "Ayer" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Dorothy Ayer filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Dorothy Ayer v. FTR (FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
CORP.), Case No. 5:16-cv-01946-PA-DTB, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges violation of the California False Advertising Act and
violation of Unfair Competition Law.  The Plaintiff aims to stop
the Defendant's alleged practice of falsely advertising its
Internet services.

Frontier is a corporation with principal place of business in
Connecticut, and state of incorporation in Delaware.  The Company
is engaged in the sale and distribution of internet and telephone
services.

The appellate case is captioned as Dorothy Ayer v. FTR (FRONTIER
COMMUNICATIONS CORP.), Case No. 17-80097, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner DOROTHY AYER, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com

               - and -

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

Defendant-Respondent FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORP. is represented
by:

          Charles Andrew Danaher, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          501 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101-3598
          Telephone: (619) 633-6548
          Facsimile: (619) 645-5735
          E-mail: cdanaher@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Theona Zhordania-Taat, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
          E-mail: tzhordania@sheppardmullin.com


GRUBHUB INC: Seeks Stay of TCPA Suit Until D.C. Circuit Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins, writing for Law360, reports that GrubHub Inc.
asked an Illinois federal court on May 1 to stay a proposed class
action alleging the take-out delivery service repeatedly sent
unauthorized texts to both users and nonusers in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, arguing that the D.C. Circuit's
imminent ruling could impact the case.

The appellate court is set to decide whether the Federal
Communications Commission exceeded its authority in a 2015 order
by holding companies liable for making wrong-number calls to
cellphones and by defining automatic telephone dialing system as
having a "potential" to randomly generate numbers. Those rulings
could impact the outcome of the instant case so litigation should
be stayed, GrubHub said.

"It makes little sense to apply the FCC's interim 2015 order while
it is pending on appeal before the D.C. Circuit,"  GrubHub said.

Lead plaintiff Nicholas Amodeo, a Colorado resident, filed the
putative class action in February, claiming he began receiving a
steady stream of texts from GrubHub last year. The texts said his
food was nearly done, but he'd never signed up for GrubHub and he
hadn't ordered anything through the service, according to court
documents.

Amodeo also alleged the texts arrived at inconvenient times and
drained his phone battery and caused him additional electricity
expenses and wear and tear on his phone and battery.

On June 1, GrubHub argued that ACA International v. FCC, which is
pending before the D.C. Circuit, addresses the FCC order and the
appellate court's ruling could extinguish or significantly curtail
Amodeo's TCPA claims. A D.C. Circuit panel heard oral arguments in
the ACA International case in October, and the court is expected
to issue a ruling soon, according to GrubHub.

At the very least, the appellate court's decision will dictate the
scope of the issues and discovery needed to complete the case,
GrubHub said. The company added that multiple other courts inside
the Illinois district and around the country have stayed similar
TCPA suits to await the D.C. Circuit's ruling.

Staying the case would streamline the proceedings by simplifying
the issues and it would promote judicial economy, GrubHub said. If
a stay isn't granted, GrubHub could face unnecessary litigation
fees and expenses and an uncertain scope of discovery, the company
said.

GrubHub's request comes a day after it asked the court to toss the
proposed class action, arguing that the suit was riddled with
fundamental legal flaws.

GrubHub argued that Amodeo, who claims he received "wrong number"
texts from GrubHub, is unable to represent other GrubHub customers
who consented to receive texts from the service but who later
opted out. GrubHub also said the class is also impermissibly
overbroad, because it would include users who have consented to
binding arbitration agreements with class action waivers.

GrubHub was hit with a similar suit last year, Victoria Flores v.
GrubHub Inc., in Illinois state court, which was later removed to
district court. That suit settled before a motion to dismiss was
filed, but the terms of the settlement aren't discussed in court
documents.

GrubHub also agreed to pay roughly $2 million to settle TCPA
claims in 2014 for allegedly sending junk faxes.

Counsel for both parties didn't immediately respond on June 1  to
requests for comment.

Amodeo is represented by Sergei Lemberg, Esq. of Lemberg Law LLC.

GrubHub is represented by Henry Pietrkowski, Esq. --
hpietrkowski@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith LLP.

The case is Nicholas Amodeo v. GrubHub Inc., case number 1:17-cv-
01284, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. [GN]


HEALTHSMART: Court Rules in Favor of Attorneys in Anti-Slapp Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Janice G. Inman, writing for Law.com, reports that product
liability law practice can get prickly, and why not? The stakes
are high.  Consumer injuries (or the potential threat of them) and
the bad press that may follow can lead to lost business and even
bankruptcy, and individuals' careers and reputations can be
ruined.  Therefore, it is no wonder that those who find themselves
on the receiving end of a product liability lawsuit and its
attendant bad publicity sometimes fight back.  So it was in a
recent case, in which a company, publicly accused by a plaintiff's
lawyers of using non-FDA-approved medical devices, fought back by
bringing a defamation suit against the opposing attorneys.  The
case was thrown out by a California court, and the plaintiff
appealed.  The decision in the appeal, Healthsmart Pacific Inc. v.
(Brian S.) Kabateck, 17 C.D.O.C 244 (C.A. 2d 12/19/16) (Los
Angeles County Super. Ct. Case No. B264300), offers some insights
into what kinds of allegations may be publicized, and in what
circumstances, when a product liability charge is brought.

Before the Personal Injury Lawsuit

The story began before the product liability/personal injury
lawsuit was filed, with a sordid tale of political and financial
goings-on that landed a company, its founder and a California
State Senator in hot water.

Michael D. Drobot was the owner and operator of a company called
Healthsmart Pacific Inc. (Healthsmart), which, in turn, owned and
operated a hospital specializing in spinal surgery, Pacific
Hospital of Long Beach.  The business operation was targeted for
investigation for violations of federal law, leading to criminal
complaints against Drobot and his business concerns. Drobot
eventually reached a plea agreement with prosecutors in which he
admitted to providing "a stream of financial benefits" to
California State Senator Ronald S. Calderon in order to influence
him to support legislation and regulations that allowed hospitals
"to 'pass through' to workers' compensation insurance carriers the
cost of medical hardware used in spinal surgeries." Included in
the list of such financial benefits were employment of Senator
Calderon's son, free flights on a private plane, expensive meals
and outings to exclusive golf resorts.

Once the favorable legislation was passed, Drobot was able to have
Pacific Hospital purchase medical hardware from his company,
International Implants, LLC.  The company did not make the spinal
surgery medical implants that it sold -- these came from Crowder
Machine & Tool Shop in Temecula, CA --  but it placed on invoices
for the hardware a stamp that stated International Implants was an
"FDA Registered Manufacturer."  According to the plea agreement
document, entered into in February 2014, International Implants
sold the spinal medical devices at an inflated cost to Pacific
Hospital, which then billed its patients' insurance companies for
the too-expensive devices.

Drobot also admitted to paying kickbacks of more than $20 million
over a 15-year period to doctors, marketers and others to induce
them to refer patients to Pacific Hospital for spinal surgeries
and other medical services.  The kickback amounts increased if the
surgeries were done using hardware supplied by International
Implants.

Importantly to the defamation suit that came later, neither the
charging pleading nor Drobot's plea agreement discussed any use of
counterfeit or non-FDA approved medical devices in furtherance of
the scheme, and no mention of prostitutes or other adult
entertainers was made.

A Patient Alleges Injuries, and Her Attorneys Talk to the Media

Mary Cavalieri underwent two spinal operations at Pacific Hospital
in 2010.  She became concerned about the quality, safety and
efficacy of her spinal implants and so brought suit against Drobot
and the hospital under several theories, including battery, fraud,
strict product liability, negligence, breach of express and
implied warranties, and negligent and intentional infliction of
emotional distress.  Her July 17, 2014, filing reiterated the
details of the illegal activities Drobot admitted to in his
February 2014 plea agreement, but also went on to aver that Drobot
and his co-conspirators used "counterfeit, non-FDA approved,
'knock-off'" medical hardware, which they "implanted into
thousands of patients, including [Cavalieri]," with "conscious
disregard for the health, safety and well-being of the patients."

A week later, Fox 11 television news reported on the case,
including in the report excerpts of an interview with one of
Cavalieri's attorneys, Brian Kabateck.  This report was then
posted on Fox 11's website.  In the report, Mr. Kabateck said,
among other things: "Basically what was happening here was, the
hospitals we alleged in the complaint and the doctors were
conspiring together to install effectively counterfeit hardware in
people's backs." The reporter explains that Ms. Cavalieri's spinal
surgeries were not successful, then Mr. Kabateck states that his
client "went and had to have another surgery and finally ended up
with a legitimate, genuine doctor who was trying to help her and
this doctor found out that she had counterfeit hardware installed
in her back." The report also described the background to the case
and Drobot's plea agreement in the previous action and discussed
the allegations that Senator Calderon and his son accepted
kickbacks in exchange for supporting legislation that would allow
Drobot to further his scheme.

On Aug. 12, 2014, another of Ms. Cavalieri's attorneys, Robert
Hutchinson, was interviewed in a CBS radio program called "Money
101," with host Bob McCormick posing questions about the
Drobot/Healthsmart Pacific case.  On that program, Hutchinson made
the following statements, among others:

"It's just a concern knowing that non-FDA approved hardware is in
your spine without knowing whether it can cause infection.
One of the ways they did that was to have a machine shop in
Temecula manufacture spinal hardware used in spinal fusion
surgeries. These were knock-offs.

Patients had counterfeit or knock off screws that were not FDA
approved used in their spinal fusion cases and the insurance
companies were billed enormous amounts of money over and above
what would have been the normal charges had they used FDA-approved
hardware.

[W]e alleged that doctors actually knew that they were using
counterfeit screws and agreed to do it and they were getting
kickbacks from the hospitals and some of the marketers to bring
their patients to the hospitals involved and use the counterfeit
screws and that's what provided the cash flow, which in turn was-
we alleged delivered that many of these doctors in the form of
kickbacks."

Defamation Complaints

Because of Ms. Cavalieri's attorneys' statements to the media,
Drobot and Healthsmart Pacific sued Kabateck, Hutchinson and their
law firms for defamation, and also sought damages for interference
with their business relations.  They claimed that the following
false statements were made by one or both attorneys during their
news interviews that: 1) they purchased or used counterfeit or
non-FDA-approved screws or related parts in spinal surgeries; 2)
they failed to sterilize screws or other parts used in spinal
surgeries; 3) they participated in a scheme related to counterfeit
screws or related parts; 4) they bribed governmental officials in
connection with that scheme; and 5) they hired or paid prostitutes
as part of that scheme. The plaintiffs asserted that the attorneys
knew or should have known that their statements in these regards
were false.

In response, the attorney defendants filed a motion in accordance
with California's anti-SLAPP statute (California Code of Civil
Procedure section 425.16) to strike the complaint.  The court
conducted a hearing and then granted the attorneys'/defendants'
motion, awarding them nearly $65,000 in fees and costs.  The
plaintiffs appealed.

The Anti-SLAPP Statute

California's anti-SLAPP (anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Participation) statute authorizes a special motion to strike a
cause of action when that action is based on the defendant's
exercise of his constitutional right of petition or free speech,
unless the plaintiff establishes a probability of prevailing on
the claim. Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 425.16, subd. (b); Paul v.
Friedman (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 853, 861("A SLAPP suit is a
meritless suit 'filed primarily to chill the defendant's exercise
of First Amendment rights.'").  In other words, trial courts are
supposed to evaluate anti-SLAPP motions using a two-step process:
First, the movant has the burden of showing that the plaintiff's
claim arose from activity protected by the anti-SLAPP statute;
then, if this showing is made, the plaintiff has the burden of
showing the probability of prevailing on the claim.

Prong One: Free Speech in Connection with a Matter of the Public
Interest

As to the first prong of the test, the attorneys then had to show
that the statements they made were protected by the anti-SLAPP
statute.  Protected activity under the statute includes "conduct
in furtherance of the exercise of . . . the constitutional right
of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of
public interest." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 425.16, subd. (e)(4).)
Here, Drobot and Healthsmart Pacific conceded that the attorneys
spoke in accordance with their right to free speech, but they
contended that there was no public interest in the Cavalieri case.

Thus, the appellate court's first job was to analyze just what
constitutes the "public interest" or a "public issue," as these
terms are not defined in the anti-SLAPP statute.  It turned out to
be a less than precise exercise, but there were two cases that
offered some real help.  The first of these was Rivero v. American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO
(2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 913, in which a court decided that a public
issue existed if the matter concerned: 1) "a person or entity in
the public eye"; 2) "conduct that could directly affect a large
number of people beyond the direct participants"; or 3) "a topic
of widespread, public interest."

Next, the court looked to the teachings of Weinberg v. Feisel
(2003), 110 Cal.App.4th 1122, in which California's Third District
proclaimed it was doubtful that "an all-encompassing definition"
of the term "a matter of public interest" could be devised.
Still, that court offered the following guidance: 1) "public
interest" is not the same as mere curiosity; 2) a matter of public
interest is something that many people are interested in, not just
those involved and a small specific audience; 3) there should be
some degree of closeness between the challenged statements and the
asserted public interest; 4) the speaker's conduct should be
focused on the public interest rather than on gathering
information or support for a private dispute; and 5) those accused
of defamation can't, by their actions, have rendered the claimant
a "public figure" (by, for example, publicizing the dispute so
that many people become aware of who the claimant is and what the
dispute concerns).

With these things in mind, the court looked to the substance of
attorney Kabateck's statements on the Fox 11 news program, picking
out four things that were said.  The first -- that
Ms. Cavalieri was allegedly implanted with a counterfeit medical
device -- concerned only her and anyone interested in her well-
being. However, the other three things analyzed by the court --
that there was: 1) an alleged conspiracy to similarly implant such
counterfeit objects into thousands of other patients; 2) a
physician referral kickback scheme involving prostitutes and
valuable gifts and services; and 3) a relationship between these
things and legislation authored or promoted by Senator Calderon
and Drobot -- certainly raised matters of public interest.

"First, because the alleged counterfeit hardware may have been
installed in many thousands of Californians, there is a
substantial number of people who may have been directly affected
by the alleged counterfeit hardware," stated the court.  "Second,
members of the public, as consumers of medical services, have an
interest in being informed of issues concerning particular doctors
and healthcare facilities."  And, as to the attorney's assertion
that there had been a widespread illegal physician kickback
scheme, that statement concerned the integrity of the health care
system, which was also a matter of public concern, as were the
statements alleging a senator was bribed and pushed through health
care legislation because of it.  The court therefore held that the
first prong of the anti-SLAPP inquiry must be decided in favor of
the attorneys.


HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN: Atty. Says Protection System Needs Overhaul
----------------------------------------------------------------
KSTP reports that attorneys who filed a class action lawsuit
against Hennepin County and it's Department of Human Services and
Public Health say the case has the potential to grow to thousands
of children who have been affected by alleged abuse and neglect in
the county.

"We have one of the poorest performing child protection systems in
the nation," attorney James Volling, of Faegre, Banker, Daniels
LLP, said. "And that's not what we are about in Minnesota."

The civil lawsuit states, "Hennepin County is failing to live up
to its responsibilities, and Defendants have long been aware that
its child protection system has devolved into a confusing,
underfunded, and erratic system that inflicts harm on the children
it serves on a widespread and measurable basis."

The lawsuit, which totals nearly 100 pages, outlines ten cases
where children were allegedly harmed and neglected, in many cases
even after the department was made aware of a problem.

"So it's not just once, it's multiple times," Volling said. "That
is why we believe the system needs a monitor, remedies, oversight
and accountability."

Volling says the lawsuit demands the court order a third party be
brought in to oversee changes to the department and that children
are being protected in the future.

"It can't just be the next idea that might move the needle a
little bit. It's got to be tearing it apart and putting it back
together again," he said.

KSTP has reported extensively on the problems within Hennepin
County's child protection system including hearing from a former
case worker who spoke on condition of anonymity. He spoke about
struggling to keep up with an overwhelming case load and other
inefficiencies.

In response to the lawsuit, Hennepin County spokesperson Carolyn
Marinan said, "We are committed to child well-being and families.
In fact, the county board has spent several years investing in
system improvements along with authorizing an additional 13
million in property tax dollars annually as a means to invest in
services and supports so children and families thrive."

KSTP has also reported how the county is working to institute a
more proactive approach to child protection. But Volling says the
need is more immediate.

"We don't need more kids harmed while we are trying to prevent
something that might happen 5 years from now. We need to deal with
the system as it exists and we need to change it," he said.

Those interested interested in joining the lawsuit you can call
the law firm of Faegre Banker Daniels at 612-766-8577. [GN]


HENRY COUNTY, IN: Ct. Refuses to Review Dismissal of Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CHRISTOPHER BAKER, individually and on
behalf of the present and future inmates of Henry County Jail,
Plaintiff, v. RICHARD McCORKLE, individually and in his official
capacity as Sheriff of Henry County, BRUCE BAKER, KIM CRONK, ED
YANOS, RICHARD BOUSLOG, ROBIN RENO-FLEMING, STEVEN DUGGER, NATHAN
LAMAR, CLAY MORGAN, MICHAEL THALLS, HAROLD GRIFFIN, HENRY COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, and HENRY COUNTY COUNCIL, Defendants, No. 1:16-cv-
03026-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind.), Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division, (i) denied Plaintiff Baker's motion to
reconsider ruling dismissing Named Plaintiffs; (ii) denied his
motion to delay ruling on summary judgment; (iii) denied as moot
his motion to request an order foreshortening the response time
for discovery; (iv) granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion for partial judgment; (v) denied as moot
Plaintiff Baker's motion for leave to substitute proposed class
representative; (vi) took the motion for class certification under
advertisement; (vii) denied in part and granted in part Mr.
Baker's motion for clarification; and (viii) denied Mr. Baker's
motion to determine conflict of interest.

Plaintiff Baker initiated this putative class action while an
inmate at the Henry County Jail.  He alleges that his
constitutional rights are being violated because the Jail is
overcrowded.

The original Complaint was filed by Plaintiffs Hannah Heinrich,
Alton Taylor, III, Kimberly Mullins, James Kent, and Mr. Baker.
On Feb. 13, 2017, the Plaintiffs sought to amend their Complaint
to remove three of the five original Plaintiffs and to add five
new Plaintiffs.  On March 2, 2017, the Court denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to amend complaint finding that their motion
was untimely, that allowing them to amend their complaint outside
of the deadline for doing so would prejudice the Defendants, and
that allowing amendment would be futile because the Plaintiffs had
not argued that the five Plaintiffs they sought to add through
their proposed amended complaint had exhausted their
administrative remedies before the lawsuit was filed -- a
requirement under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

In the meantime, the Defendants moved for summary judgment on the
Plaintiffs' claims.  They argued that none of the Plaintiffs had
exhausted their administrative remedies because they did not file
grievances related to the issues raised in the Complaint.  The
Court granted the Defendants' motion in part and denied it in
part, finding that: (i) Ms. Heinrich, Mr. Taylor, and Ms. Mullins
waived any argument that they had exhausted or were not required
to exhaust their administrative remedies; (ii) the Plaintiffs did
not claim that Mr. Kent exhausted his administrative remedies, or
even filed a grievance, regarding jail overcrowding; and (iii) Mr.
Baker had filed a grievance which was potentially related to
overcrowding, and the Court needed to hold a hearing regarding
whether he had exhausted his administrative remedies in order to
determine whether it could proceed to consider the merits of Mr.
Baker's claims.

The Court held a hearing on March 7, 2017, the parameters of which
were established by Pavey v. Conley.  After the hearing, the Court
held that: (i) the Jail's grievance procedure was sufficiently
clear such that inmates were required to file initial grievances
in order to exhaust their administrative remedies; (ii) the Jail's
appeals process was vague and unknown to inmates, so inmates were
not required to appeal initial grievance decisions in order to
exhaust their administrative remedies; (iii) the issue of
overcrowding was beyond the control of Jail officials so,
according to the grievance procedure set forth in the Inmate
Handbook, Mr. Baker was not required to file a grievance related
to overcrowding in order to exhaust his administrative remedies;
(iv) Mr. Baker was required to file grievances to complain about
Jail conditions unrelated to overcrowding but did not do so; and
(v) Mr. Baker may proceed with this litigation on the issues of
overcrowding in his cell block and increased fighting caused by
overcrowding.

Having resolved the exhaustion issue as to Mr. Baker, his motions
for class certification and for preliminary injunction remained
pending.  Since the Court's Order on the Pavey hearing, the
Defendants have filed a motion for partial summary judgment on
claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, and Mr. Baker has
filed four motions including: (i) a motion to reconsider ruling
dismissing Named Plaintiffs; (ii) a motion for clarification with
regard to the status of the Plaintiffs' request for class
certification and declaratory relief; (iii) a motion for leave to
substitute proposed class representative; and (iv) a motion to
delay summary judgment ruling.

The Court recognizes that Mr. Baker's counsel is passionate about
the claims alleged in this action, and also recognizes that
Defendants concede that the Jail is overcrowded.  But this does
not mean that Mr. Baker does not need to comply with procedural
requirements.  There are consequences to not raising an argument
in response to a motion, and Ms. Heinrich, Mr. Taylor, Ms.
Mullins, and Mr. Kent must face those consequences.  Mr. Baker's a
motion to reconsider ruling dismissing Named Plaintiffs is denied.
Mr. Baker does not show how the requested material relates in any
way to the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.  His
motion contains barely one page of substance, and he does not
support the motion with an affidavit or declaration.
Additionally, it appears that the issues Mr. Baker raised in his
motion have been resolved -- the Defendants indicated in their
response that they did, in fact, respond to both requests for
production and provided over 9,500 pages of copies of documents
that fell within the requested information.  Mr. Baker did not
file a reply brief in support of his motion, so the Court can
assume that he agreed with the information in the Defendants'
response.  Mr. Baker's motion to delay ruling on summary judgment
until the Defendants respond to requests for production is denied.

Because the Defendants have now provided significant discovery to
Mr. Baker, the Court also denied as moot Mr. Baker's Motion to
request an order foreshortening the response time for discovery.

The Court granted in part the Defendants' motion for partial
judgment to the extent that the Court grants summary judgment in
favor of the Defendants on Mr. Baker's individual claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief because those claims are moot,
but denied in party the motion to the extent that the Court finds
that the putative class claims for declaratory and injunctive
relief are not moot and may proceed to the class certification
stage.

Because the Court has already found that the putative class claims
did not become moot when Mr. Baker was released from the Jail, Mr.
Baker's motion for leave to substitute proposed class
representative is denied as moot.  The Court notes, however, that
it would have denied Mr. Baker's motion for leave to substitute in
any event, because it has already found that the Defendants were
entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Kent's claims.  The Court
cannot simply ignore its earlier ruling and substitute Mr. Kent as
the Named Plaintiff.

First, the Court has already discussed Mr. Baker's motion for
class certification, so denied in part as moot Mr. Baker's motion
for clarification as it relates to the motion for class
certification.  Second, the Court denied in part his motion for
clarification to the extent that it requests that the Court decide
the motion for preliminary injunction based only on evidence
submitted at the Pavey hearing.  Additional evidence may be needed
regarding whether a preliminary injunction is warranted in this
matter.  The Court granted in part Mr. Baker's motion for
clarification to the extent that it will set a hearing on Mr.
Baker's motion for preliminary injunction as soon as practicable
after the issue of class certification has been decided.

The Court denied the motion to determine conflict of interest, as
Mr. Baker does not have standing to raise the conflict issue and,
in any event, has not shown why he would be entitled to a hearing
aimed at exploring whether a conflict exists.

The Court ordered Mr. Baker to file by July 7, 2017 either: (i) a
supplementary brief in support of his motion for class
certification, addressing whether he is an adequate class
representative; or (ii) a motion for leave to substitute, should
the counsel wish to substitute a different individual who might
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class as the
Named Plaintiff as required by Rule 23(a)(4).  The Defendants
shall file any response to either motion by July 21, 2017, and Mr.
Baker may file any reply by July 28, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/UBegde from Leagle.com

Christopher Baker, Plaintiff, represented by Julie A. Newhouse,
Newhouse and Newhouse.

Christopher Baker, Plaintiff, represented by Michael K. Sutherlin
-- msutherlin@gmail.com -- Michael K. Sutherlin & Associates, PC &
Tracy J. Newhouse, Newhouse and Newhouse.

Richard McCorkle, Defendant, represented by James S. Stephenson,
Stephenson Morow & Semler & Ronald J. Semler, Stephenson Morow &
Semler.

Bruce Baker, Defendant, represented by James S. Stephenson,
Stephenson Morow & Semler & Ronald J. Semler, Stephenson Morow &
Semler.

Kim Cronk, Defendant, represented by James S. Stephenson,
Stephenson Morow & Semler & Ronald J. Semler, Stephenson Morow &
Semler.

Ed Yanos, Defendant, represented by James S. Stephenson,
Stephenson Morow & Semler & Ronald J. Semler, Stephenson Morow &
Semler.

Richard Bouslog, Defendant, represented by James S. Stephenson,
Stephenson Morow & Semler & Ronald J. Semler, Stephenson Morow &
Semler.

Robin Reno-Fleming, Defendant, represented by James S. Stephenson,
Stephenson Morow & SemlerR & Ronald J. Semler, Stephenson Morow &
Semler.

Steven Dugger, Defendant, represented by James S. Stephenson,
Stephenson Morow & Semler & Ronald J. Semler, Stephenson Morow &
Semler.

Nathan Lamar, Defendant, represented by James S. Stephenson,
Stephenson Morow & Semler & Ronald J. Semler, Stephenson Morow &
Semler.

Clay Morgan, Defendant, represented by James S. Stephenson,
Stephenson Morow & Semler & Ronald J. Semler, Stephenson Morow &
Semler.

Michael Thalls, Defendant, represented by James S. Stephenson,
Stephenson Morow & Semler & Ronald J. Semler, Stephenson Morow &
Semler.


HOME PROPS: Lease-Termination Fee Class Fails Requirement
---------------------------------------------------------
David Luck, Esq., and Gary M. Pappas, Esq., at Carlton Fields, in
an article for JD Supra, wrote using the Third Circuit's
comparatively robust ascertainability standard, the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently
denied certification of a class of tenants allegedly charged an
improper lease-termination fee and subjected to collections calls
in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692, et seq.

In its order, the district court explained that under the Third
Circuit's ascertainability precedent, it is the representative
plaintiff's burden to demonstrate that: "(1) the class is defined
with reference to objective criteria; and (2) there is a reliable
and administratively feasible mechanism for determining whether
putative class members fall within the class definition."  If the
court and parties must engage in "extensive and individualized
fact-finding or 'mini-trials'" to ascertain the class's members,
"then a class action is inappropriate."

Applied to the certification-related facts at issue in this case,
the court determined that the proposed class failed Rule 23's
implied, threshold ascertainability requirement. In particular,
while the representative plaintiff contended that the defendant
property-management and collections companies' records identified
3,274 tenants in Pennsylvania alone who were charged the subject
notice fees with a balance tasked to the debt-collector defendant
for collection, this contention was inaccurate. The inaccuracy
stemmed from the fact that the defendants' records and discovery
responses showed that those 3,274 tenants were charged some lease-
termination fee -- but not, necessarily, the specific 30-day
lease-termination fee at issue in this lawsuit. Moreover,
defendants' documentation and systems did not show that calls and
associated voicemails were made to any or all of these tenants in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The plaintiff thus failed to propose any reliable,
administratively feasible methodology to ascertain the potential
class members. The district court also determined that because of
this failure, ascertainability would devolve into inefficient,
detailed mini-trials to determine class membership, which "the
Third Circuit has expressly prohibited."

Because the representative plaintiff was unable to satisfy even
the threshold ascertainability requirement, the court concluded
that it was unnecessary to analyze any of Rule 23's other class
requirements.

The case is Jarzyna v. Home Props., L.P., No. CV 10-4191, 2017 WL
2061688 (E.D. Pa. May 15, 2017). [GN]


HOSPITAL HOUSEKEEPING: Scheduling Conf. in "Bentley" on Aug. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
A scheduling conference is set for August 1, 2017 in the case
captioned Carmen Bentley, Plaintiff v. Hospital Housekeeping
Systems, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Defendant, Case
No. 5:17-cv-00419-M (W.D. Ok., April 11, 2017), according to a
docket entry dated June 6, 2017.

This case, originally Case No. CJ-2017-1787, was filed on March
28, 2017, in the District Court Oklahoma County, and was removed
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on
April 11, 2017.

Hospital Housekeeping Systems, LLC provides hospital operation and
support services in the areas of acute care and senior living.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

   Greg J. Lytle, Esq.
   Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A.
   1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4545
   Dallas, TX 75201
   Tel: (214) 754-8755
   Fax: (214) 754-8744
   Email: Gregg.lytle@qpwblaw.com


IDAHO: Says Prisoners Exaggerated Claims in Medical Care Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Boone, writing for Idaho State Journal, reports that
attorneys for the Idaho Department of Correction say inmates
exaggerated problems with the prison medical care system and
waited too long to complain, so prison officials should not be
held in contempt of court for violating a settlement in a decades-
old class-action lawsuit.

The court documents were filed in federal court.  They mark the
latest twist in a lawsuit first brought by inmates more than 30
years ago that contends unconstitutionally poor medical care was
provided to prisoners at the Idaho State Correctional Institution.

Attorneys for the inmates said earlier this year that serious
medical care problems persist at the facility, with some prisoners
forced to undergo amputations after bedsores went untreated and
others with serious disabilities left without water for extended
periods.

But the state's attorneys say any problems with medical care have
long been fixed and that the complaints about poor treatment are
both overstated and outdated.

The case started in 1981 when so many inmates from the Idaho State
Correctional Institution began filing lawsuits that they
threatened to clog Idaho's federal court. A judge noted
similarities between the cases and combined them into one class-
action lawsuit.

The claims ranged from overcrowding and excessive violence to
limited access to medical care. Some have been settled, but the
medical care complaints continue at the prison.

Idaho prison officials have acknowledged some "deviations" to the
settlement terms in recent years -- including poor auditing of
medical records -- but contend they were fixed as soon as they
were discovered.

"Plaintiffs refer to the deviations as if they are ongoing, when
they have been informed on multiple occasions that they are not,"
Idaho Deputy Attorney General Colleen Zahn wrote for the
Department of Correction. "They spend the bulk of their brief
speculating on the various types of harm they have allegedly
suffered, without putting forth any evidence connecting that
speculative harm to deviations that have long since been cured."

The allegations of amputations and other problems are taken out of
context, Zahn wrote.

"The medical records, however, do not support plaintiff's
contentions," she wrote in the court filings.

For instance, an inmate who had a toe amputated for a badly
infected wound later acknowledged that he waited to seek medical
care and sometimes skipped visits to the prison wound care clinic,
Zahn said.

Another inmate who claimed to be left without access to food and
water for long periods actually refused meals and water, the
correction department contends, and had access to water and a
hydration system attached to his wheelchair.

U.S. District Judge David Carter earlier ordered the prison to
undergo a compliance audit in May. The status and results of that
audit have not yet been released by the court. [GN]


JEWELRY CHANNEL: Court Denies Bid to Certify "Kabbash" Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LIANNA KABBASH on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE JEWELRY CHANNEL, INC.
USA, d/b/a Liquidation Channel, Defendant, Case No. A-16-CA-212-SS
(W.D. Tex.), Judge Sam Sparks of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, denied the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Between Nov. 21, 2014, and Nov. 30, 2014, Plaintiff Kabbash, a
California resident, purchased approximately 15 items from LC at a
total cost of approximately $522.  After receiving the jewelry and
wearing the items, the Plaintiff claims the items began to fall
apart.

On May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a complaint on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated in federal district
court in California.  According to Plaintiff, LC inflates the
estimated retail value (ERV) of its products to artificially
increase the percentage savings LC advertises.  She asserts LC's
prices are not discounted at all and the ERV is part of a pricing
scheme used to induce purchases.  In particular, the Plaintiff
claims LC reverse engineers its ERV to mislead consumers.

The Plaintiff's original complaint alleged the following claims
for a nationwide class: (i) negligent misrepresentation, (ii)
intentional misrepresentation, (iii) and unjust enrichment.  She
also alleged the following claims for a California class: (i)
violation of California's False Advertising Law (FAL), CAL. BUS. &
PROF. CODE Section 17500, et seq.; (ii) violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), CAL. Civ. CODE
Section 1750, et seq.; (iii) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE, Section 17200 et
seq.; (iv) negligent misrepresentation; and (v) intentional
misrepresentation.  LC filed a motion to dismiss, arguing in part
its ERVs and percentage savings displays were non-actionable
puffery under California law.  LC also argued the Plaintiff failed
to allege justifiable reliance for her FAL, CLRA, UCL, and
misrepresentation claims.  Finding LC's ERV and percentage savings
displays were statements of fact and whether reliance is justified
was a question of fact for the California claims, the California
district court denied the motion to dismiss.

LC then filed a motion to transfer venue to the Western District
of Texas, asking the California district court to honor the forum
selection clause in the TOC.  The California district court
granted the motion to transfer, conveying the case to this Court.

After transfer, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting
the same claims as in her original complaint for a nationwide
class and a California class.  Following limited discovery for
class certification purposes only, the Plaintiff filed a motion to
certify class.

On April 7, 2017, the Texas Court held a hearing, entertaining
argument from both parties on choice of law and the motion for
class certification.  Postponing ruling on the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification in light of representations made by
counsel, the Texas Court authorized the Plaintiff to submit an
amended class definition and permitted supplemental briefing.  The
Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended class definition and the
parties have now filed supplemental briefing in response.

The Plaintiff submits the following amended class definition for
certification: All persons who, while in California and during the
four-year period preceding the initiation of this litigation,
purchased an item on LC's website that LC's business records show
was advertised with an estimated retail price.  The Plaintiff also
seeks to have herself appointed as the class representative and
her counsel appointed as class counsel.

The Texas Court held that although the Plaintiff's claims satisfy
the Rule 23(a) requirements for class certification, the
Plaintiff's claims do not meet the more demanding 23(b)
requirements.  In particular, certification under 23(b)(2) is not
appropriate because the Plaintiff's claims for monetary damages
predominate over her claims for injunctive or declaratory relief.
Likewise, because the elements of the purported class' claims --
whether LC made misrepresentations, whether class members relied
on the alleged misrepresentations, and the extent of resulting
damages -- predominately feature individualized inquiries over
common questions, certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is improper,
the Texas Court held.  Thus, the Plaintiff's allegations do not
meet the Rule 23(b) requirements, and class certification is
denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/iBWoBn from Leagle.com.

Lianna Kabbash, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Howard Gibbs --
ehg@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP, pro hac vice.

Lianna Kabbash, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory F. Coleman --
greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice, Mark
E. Silvey, Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice & Paula K. Knippa,
Slack & Davis, LLP.

The Jewelry Channel, Inc. USA, Defendant, represented by David
Philip Whittlesey -- davidwhittlesey@andrewskurth.com -- Andrews
Kurth LLP, James E. Rosini -- jrosini@andrewskurthkenyon.com --
Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan W. Thomas --
jthomas@andrewskurthkenyon.com -- Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP, pro
hac vice & Michael N. Zachary -- mzachary@andrewskurthkenyon.com
-- Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP, pro hac vice.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Expands Team of Lawyers to Fight Talcum Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that to combat its
growing talcum powder problem, Johnson & Johnson has expanded its
team of lawyers to fight a two-front battle.

On the heels of the May $110 million jury verdict, jury selection
began on June 5 in the sixth talcum powder trial in Missouri.  A
separate trial is set to begin in Los Angeles in early July.

In Missouri, Johnson & Johnson is leaning on two attorneys,
Debra Pole -- dpole@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin and James T.
Smith -- Smith-JT@BlankRome.com -- at Blank Rome, in addition to
longtime lead counsel Mark Hegarty of Shook, Hardy & Bacon.

They're facing off against Ted Meadows, principal at Beasley,
Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery, Alabama, and
R. Allen Smith of The Smith Law Firm in Ridgeland, Mississippi --
a plaintiffs' team that so far has secured jury verdicts in
Missouri totaling roughly $300 million in cases alleging that
prolonged use of its baby powder and Shower to Shower products
caused women to get ovarian cancer.

There's more at stake than ever for J&J. Unlike the previous
trials, which each focused on a single woman, this month's trial
involves the deaths of three women.  That's triple the potential
exposure of prior cases.

It's Blank Rome's first foray into the talcum powder litigation.
Smith, a Philadelphia partner and former head of the firm's
litigation department, has 30 years of experience in a broad range
of commercial litigation, according to his firm bio.

Ms. Pole, who leads Sidley Austin's products liability and mass
torts practice in Los Angeles, has served in lead defense roles in
cases involving silicone breast implants and hormone replacement
therapy.  Her colleague Kimberly Dunne -- kdunne@sidley.com --
another partner in Los Angeles, was part of the talcum powder
defense team led by Proskauer Rose's Bart Williams and Manuel
Cachan -- mcachan@proskauer.com -- that notched the only trial win
for Johnson & Johnson in Missouri.

Mr. Williams, Mr. Cachan and Ms. Dunne will step up to bat for
Johnson & Johnson again on July 10 in Los Angeles -- the first
talc trial outside Missouri.  Spearheading the plaintiffs team is
Mark Robinson, senior partner at Robinson Calcagnie Inc. in
Newport Beach, California, whose previous trials have involved
Vioxx and automobile defects, including one that landed a $4.9
billion award against General Motors.

Here's a look at each of the trials:

Missouri

Opening statements were scheduled to start on June 9 in Missouri,
where Johnson & Johnson faces the bulk of the suits over talcum
powder on behalf of roughly 1,700 women.

The trial centers on the deaths of Dawn Hershman, 46; Eron Evans,
41; and Shawn Blaes, 50.

In an emailed statement, Mr. Meadows said similarities in the
personal and medical histories of the three women justified the
consolidated approach.

"This may also provide a rationale for the legal teams and the
court to consider similar multi-plaintiff trials in the future,
and in our view more effectively gain justice for the thousands of
women and their families who have suffered with this tragic and
preventable diagnosis," Mr. Meadows said.

Johnson & Johnson has opposed trials with more than one plaintiff
and argued in its appeal of the first verdict that most of the
women have improperly sued in Missouri.  In a last-minute fight
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Johnson &
Johnson is hoping to toss one of the plaintiffs from the trial on
jurisdictional ground.

That plaintiff, Michael Blaes, a Missouri resident whose wife died
in 2010, originally filed his case in Missouri state court. But
after Johnson & Johnson removed it to federal court,
Mr. Blaes voluntarily dismissed it in 2016. He then refiled his
complaint in Missouri state court, where it was consolidated into
another case.  Calling it "blatant forum shopping," Johnson &
Johnson appealed the federal judge's order allowing Mr. Blaes to
dismiss of his own case.

On May 26, the panel upheld the dismissal with a 2-1 ruling. But
in a dissent, Eighth Circuit Judge Raymond Gruender (whose name
President Donald Trump once floated as a U.S. Supreme Court
nominee) wrote that U.S. District Judge Ronnie White of the
Eastern District of Missouri should have addressed the potential
forum-shopping.

"The motion failed to include any justification as to why
dismissal was appropriate," he wrote, noting that Mr. Blaes
dismissed his case soon after the first talcum powder verdict of
$72 million.

Quoting from that dissent, Johnson & Johnson has petitioned the
Eighth Circuit to rehear the case en banc and has renewed an
emergency motion to prevent Mr. Blaes from going to trial.  As of
June 7, the Eighth Circuit hadn't ruled on the matter.

Los Angeles

The Los Angeles case was brought by Eva Echeverria, who alleges
she developed ovarian cancer at age 52 from using Johnson &
Johnson's baby powder throughout her life.

Johnson & Johnson moved on May 26 to exclude the plaintiffs'
experts, citing their "made-for-litigation opinions." It's a
strategy that last year knocked out two planned trials in New
Jersey state court on summary judgment but has failed to work in
Missouri, where the rules on expert evidence are different.

"The fact that plaintiff's experts have been forced to contradict
themselves and each other in an effort to manufacture causation
opinions highlights a fundamental problem with this case: there is
simply no valid basis to conclude that Ms. Echeverria's use of
talc is the reason for her cancer," wrote Johnson & Johnson's
lawyers in a summary judgment motion.  They also have brought
motions in limine to strike the experts from trial.

One expert, Daniel Cramer, was ousted on Sept. 2 from two trials
slated for New Jersey state court.  Those cases were tossed after
Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Nelson Johnson, in a summary
judgment ruling, criticized the plaintiffs' experts' "made-for-
litigation" scientific methods.

A hearing is set for June 26.

"I'm working on the opposition right now," said Mr. Robinson, who
has teamed with Helen Zukin -- zukin@kbla.com -- of Kiesel Law in
Beverly Hills, California, on the trial.  "And we hope we can
win."


KATE SPADE & CO: "Rosenfeld" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenfeld, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Kate Spade & Company, Craig A. Leavitt,
Deborah J. Lloyd, Nancy J. Karch, Lawrence S. Benjamin, Raul J.
Fernandez, Carsten Fischer, Kenneth B. Gilman, Kenneth P.
Kopelman, Douglas Mack, Jan Singer and Doreen A. Toben,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04085 (S.D. N.Y., May 31, 2017),
seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing the acquisition of Kate Spade by Coach,
Inc. The Plaintiff also seeks costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for Plaintiffs attorneys' and experts' fees
and such other and further relief for violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Coach will acquire all outstanding shares of Kate Spade for $18.50
in cash per share of Kate Spade's common stock where the proposed
transaction is valued at approximately $2.4 billion. The Merger's
Recommendation Statement fails to provide Kate Spade's financial
projections, data and inputs underlying the financial valuation
analyses, Kate Spade insiders' potential conflicts of interest and
the background process leading to the transaction, says the
complaint.

Kate Spade operates principally under two global, multichannel
lifestyle brands, namely Kate Spade New York and Jack Spade.

Coach is a leading New York design house of modern luxury
accessories and lifestyle brands. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025
      Fax: (212) 682-3010
      Email: racocelli@weisslawllp.com


KIEKERT AG: "Ascher" Files Antitrust Suit Over Latch Price-fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Halley Ascher, Gregory Asken, Melissa Barron, Kimberly Bennett,
Ron Blau, Tenisha Burgos, Kent Busek, Jane Butler, Jennifer Chase,
Rita Cornish, Nathan Croom, Lori Curtis, Jessica Decastro,
Theresia Dillard, Alena Farrell, Jane Fitzgerald, Carroll Gibbs,
Dori Gilels, Jason Grala, Ian Groves, Curtis Gunnerson, Tom
Halverson, Curtis Harr, Andrew Hedlund, Gary Arthur Herr, John
Hollingsworth, Elizabeth Kaufman, Robert Klingler, Bonnie Vander
Meulen, Rebecca Lynn Morrow, Edward Muscara, Stacey Nickell, Roger
Olson, James Phelps, William Picotte, Whitney Porter, Cindy
Prince, Frances Gammell-Roach, Darrel Senior, Darcy Sherman, Erica
Shoaf, Arthur Stukey, Kathleen Tawney, Jane Taylor, Keith Uehara,
Michael Wick and Phillip Young, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Kiekert AG and
Kiekert U.S.A., Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03857 (E.D.
Mich., May 23, 2017), bring this class action for damages,
injunctive relief, and other relief pursuant to federal antitrust
laws and state antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection,
and unjust enrichment laws.

Kiekert AG and Kiekert U.S.A., Inc. are manufacturers and/or
suppliers of side-door latches and latch mini-modules globally and
in the United States. Plaintiffs purchased or leased a new four-
wheeled passenger automobile, van, sports utility vehicle,
crossover or pickup truck in the United States not for resale that
includes one or more of these components. Defendants are accused
of engaging in a conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise,
maintain and/or stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the
market and customers in the United States for these components.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
      Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
      Telephone: (310) 789-3100
      Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
      Email: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
             ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

             - and -

      Terrell W. Oxford, Esq.
      Chanler A. Langham, Esq.
      Omar Ochoa, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1000 Louisiana St., Suite 5100
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 651-9366
      Facsimile: (713) 654-6666
      Email: toxford@susmangodfrey.com
             clangham@susmangodfrey.com
             oochoa@susmangodfrey.com

             - and -

      E. Lindsay Calkins, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 516-3880
      Email: lcalkins@susmangodfrey.com

             - and -

      Hollis Salzman, Esq.
      Bernard Persky, Esq.
      William V. Reiss
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 980-7400
      Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
      Email: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
             BPersky@RobinsKaplan.com
             WReiss@RobinsKaplan.com

             - and -

      Steven N. Williams, Esq.
      Demetrius X. Lambrinos, Esq.
      Elizabeth Tran, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
      San Francisco Airport Office Center
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Telephone: (650) 697-6000
      Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
      Email: swilliams@cpmlegal.com
             dlambrinos@cpmlegal.com
             etran@cpmlegal.com

             - and -


      E. Powell Miller, Esq
      Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
      THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
      950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
      Rochester, MI 48307
      Telephone: (248) 841-2200
      Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
      Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
             ssa@millerlawpc.com


KING DIGITAL: Judge Approves $18.5 Million Securities Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, reports that a San Francisco
judge granted final approval on May 31 to Candy Crush creator King
Digital's $18.5 million settlement ending a securities class
action over its 2014 initial public offering, a deal class counsel
called one of the largest-ever in California state court.

California Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow said he would grant
final approval for the deal, which reserves 29.5 percent of the
settlement pot for attorneys' fees, awards the four named class
representatives $2,500 each and names Bay Area Legal Aid as the cy
pres recipient of uncashed claims. According to court filings,
72,000 copies of the notice were sent out to class members, and
there were ten requests for exclusion as well as one objector, who
questioned the size of the attorneys' fees.

"I approve this settlement as fair and reasonable," Judge Karnow
said. "I appreciate everyone's help in this case so much. I think
the work we did in the preliminary phase made this so much
easier."

The deal, the result of a double-blind mediation, represents "one
of the largest of its kind in California," according to class
counsel Jeffrey Light of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd.

"We were glad we could get what we think is a very good result for
the class," he told Law360 after the hearing.

The suit, filed in 2015, alleges that King violated the Securities
Act by omitting negative information from a U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filing. A registration statement written in
anticipation of King's March 2014 initial public offering left out
key information, including the downturn in Candy Crush revenues,
the company's failure to branch out from the famous game and a
decline in monthly paying users, the lawsuit alleged.

An estimated 71.8 million shares of King were hurt by the
omissions during the class period that runs from March to
September of 2014.

King Digital is represented by Kevin Muck, Esq. --
kmuck@fenwick.com -- and Dean Kristy, Esq. -- dkristy@fenwick.com
-- of Fenwick & West LLP and by Laura Kabler Oswell, Esq. --
oswelll@sullcrom.com -- of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.

The class is represented by Ian Berg, Esq. -- iberg@aftlaw.com --
and Takeo Keller, Esq. -- tkellar@aftlaw.com -- of Abraham
Fruchter & Twersky LLP, Francisc Bottini Jr., Esq. --
fbottini@bottinilaw.com -- and Albert Chang, Esq. --
achang@bottinilaw.com -- of Bottini & Bottini Inc., Lionel Glancy,
Esq. -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- and Robert Prongay, Esq. --
rprongay@glancylaw.com -- of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Jeffrey
Light, Esq. -- jeffreyl@rgrd.com -- Samuel Rudman, Esq. --
samuelr@rgrd.com -- Mary Blasy, Esq. -- maryb@rgrd.com -- James
Jaconette, Esq. -- jamesj@rgrd.com -- and Shawn Williams, Esq. --
shawnw@rgrd.com --  of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, John Jasnoch,
Esq. -- jjasnoch@scott-scott.com -- Thomas Laughlin, Esq. --
tlaughlin@scott-scott.com -- and Joseph Halloran, Esq. --
jhalloran@scott-scott.com -- of Scott + Scott Attorneys At Law
LLP, and Thomas Michaud -- tmichaud@vmtlaw.com -- of VanOverbeke
Michaud & Timmony PC.

The case is Sean Debotte v. King Digital Entertainment PLC, case
number CGC-15-544770, in the California Superior Court for the
County of San Francisco. [GN]


LA FOX BP: "Martinez" Labor Suit Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Martinez, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated Plaintiffs, v. LA Fox BP, INC and Waqar Qureshi,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03849 (N.D. Ill,
May 23, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, state law penalties and
attorney's fees and costs.

La Fox is a gasoline/service station in South Elgin, Illinois
where Plaintiff worked as a cashier. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
     Baldemar Lopez, Esq.
     LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
     77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312) 420-6784


LANDLORD LEASING: "Armstrong" Hits Undisclosed Consumer Report
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corinna Armstrong on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Landlord Leasing, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01080 (N.D. Ohio, May 23, 2017) seeks statutory and
punitive damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and such
other and further relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

In or around May 2016, Plaintiff filled out an application to
lease a house from Defendant. As a part of the application
process, Defendant performed a background investigation on
Plaintiff, which included obtaining a background report from a
credit reporting agency. Her application was denied because of
information contained within her consumer report. Defendant
refused to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the consumer report.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason R. Bristol, Esq.
      Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq.
      COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP
      The Hoyt Block Building - Suite 400
      700 West St. Clair Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (216) 781-7956
      Fax: (216) 781-8061
      Email: jbristol@crklaw.com
             jfuchs@crklaw.com


LAR-BEV OF HOWELL: Prelim. OK of "Machesney" Settlement Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Shari Machesney, Plaintiff, v. Lar-Bev of
Howell, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 10-10085 (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Sean F. Cox of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, denied without
prejudice the Plaintiff's agreed motion for preliminary approval
of class action settlement and notice to the class.

This is one of three TCPA cases that the Court has certified as a
class action.  This case is another "in a string of 'junk fax'
cases" under the TCPA "that involves a fax-broadcasting company
named Business to Business Solutions.  The motion states that the
Plaintiff's Counsel and the Defense Counsel have agreed to settle
the case, and this motion asks the Court to grant the motion and
issue a proposed "Preliminary Approval Order."  The motion is
unopposed.

The Court initially denied class certification in this case
because, among other things, the Court concluded that there was
not an ascertainable class because only persons or entities who
owned the fax machines had statutory standing to bring a claim.
After examining the legislative history, the Court concluded that
only the owners of the fax machine had statutory standing to
assert a claim under the TCPA.  In an Opinion & Order issued on
April 7, 2016, the Court ultimately certified this action as a
class action.

On March 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an "Agreed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Notice to the
Class."  Under the proposed settlement, the Defendants, by and
through their insurer Argonaut, has agreed to make available a
total of $7,682,500 for the Settlement Fund.  From the Settlement
Fund, the Plaintiffs' Counsel would receive an attorney fee award
equal to one-third of the entire settlement fund -- more than $2.5
million -- plus unspecified "out-of-pocket expenses."
Administrative costs would also be paid from the Settlement Fund.
Named Plaintiff Shari Machesney would get $15,000.  The remaining
money would be used to pay claims to the class members.  Each
class member would get a cash payment of the lesser of $500 per
fax sent to them or a "pro rata share" of the Settlement Fund
after all the other payments have been made.  In addition, under
the parties' agreement, any money left in the Settlement Fund
after payments to claiming class members, to the Class
Representative, and to the Class Counsel would revert to and be
kept by Argonaut.

Because the Court is just at the first stage of the two-step
process, it needs to consider some of the factors, including the
complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; the
amount of discovery engaged in by the parties; and the likelihood
of success on the merits.  But the bottom line is this is not a
complex case, there has not been much discovery or original work
product needed, yet Plaintiff's likelihood of success as to the
claims in this action is high.  Against that unusual backdrop, the
Court must consider the risk of fraud or collusion as to the
proposed settlement before it.

Under the parties' agreement, any money left in the Settlement
Fund after payments to claiming class members, to the Class
Representative, and to the Class Counsel, would revert to and be
kept by Argonaut.  Of course, reversion of unclaimed funds to the
Defendant or its insurer is not the only option when a low claims
rate is expected.  Under the circumstances presented, the Court is
concerned that the reversion clause in this action, that provides
for all unclaimed funds to go back to the insurer of the alleged
wrongdoers, may reflect fraud or collusion and is not in the best
interests of the class.

This case also falls into the scenario that the named Plaintiffs
are inadequate representatives under Rule 23(a)(4), and the Court
abused its discretion in finding the contrary.  Here, it appears
that the sole named plaintiff in this case (Machesney) has
essentially been "bought off" -- she is getting an award that is
30 times more than the maximum award that any class member could
ever get under the settlement, in exchange for her not objecting
to the large attorney fee award requested by the Plaintiff's
Counsel.  Indeed, that request makes the Court question whether
Machesney is an adequate class representative and should continue
on as the named plaintiff in this class action.

Finally, the Court notes that it is not inclined to approve the
Plaintiff's requested attorney fee award of one-third of the
settlement fund, given the unique aspects of this case.  In light
of all the circumstances presented here, the Court is not inclined
to award the percentage-of-the-fund attorney fees requested --
more than $2.5 million.  The Court initially concludes, based on
the information available to it, that the lodestar method would be
more appropriate under the circumstances of this particular case.

For the reasons set forth, it is ordered that the Plaintiff's
agreed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement
and notice to the class is denied without prejudice because there
are several aspects of the proposed settlement that give the Court
concern that the settlement is not in the best interests of the
class.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2017 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/YHM5z0 from Leagle.com

Shari Machesney, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Wanca --
bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca.

Shari Machesney, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel J. Cohen, Bock &
Hatch, David M. Oppenheim -- david@classlawyers.com -- Bock,
Hatch, Lewis, & Oppenheim, LLC, Jason J. Thompson, Sommers
Schwartz, P.C., Phillip A. Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- Bock
Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, Ryan M.
Kelly, Anderson & Wanca & Tod A. Lewis -- tod@classlawyers.com --
Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC.

Lar-Bev of Howell, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason R.
Mathers -- jmathers@harveykruse.com -- Harvey Kruse, John R. Prew
-- jprew@harveykruse.com -- Harvey Kruse, Larry W. Davidson --
ldavidson@harveykruse.com -- Harvey Kruse & Gregory P. LaVoy --
glavoy@harveykruse.com -- Harvey Kruse PC.

Larbev, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason R. Mathers, Harvey
Kruse, John R. Prew, Harvey Kruse, Larry W. Davidson, Harvey Kruse
& Gregory P. LaVoy, Harvey Kruse PC.

Larbev-Fenton, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason R. Mathers,
Harvey Kruse, John R. Prew, Harvey Kruse, Larry W. Davidson,
Harvey Kruse & Gregory P. LaVoy, Harvey Kruse PC.

Larbev-Union Lake, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason R.
Mathers, Harvey Kruse, John R. Prew, Harvey Kruse, Larry W.
Davidson, Harvey Kruse & Gregory P. LaVoy, Harvey Kruse PC.

Larbev-Waterford, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason R.
Mathers, Harvey Kruse, John R. Prew, Harvey Kruse, Larry W.
Davidson, Harvey Kruse & Gregory P. LaVoy, Harvey Kruse PC.

Lar-Bev of Howell, Inc., LarBev, Inc., Larbev-Fenton, Inc.,
Larbev-Union Lake, Inc., Lar-Bev-Waterford, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Jason R. Mathers, Harvey Kruse, John R. Prew,
Harvey Kruse, Larry W. Davidson, Harvey Kruse & Gregory P. LaVoy,
Harvey Kruse PC.


LINCOR EATERY: "Martin" Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit
----------------------------------------------------
Crystal Martin, Jessica Jones, Suzette Reynolds and Renee Van
Hook, Plaintiffs, v. Lincor Eatery, Inc., Sagano Of Brighton,
Inc., Sagano of Clarkston, Inc. and Sagano Properties, LLC,
jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-11634 (E.D.
Mich., May 23, 2017), seeks back pay for the difference between
the minimum hourly wage, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act and the hourly cash
wages actually paid, restitution for all tips illegally retained
through the invalid tip-pool, liquidated and multiple damages as
allowed by law, including double damages, compensatory damages and
punitive damages, post-judgment assignment of attorneys' fees,
costs and interest and any other relief to which Plaintiffs may be
entitled.

Sagano is a chain of Japanese bistros with locations in Flint,
Brighton, Clarkston and Fenton, Michigan where Plaintiffs worked
as servers. Defendants allegedly use a tip credit without
providing notice to their employees and engage in tip-pooling
practices that invalidate the use of the tip credit.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Bruce A. Miller, Esq.
     Keith D. Flynn, Esq.
     Adam M. Taub, Esq.
     MILLER COHEN, P.L.C.
     600 W. Lafayette Blvd., 4th Floor
     Detroit, MI 48226
     Tel: (313) 964-4454
     Fax: (313) 964-4490 Fax
     Email: kflynn@millercohen.com
            adamtaub@millercohen.com


LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Final Approval of "Bailes" Class Deal Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRYAN BAILES, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others, Plaintiff, v. LINEAGE LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 15-cv-02457-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.), Judge of the United States
District Court for the District of Kansas denied without prejudice
the parties' Joint Motion for Order for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement and the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and
Costs to refiling.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit for himself and putative class
members alleging that the Defendant violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.  The parties met, negotiated, and agreed to a
compromise.  On May 9, 2016, they asked the Court to approve the
result of their efforts: a proposed class settlement.  On Aug. 19,
2016, the Court denied their motion and gave the parties time to
renegotiate certain aspects of their proposed compromise.  The
parties again met, negotiated, and agreed to a new proposed class
settlement.

On Dec. 15, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved this new
proposed settlement agreement and conditionally certified a
settlement class.  The parties have agreed to settle the class'
claims for a total of $149,205.  They propose to distribute this
sum in this fashion: attorney fees and costs of $49,237 (should
the court approve that amount); settlement administrator costs of
$16,500; a $5,000 incentive award for the named plaintiff, Bryan
Bailes; and the remainder, $78,468, to be divided equally among
the 2,931 class members to whom notice was sent and not returned
as undeliverable.  This formula would provide, if approved, each
class member who received notice with about $26.77.  If finally
approved, the Proposed Settlement requires the administrator to
mail settlement checks to all class members to whom notice was
sent and not returned as undeliverable.  Any checks not cashed
within 120 days of issuance would pass to Goodwill Industries
International, Inc. as a cy pres beneficiary.  In addition to the
monetary considerations, the parties have agreed not to publicize
the settlement.  The Plaintiff and all class members also have
agreed to release all claims they may have against the defendant
based on the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

Almost a month later, the Court approved the parties' proposed
notice and notice plan.  The parties filed their Joint Motion for
Order for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement on April 19,
2017, and the same day plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorney Fees
and Costs asking approval of an attorneys' fee award of 33% of the
total settlement fund, or $49,237.  The Court held a fairness
hearing on April 25, 2017.

After reviewing parties' submissions, the Court concludes that it
cannot currently approve the Proposed Settlement because the
information the parties provide is insufficient to allow the Court
to make the findings necessary for approval.  Specifically, the
parties' joint motion never asks the Court to issue a final class
certification order.  And the parties did not raise or present
evidence on this issue during the fairness hearing.

The Plaintiff's counsel has submitted some information to justify
his fee request but, in response to the Memorandum and Order, the
parties may decide to reformulate their motion for final approval
-- or even their proposed settlement -- and resubmit it.  If the
parties choose to retain their current Proposed Settlement or if a
reformulated proposed settlement includes the Defendant's promise
not to oppose a fee award, the Court will review the 12 Johnson
factors with the requisite skepticism.  This approach requires
more than a passing mention of the hours logged by each attorney
and that attorney's usual hourly rate in plaintiff's briefing.
Indeed, the Circuit requires much more to secure fee approval.

The court currently cannot approve the parties' proposed
settlement based on the record and motions before it.  The court
thus denies the parties' Joint Motion for Order for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement and plaintiff's Motion for Attorney
Fees and Costs without prejudice to refiling.  Should the parties
choose to revise and refile a motion for final approval, the Court
will consider whether approval is warranted under the governing
standard.

For these reasons, the Court denied without prejudice the parties'
Joint Motion for Order for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement and the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs.
The Court further ordered that the parties must notify the Court
on July 6, 2017 of their intention either to (i) file a revised
settlement agreement and/or motion for final approval and
supporting documentation in accordance with the Memorandum and
Order; or (ii) abandon settlement and proceed to litigate this
dispute.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2017 memorandum and order
is available at https://is.gd/SAipyC from Leagle.com

Bryan Bailes, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Jason Brown, Brown
and Watkins LLC.

Bryan Bailes, Plaintiff, represented by Jayson A. Watkins, Brown
and Watkins LLC.

Lineage Logistics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey M. Place
--jplace@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC & Uzoamaka Nwonwu --
unwonwu@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.


LIVANOVA PLC: "Pickrell" Sues Over Bacterial Infection
------------------------------------------------------
Jeri Pickrell, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Livanova PLC (f/k/a Sorin Group),
Sorin Group Deutschland GmBH and Sorin Group USA, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00191, (D. Iowa, May 31, 2017), seeks
damages, costs and disbursements in this action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest
and such other relief pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment
Act.

Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to a subspecies of non-tuberculous
mycobacterium through a Sorin 3T Heater-Cooler System manufactured
by the Defendants that was used to regulate their blood
temperature during an open heart surgery at two hospitals, Mercy
Medical Center and University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics.

LivaNova is a global medical device company specializing in
devices used in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases.
LivaNova, Sorin Group Deutschland Gmbh, and Sorin Group USA, Inc.
designed, manufactured, marketed and sold the Sorin 3T Heater-
Cooler Systems used during Plaintiff's open heart surgery. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
      Brian O. Marty, Esq.
      SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE PC
      5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
      West Des Moines, IA 50265
      Telephone: (515) 223-4567
      Fax: (515) 223-8887
      Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
             marty@sagwlaw.com

              - and -

      Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
      Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      Email: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
             ymflaherty@locklaw.com

             - and -

      Wesley Bowden, Esq.
      LEVIN PAPANTONIO
      316 South Baylen St.
      Pensacola, FL 32502
      Telephone: (850) 435-7184
      Email: wbowden@levinlaw.com


MAIL TRANSPORT: Court Certifies Ex-Workers Class in "Elkins" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Thomas D. Schroeder granted the Plaintiff's motion to
certify the class in the lawsuit entitled IRAN ELKINS,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v.
MAIL TRANSPORT SERVICES, LLC, DOUGLAS D. CLINE, CHAD D. CLINE, DDC
PROPERTIES LLC, MAIL TRANSPORT, INC., AND BJ TRUCKING CO., INC.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01118-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C.).

The certified class is defined as:

     All former employees of Defendant BJ Trucking, Co., Inc.
     d/b/a Mail Transport Services, 317 Edwardia Drive,
     Greensboro, North Carolina, 27409 ("BJ Trucking") and who
     (a) worked at any point in September through December 2015
     but were not paid wages or accrued vacation leave balances
     when BJ Trucking ceased operations in October 2015; and/or
     (b) were terminated without cause in October of 2015, or
     thereafter, as part of, or as the reasonably expected
     consequence of, the mass layoff or plant closing as defined
     by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of
     1988, 29 U.S.C. Sections 2101-2109, and who are "affected
     employees" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section
     2101(a)(5).

Insofar as the Plaintiff has not moved for any further relief
attending class certification, such as notice and appointment of
class counsel, the Court does not address such matters herein,
Judge Schroeder said.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gnwX1zWd


MASTERCARD: 27 Firms Take Legal Action Over Processing Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Belfast Telegraph reports that law firm Humphries Kerstetter said
it was working on behalf of 27 firms -- including a major
supermarket chain -- to seek nearly GBP300 million in damages for
losses they allege have been caused by the fixing of so-called
interchange fees.

These fees are charged to retailers each time a credit or debit
card payment is processed.

The action comes after supermarket giant Tesco and high street
retailer WH Smith recently won settlements on interchange fees,
negotiated by Humphries Kerstetter.

Sainsbury's also won a separate court case last summer, with a
GBP68 million award from Mastercard.

Humphries Kerstetter said the 27 companies that have instructed it
to take action include well-known names on the high street, such
as retailers, betting shops and restaurants.

It added a "large number" of other firms are also considering
joining the litigation group.

The legal action is being funded by Therium Capital Management
Limited, which is a litigation financing specialist.

The move comes in the wake of a lengthy legal dispute between
retailers and the card firms after the European Commission
investigated interchange fees.

The commission voiced concerns over the practice of fixing these
costs at Visa and Mastercard and the European Union has since
passed legislation to cap interchange fees permanently.

Firms and consumers are also taking legal action against the
credit card firms in the United States, although an appeals court
threw out a landmark seven billion US dollar (GBP5.4 billion)
class action settlement in the suit. [GN]


MILSTEAD & ASSOCIATES: Fequiere Seeks Final OK of Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves for an order certifying the case captioned
DANNY FEQUIERE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MILSTEAD & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-07541-
RMB-AMD (D.N.J.), to proceed as a class action, and granting final
approval of the Parties' Class Action Settlement Agreement, on
behalf of this class:

     All consumers with a New Jersey address to whom Milstead &
     Associates, LLC mailed a written communication in the form
     of Exhibit A to the Plaintiff's Complaint during the period
     beginning October 15, 2014, and ending November 4, 2015
     where the letter stated in relevant part:

       "4. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act entitles you to
       dispute the debt, or any portion thereof, within thirty
       (30) days of your receipt of this letter.  If you do not
       dispute the debt within that period, it will be presumed
       to be valid."

Ms. Fequiere alleges that Milstead violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by, inter alia, mailing consumers initial
collection letters, which allegedly failed to provide the full and
complete disclosure required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3) by
omitting certain required language.

On February 28, 2017, the Court entered an order granting
Preliminary Approval to the Parties' Settlement Agreement.

In the Motion, Ms. Fequiere also seeks approval of an award of
Class Counsel's fees and costs in an amount of $10,000 pursuant to
the Agreement.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Gentile, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA, PC
          110 Jericho Turnpike - Suite 100
          Floral Park, NY 11001
          Telephone: (212) 675-6161
          Facsimile: (212) 675-4367
          E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com


NALCOR ENERGY: Faces Potential Class Suit Over Mud Lake Flooding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Breen, writing for CBC News, reports residents affected by
flooding on the Churchill River in May say they're in talks with
lawyers and intend to file a class action lawsuit against Nalcor,
the Crown corporation behind Muskrat Falls.

St. John's lawyer Ches Crosbie has been giving the group pro bono
legal advice and has pointed them in the direction of another
firm.

"He says we have a really good case against Nalcor," said John
Chaisson the person who initiated the process.

About 30 people whose homes sustained damage have signed on
according to Chaisson who believes everyone affected, roughly 100
people by his estimation, will likely get onboard.

About 30 per cent of the 100 or so families who lost property in
the flooding have signed on to a lawsuit, according to John
Chaisson.

Chaisson says he's "100 per cent sure" that Muskrat Falls caused
the flooding that displaced Mud Lake and the area where he lives
in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, named Mud Lake Road.

Living in fear

"It's about proving that [Muskrat Falls is] the cause of this and
we want to be ensured also that it's not going to happen again,"
said Mud Lake resident, Watson Rumbolt who also believes Nalcor is
to blame.

"And hopefully we can get something out of it to rebuild our lives
back down there."

Rumbolt has been living in fear since the flood. He said he's been
having a reoccurring dream since the community evacuation.

"I wake up just as I'm putting my feet in the water," he said.

"After going back to sleep, I'm asleep for about another half an
hour and I'm gone right back into the same dream."

More than the property damage, Chaisson said the flood has changed
people's quality of life.

"What are our lives worth? What are we worth? It's like we're not
worth nothing to Nalcor," he said.

"We'll have to show them that we are worth it and they got to do
their stuff right."

Crosbie intends to take a helicopter tour of Mud Lake and area.

He said he is not in a position to take the case himself because
of his campaign to become the leader of the PC party.

Crosbie stressed the law firm he suggested to the group has not
yet agreed to represent them. [GN]


NORTHLAND HEATING: "Watson" Seeks Overtime, Reimbursements
----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Watson, on behalf of themselves and other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Northland
Heating and Air Conditioning Co., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-00447 (S.D. Ohio, May 23, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation owed, reasonable attorney's fees and all costs and
disbursements, reasonable allowance for fees of counsel and
experts and reimbursement of expenses under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act
and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Watson was employed by the Defendant as a service technician to
services calls for residential heating and air conditioning units.
He allegedly was not paid for all of compensable hours worked
including pre-shift and off-the-clock jobs, improper meal
deductions, uncompensated travel time in between work sites and
deductions of compensable hours for late submission of invoices.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
      COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
      1457 S. High St.
      Columbus, OH 43207
      Phone: 614-949-1181
      Fax: 614-386-9964
      Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

             - and -

      Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
      Bryant Legal, LLC
      1457 S. High St.
      Columbus, OH 43207
      Tel: (614) 704-0546
      Fax: (614) 573-9826
      Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com


OCWEN LOAN: Snyder Moves to Certify TCPA Classes and Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuits captioned KEITH SNYDER
and SUSAN MANSANAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
08461 (N.D. Ill.); and TRACEE A. BEECROFT v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING,
LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-08677 (N.D. Ill.), move for class
certification.

The Plaintiffs allege that Ocwen systematically violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing calls with an
autodialer to the cell phones of more than a million persons
without prior express consent to do so, including to borrowers
Ocwen located through skip tracing, and borrowers who had
expressly asked not to be called.

The classes and subclass Plaintiffs proposed are:

     * Cell Phone Class (Plaintiff Beecroft):

     All persons whose cell phones Ocwen called using its Aspect
     dialer between October 27, 2010 and November 30, 2014, where
     the recipient had not provided the cell number called to
     Ocwen in connection with the loan that was the subject of
     the call.

     * Skip Trace Sub-Class (Plaintiff Beecroft):

     All persons whose cell phones Ocwen called using its Aspect
     dialer between October 27, 2010 and November 30, 2014, where
     Ocwen obtained the phone number through a non-voice locate
     ("NVLS") skip trace and not from the consumer.  The claims
     relating to this subclass are limited to Ocwen's first
     identifying call.

     * Do-Not-Call Class (Plaintiff Mansanarez):

     All persons during the period of October 27, 2010 to
     November 30, 2014 whose cell phones Ocwen called using its
     Aspect dialer after a date upon which Ocwen's REALServicing
     database indicates the borrowers requested not to be called.

Excluded from the Classes is Ocwen, any entity in which Ocwen has
a controlling interest or that has a controlling interest in
Ocwen, and Ocwen's legal representatives, assignees, and
successors. Also excluded are the judge to whom this case is
assigned and any member of the judge's immediate family.

Plaintiffs Beecroft and Mansanarez also ask the Court to designate
them as class representatives, as specified, and to appoint their
attorneys as class counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729-5288
          Facsimile: (312) 729-5289
          E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com
                  dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com

               - and -

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAWGROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  amcentee@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Mark Ankcorn, Esq.
          ANKCORN LAW FIRM PLLC
          200 West Madison Street, Suite 2143
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (321) 422-2333
          Facsimile: (619) 684-3541
          E-mail: mark@ankcornlaw.com

               - and -

          Guillermo Cabrera, Esq.
          Jared Quient, Esq.
          THE CABRERA FIRM, APC
          600 West Broadway, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 500-4880
          Facsimile: (619) 785-3380
          E-mail: gil@cabrerafirm.com
                  jared@cabrerafirm.com

               - and -

          Mark L. Heaney, Esq.
          HEANEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          601 Carlson Parkway, Suite 1050
          Minnetonka, MN 55305
          Telephone: (952) 933-9655
          E-mail: mark@heaneylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Chethan G. Shetty, Esq.
          Simon A. Fleischmann, Esq.
          Thomas J. Cunningham, Esq.
          David F. Standa, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          111 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 443-0700
          Facsimile: (312) 443-0336
          E-mail: cshetty@lockelord.com
                  sfleischmann@lockelord.com
                  tcunningham@lockelord.com
                  dstanda@lockelord.com

               - and -

          Brian V. Otero, Esq.
          Stephen R. Blacklocks, Esq.
          Ryan A. Becker, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
          200 Park Avenue, Suite 52
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 309-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 309-1100
          E-mail: botero@hunton.com
                  sblacklocks@hunton.com
                  rbecker@hunton.com


ODWALLA INC: Lead Plaintiff Drops Misrepresentation Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Avery, writing for Bevnet, reports that a class action
against Odwalla Inc., which claims the company's use of the phrase
"evaporate cane juice" on products was misleading, ended when lead
plaintiff Robin Reese withdrew the suit.

In August 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration finalized
rules calling the phrase "evaporated cane juice" misleading. The
FDA recommended that companies that list evaporated cane juice as
an ingredient instead use "sugar." The case's dismissal comes
after a February 2017 decision in which U.S. District Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez rejected Odwalla's argument that there were no formal
rules prohibiting the phrase's use prior to the FDA's decision

Reese originally filed the case on March 1, 2013, claiming that
evaporated cane juice was "an unlawful name" and stated she would
not have purchased Odwalla products if she knew they contained
added sugar.

However, the case will not move forward to seek nationwide
consumer retribution due to an inability to prove damages.

"Because no records exist that could identify purchasers of
Odwalla products that contained evaporated cane juice, and because
individual consumers cannot be expected to recall whether a
product they bought years ago listed evaporated cane juice as an
ingredient, commonality and predominance could never be met," the
defense said, according to docket filings reported by Law 360.

Speaking to BevNET, Noah Hagey, managing partner at law firm
BraunHagey & Borden, agreed with the decision to dismiss the case,
calling class certification in this instance "virtually
impossible" to achieve.

"Here, the company probably had three years of data showing that
Odwalla's pricing and sales did not change as a result of removing
the term "evaporated cane juice" from the back of the label,"
Hagey said. "The company apparently used different labels during
the proposed class period, and plaintiff's lawyers had no way to
prove which purported class members saw which labels. Certifying a
class, much less obtaining any economic recovery, is prohibitive
in that situation, and it makes little sense for plaintiffs'
lawyers to waste resources pursuing such a case."

Hint Calls for Stay on "All Natural" Suit

Hint Inc. is asking a California court to stay a lawsuit filed on
January 17. The lawsuit claims the flavored water company's use of
propylene glycol, an FDA-approved synthetic substance used in
natural flavors, violates the brand's "all natural" claims.

In the suit, plaintiff Lisa Kim Madrigal argues that consumers
would not expect to find propylene glycol, which is "chemically
manufactured and highly processed," in a labeled all natural
product, Food Navigator-USA reported on May 31.

However, citing an ongoing FDA probe into the term "natural," Hint
has requested a stay of the suit. Since the FDA probe began in
2015, several other class action lawsuits over "natural" labelling
claims have been stayed on primary jurisdiction grounds.

Under legal definition of the term "natural flavors" propylene
glycol is allowed. However, it is not allowed in organic certified
products. Hint claims to be "all-natural, vegan and free of
calories, MSG, nuts, peanuts, soy, gluten, and preservatives."

Lawsuit Challenges "Cold Pressed" and "Fresh Pressed" Claims on
Lakewood Organic Juices

Lakewood Organic Juices is facing a potential class action lawsuit
that takes aim at the brand's use of the phrases "cold pressed"
and "fresh pressed" and claims the juices are pasteurized.

According to the lawsuit, filed in a U.S. District Court in
California by lead plaintiff Estelle Shane, Lakewood Organic
Juices make the claim of being cold and fresh pressed in "bold,
italic, underlined, and large font on the front labels of the
Juice bottles."

"Over the past several years, the most significant driver in the
juice industry has been consumer demand for fresh and minimally
processed juices," the lawsuit states. "Such juices are an
alternative to the majority of juices in the marketplace that have
been pasteurized and sit on store shelves for months. The terms
"cold pressed" and "fresh" are material representations that carry
a specific meaning in both law and logic for the consuming
public."

The lawsuit seeks more than $5 million in compensation. [GN]


OPTUM INC: Has Until June 15 to Respond to "Mauthe" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the case captioned Robert W. Mauthe, M.D., P.C.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Optum, Inc. and Optuminsight, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 5:17-cv-01643-EGS (E.D. Pa., April 11, 2017), agreed in a
stipulation signed by the Honorable Edward G. Smith, that the
deadline by which Defendants must respond to the complaint is
extended up to and including June 15, 2017, according to a docket
entry dated May 9, 2017.

The suit seeks to recover damages for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants sent Plaintiff at least one
advertisement by facsimile. Plaintiff did not expressly consent to
receive Defendants' advertisement by fax and does not have an
established business relationship with Defendants.

OptumInsight is a healthcare information technology company, which
provides and supports software and information products
specializing in data and analytics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Richard Shenkan, Esq.
   Shenkan Injury Lawyers, LLC
   P.O. Box 7255
   New Castle, PA 16107
   Tel: (248) 562-1320
   Fax: (888) 769-1774
   Email: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com

        - and -

   Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
   Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC
   134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: (312) 658-5500
   Fax: (312) 658-5555
   Email: phil@classlawyers.com


OUR FAMILY RESTAURANT: "Hernandez" Sues Over Missed Meals Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alonso Hernandez on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Our Family Restaurant Group, LLC, WATSONS,
Watson's Soda Fountain & Cafe and Does 1 to 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 30-2017-00921819 (Cal. Super., May 23, 2017),
seeks compensation for missed meal periods, 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.

Defendant operates Our Family Restaurant Group, LLC located at 116
26 E Chapman Ave, Orange, CA 92866 where Hernandez worked 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


PETCO ANIMAL: "Hecker" Suit Moved to S.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JAMES HECKER, on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES,
INC., PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES STORES, INC., PETCO HOLDINGS, INC.
LLC, and DOES 1 TO 100, inclusive, Defendants, No. 16 C 10857
(N.D. Ill.), Judge John Z. Lee of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied
the Defendants' motion to dismiss or stay, but transferred the
action to the Southern District of California.

Hecker filed the action on Nov. 23, 2016, on behalf of himself and
similarly situated former Petco assistant store managers.  He
claims that Petco improperly classified him and his putative class
as exempt from Illinois's overtime pay requirements.

Prior to filing this action, Hecker opted in to a collective
action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Section 201 et seq., in the Southern District of California:
Kellgren v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., No. 13-cv-00644-L-KSC
(S.D. Cal. filed Mar. 19, 2013).  Like Hecker, Erik Kellgren is a
former Petco assistant store manager and worked for Petco in
Illinois, and Kellgren is represented by some of the same counsel
as Hecker is in this case.  Kellgren similarly asserts that he and
assistant store managers across the country were misclassified as
exempt from the FLSA's overtime pay requirements.  The collective
action has been conditionally certified and involves no state law
claims.  In addition to Hecker, 21 members (i.e., about 20%) of
the putative class in this action have opted in to Kellgren.
Approximately 80% of the putative class elected not to opt in or
will have no involvement in Kellgren.

Kellgren has been actively litigated for over four years.  The
parties state that the deadline to complete all discovery in
Kellgren is Aug. 2, 2017.  Other pretrial motions, including those
related to decertification and final certification of the
collective action, are due by Sept. 15, 2017.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss Hecker's case under the
"first-filed doctrine," more commonly referred to as "the "first-
to-file rule."  Alternatively, they have asked the Court to
transfer the case to the Southern District of California under 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a) or to stay the action.

Because Hecker is not a named plaintiff in Kellgren, his claims do
not duplicate those in Kellgren, and the two suits were filed in
different districts, the Court denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss this case on the basis of the first-to-file rule.  The
Court, however, entertained the Defendants' request to transfer
the case to the Southern District of California and considered the
first-filed status of the Kellgren action in evaluating the
Defendants' request under Section 1404(a).  The Court found that
the first-to-file rule does not provide a basis for dismissal, but
that transfer is appropriate.  It concluded that, because of the
substantial similarities between this case and Kellgren,
considerations underlying the interest of justice weigh heavily in
favor of transfer.  Given this, and in light of the Court's
determination that the relevant convenience factors weigh slightly
in favor of transfer, the Court granted the Defendants' request to
transfer this case to the Southern District of California.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2017 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/GPOjs4 from Leagle.com.

James Hecker, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Gershbaum,
Hepworth, Gershbaum & Roth, Pllc, pro hac vice.

James Hecker, Plaintiff, represented by Fran Lisa Rudich, Klafter
Olsen & Lesser Llp, pro hac vice, Michael Hayden Reed, Klafter
Olsen & Lesser Llp, pro hac vice, Rebecca S. Predovan, Hepworth,
Gershbaum & Roth, Pllc, pro hac vice, Adam Michael Prom --
ap@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP & Edward A. Wallace --
eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP.

Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Todd M.
Church -- tchurch@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..

Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Todd
M. Church, Littler Mendelson, P.C..

Petco Holdings, Inc. LLC, Defendant, represented by Todd M.
Church, Littler Mendelson, P.C..

Does 1 to 100, Defendant, represented by Todd M. Church, Littler
Mendelson, P.C.


PHILIP MORRIS: Jury Awards $1.9MM to Smoker Who Escaped Cuba
------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that as a
young woman in Cuba, Linda Martin was a champion swimmer and table
tennis player.

Today, she's always out of breath and can't exert herself at all,
having lived nearly 25 years since being diagnosed with lung
cancer.

After a decadelong legal fight, a jury pinned the blame on Philip
Morris USA for the way it marketed the menthol cigarettes Martin
said she began smoking when she arrived in the U.S. in 1980.
Ms. Martin was awarded $1.9 million on May 19.

Ms. Martin is an Engle plaintiff, named for the statewide tobacco
class action the Florida Supreme Court disbanded in 2006.

Plaintiffs who can show their smoking-related illness manifested
itself between May 1990 and November 1996 benefit from established
findings as to product defect, negligence, fraudulent concealment
and conspiracy to conceal.

According to Martin's complaint filed in Miami-Dade Circuit Court,
she was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease after a scary night in 1994.

"She woke up in the middle of the night coughing up blood, and her
sister who had just come from Cuba three or four months earlier
and Linda's friend rushed her to Jackson Memorial Hospital in the
middle of the night," said Ms. Martin's attorney, Austin Carr --
carr@kpwlaw.com -- of Koch Parafinczuk Wolf Susen in Fort
Lauderdale.  Ms. Martin had lung surgery and since then has been
"totally disabled," Mr. Carr said.  Today, at age 66, she has
emphysema in her other lung.

The ordeal was not Ms. Martin's first hardship in life.  Her
athletic career in Cuba was cut short in the worst way, Mr. Carr
said.

"She never got to the international level because they found out
she was gay and they put her in a camp for nine months and tried
to reform her," he said.

When a number of Cubans stormed the Peruvian embassy in April
1980, Ms. Martin sneaked in through the fence, Mr. Carr said.  She
was one of about 10,000 people who occupied the embassy for weeks
seeking political asylum.  When Fidel Castro opened the port of
Mariel, Martin joined the throngs on boats to Key West.
"Part of the theme of the case was that she came from Cuba, living
under the Communist regime, [where] there's no marketing, there's
no advertising," Mr. Carr said.  "The minute she drove up here
from U.S. 1 from the Keys, she's bombarded with all kind of
advertising.  . . .  Half of all billboards at that time were
advertising cigarettes."

Ms. Martin found work at a dry cleaner and tried her first
cigarette at a party.  She liked the feel of Benson & Hedges
menthol cigarettes, according to her testimony.

She began smoking two packs a day, Mr. Carr said.

But at trial before Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jose Rodriguez,
counsel for Philip Morris argued 14 years of smoking was not
enough to cause Ms. Martin's lung cancer.  They argued she likely
began smoking in Cuba or developed cancer from her dry cleaning
job due to exposure to a chemical called perchloroethylene.


PITA PAL: "Bassil" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------
Joe Bassil, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Pita Pal Industries, Inc., Melissa Navon
and Joseph Navon, Case No. 4:17-cv-01571, (S.D. Tex., May 23,
2017), seeks all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment interest at the applicable
rate, post-judgment interest, incentive awards and all such other
and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Pita Pal is a company that manufactures and distributes hummus to
grocery stores where Plaintiff was employed as a full-time
merchandiser within the last three years.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Center
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


QIAO XING: "Fayun" Class Certified, Rosen Named as Class Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned FAYUN LUO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QIAO XING UNIVERSAL
RESOURCES, RUI LIN WU, JIUJIU JIANG, Defendants, Civ. No. 12-0045
(D.V.I.), Judge Anne E. Thompson of the United States District
Court for the District of Virgin Islands, St. Croix, granted the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment as
class counsel and liaison counsel, and denied without prejudice
the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, to be re-filed
following the conclusion of the opt-out period for class members.

On April 27, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the
Defendants alleging violations of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934.  The Corporate Defendant is a British Virgin Island
public company traded on the NASDAQ United States Stock Exchange.
The Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint on June 15, 2012,
adding Zhi Yang Wu and Aijun Jiang as individual defendants.
Summons were issued for Xing, Rui Lin Wu, JiuJiu Jiang, and Zhi
Yang Wu on Feb. 5, 2013.  Xiaolin Chin was appointed Lead
Plaintiff on March 6, 2013.  Because the Defendants reside in
China, the process to serve Defendants was slow.  The summons were
returned executed by April 16, 2014.  At the time of service in
October 2013, the Defendants were each served with the summons and
the First Amended Complaint.  The Plaintiff moved for entry of
default and default was entered for the Plaintiff and against
Defendants Xing, Rui Lin Wu, JiuJiu Jiang, and Zhi Yang Wu on the
First Amended Complaint on July 7, 2014.  On July 8, 2015, the
Plaintiff moved for class certification, appointment of class
counsel, and default judgment.  That motion is presently before
the Court.  The Defendants have not entered an appearance or in
any way responded in this matter.

The current Plaintiff has been pursuing this action since April
2012, over five years.  Typical individual claims are too small to
maintain separate actions.  The fact that the Defendants operate
out of China, the Defendant Corporation is incorporated in the
British Virgin Islands, and the stock was traded on the NASDAQ
weigh in favor of adjudicating the claim in its entirety in a
single forum.  The Court finds that a class action is the superior
method of adjudicating these claims.

The Rosen Law Firm has been involved in this case since the
beginning.  The counsel has retained Dr. Adam Werner, a Director
at Gnarus Advisors, LLC and a Lecturer in finance and economics at
the Orfalea College of Business at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo,
California, to determine whether investors in Xing suffered losses
as a result of the Defendants' misconduct.  The Rosen Law Firm and
The Law Offices of Kevin Rames have each shown significant
knowledge of securities fraud class action law and complex
litigation involving Chinese companies.  The Court is satisfied
that Rosen and Rames are appropriate class counsel.

The class must be notified and putative class members given the
opportunity to opt out pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), prior to any
judgment that could be binding on them.  Therefore, the Court
denied without prejudice the motion for default judgment, and the
Plaintiff may re-file after the opt-out period has closed.  The
Court notes that the Plaintiff's expert report currently relies on
the Second Amended Complaint.

For these reasons, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification and appointment as class representative, lead
counsel, and liaison class counsel; and denied without prejudice
the Plaintiff's the motion for default judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/5Iaw9y from Leagle.com

FAYUN LUO, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin A. Rames, Law Office of
Kevin A. Rames, P.C..

FAYUN LUO, Plaintiff, represented by Natalie Nelson Tang How --
nnth@vilegal.com -- Law Offices of Natalie Nelson, PLLC.


ROSEBUD RESTAURANTS: Settles Race Discrimination Suit for $1.9MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashok Selvam, writing for Chicago Eater, reports Rosebud
Restaurants has reached a $1.9 million settlement in a class-
action lawsuit alleging the 13-restaurant chain refused to hire
African Americans.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that
Rosebud, as part of the agreement, will actively recruit African
Americans with the goal that they should make up 11 percent of the
workforce. Many of Rosebud's restaurants did not employ African
Americans. The lawsuit also claimed that the chain's management
team, including founder Alex Dana, referred to African Americans
with racial slurs creating a culture of racism.

The commission filed its lawsuit in 2013. Other former employees
and job applicants followed and filed similar lawsuit alleging
racism and sexism. The government also claims that Rosebud broke
federal law by failing to accurately report employment data. That
information includes the number of minorities that were hired. The
lawsuit also claimed that many job applications from African-
American jobseekers were immediately discarded by managers.

The Tribune received a statement from the chain reading that the
settlement was "in the best interests of our employees, staff and
patrons."

How will the lawsuit affect other restaurants?

Chicago-based attorney Barry Hartstein, Esq. --
bhartstein@littler.com -- co-chairs Littler Mendelson's equal
employment opportunity and diversity practice. Hiring barriers,
particularly racial discrimination cases, have been a recent focus
for the EEOC. A seven-figure settlement is a good way to grab the
attentions of restaurant investors and managers. It's a good way
of stressing the importance of equality.

"At the end of the day, employers just need to be more-than-gently
reminded that a diverse workforce is critical," Hartstein said.

Managers need to pay attention to hiring practices and not merely
rely on referrals, Hartstein added. Heavy dependence on referrals
can unintentionally lead to discrimination, though the intent
doesn't matter to the job applicant that's been turned away. This
doesn't just apply to racial biases. Hartstein noted a recent age
discrimination settlement case, as well as how the LGBTQ community
is affected.

There's also the hope that the public doesn't read too much into
the $1.9 million figure, Hartstein said. He pointed out that this
was a class-action suit, so the amount will be divided. He's
worried about triggering the filing of meritless lawsuits in the
future.

Rosebud's restaurants include Carmine's in Gold Coast, Mama's Boy
in River North, and the original Rosebud in Little Italy. The
chain also has suburban locations in Naperville, Highland Park,
and Deerfield. [GN]


ROSS STORES: Jacobo Seeks Certification of Cal. Customers Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Jacobo and Theresa Metoyer move the Court for an order
certifying the case styled JOSE JACOBO, et al. v. ROSS STORES,
INC., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04701-MWF-AGR (C.D. Cal.), to
proceed as a class action.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify this Class:

     All persons who, while in the State of California, and
     between June 20, 2011, and the present (the "Class Period"),
     purchased from Ross one or more items at any Ross store in
     the State of California with a price tag that contained a
     "Compare At" price which was higher than the price listed as
     the Ross sale price on the price tag, and who have not
     received a refund or credit for their purchase(s).

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as
representatives of the Class, and to appoint as counsel for the
Class attorneys Douglas Caiafa, Esq., of Douglas Caiafa, A
Professional Law Corporation, and Christopher J. Morosoff, Esq.,
of the Law Office of Christopher J. Morosoff.  They further ask
the Court to direct the parties to meet and confer and present the
Court, within 15 days of an order granting class certification, a
proposed notice to the certified class.

Pretrial Conference in the lawsuit is set for September 11, 2017.
Trial Date is set for October 3, 2017.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 26, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ztqkfT0r

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas Caiafa, Esq.
          DOUGLAS CAIAFA, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1245
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 444-5240
          Facsimile: (310) 312-8260
          E-mail: dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Morosoff, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MOROSOFF
          77-760 Country Club Drive, Suite G
          Palm Desert, CA 92211
          Telephone: (760) 469-5986
          Facsimile: (760) 345-1581
          E-mail: cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Cooper" Seeks Washing Machine Warranty
------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Cooper, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-61022, (S.D. Fla., May 23, 2017),
seeks an injunctive relief by requiring Samsung to issue
corrective actions including notification, recall, service
bulletins and fully-covered replacement parts and labor or
replacement, damages associated with the replacement of the
defective products and parts.  The suit also seeks attorneys' fees
and costs resulting from fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of
implied and express warranty, negligence, and violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Act and of state consumer protection laws.

On November 4, 2016, Samsung announced a recall involving 34
models of Samsung top-load washing machines with mid-controls or
rear-controls. The washing machine top unexpectedly detaches from
the washing machine chassis during use, posing a risk of injury
from impact.

Plaintiff purchased a new Washing Machine, Model Number
WA48J7700AW on February 2, 2016 from the Best Buy store in
Aventura, Florida. It is one of those recalled units. Samsung's
offer to repair or rebate was deemed impractical by the Plaintiff
due to the hassle and inequitable compensation value of the rebate
offered. The full replacement option was not honored by the
Samsung dealer.

Samsung is a major designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of
consumer appliances, including washing machines, which it
distributes throughout the United States.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH LLP
      1625 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
      Tel: (954) 515-0123
      Fax: (866) 300-7367
      Email: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com

             - and -

      James C. Shah, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      35 East State Street
      Media, PA 19063
      Telephone: (610) 891-9880
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      Email: jshah@sfmslaw.com


SANOFI: Plaintiffs Attorneys Seek Sanctions in Taxotere Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that plaintiffs attorneys suing over the breast cancer drug
Taxotere want a federal judge to sanction defendant Sanofi-Aventis
U.S. LLC for filing a motion filled with "unfounded accusations"
that are "indecent and vexatious" in an attempt to get information
on outside funding for the litigation.

The motion, they wrote in a May 30 filing, is "an unfounded and
unseemly attempt to smear both breast cancer survivors" and their
lawyers "based entirely on innuendo that is pure McCarthyism."

"Sanofi has not even a scintilla of evidence that plaintiffs'
attorneys are giving up control of their clients' cases to anyone;
they are not," wrote co-lead plaintiffs attorneys Christopher
Coffin -- ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com -- a partner at Pendley Baudin &
Coffin in New Orleans, and Karen Barth Menzies
-- kbm@classlawgroup.com -- a Los Angeles partner at Girard Gibbs.

The pushback comes amid a growing number of requests for
transparency in third-party financing of mass tort litigation.
Similar requests have been made in cases involving blood thinner
Xarelto and Johnson & Johnson's baby powder.

Ashleigh Koss, a spokeswoman for Bridgewater, New Jersey-based
Sanofi, declined to comment.

Sanofi is the defendant in more than 1,000 cases pending in
New Orleans that claim Taxotere caused women to suffer permanent
hair loss, or alopecia areata. The suits were filed after the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration approved a labeling change in 2015 to
warn of the side effect.

In a motion filed in April, Sanofi attorneys asked a federal judge
to probe into who was financing the litigation.

They cited a Feb. 7 email sent to Sanofi lawyer Jon Strongman --
jstrongman@shb.com -- a partner at Kansas City, Missouri's Shook,
Hardy & Bacon, from someone claiming to be in business development
for Persist Communications, a lead generation firm that solicits
clients through phone calls and emails.

"This inadvertently sent email clearly indicates third-party
funding -- or something else -- is occurring in the Taxotere MDL
and may require the court's oversight," wrote Strongman and
another Sanofi lawyer, Douglas Moore -- dmoore@irwinllc.com -- of
New Orleans-based Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore.

The motion also said lawyers from two law firms with Taxotere
cases had written testimonials on Persist Communications' website,
including prominent plaintiffs attorney Mike Papantonio --
mpapantonio@levinlaw.com -- senior partner at Levin Papantonio
Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor in Pensacola, Florida.

Mr. Papantonio co-hosts a nationally syndicated radio program,
called "Ring of Fire," that is focused on drug and medical device
lawsuits.  In an episode last year, Mr. Papantonio and Ben Gordon,
another lawyer at his firm, discussed the Taxotere litigation and
praised the work of another plaintiffs firm, Denver's Bachus &
Schanker.

Another testimonial came from Marc Grossman, a partner at Baker
Sanders in Garden City, New York.

"These lawyers' endorsement of Persist Communications and Persist
Communications' solicitation to defense counsel raises alarms
about the role of third parties . . . sufficient to require
disclosure," the motion said.  Sanofi suggests that if there is a
third-party funder behind the scenes, that it may have a degree of
control over the litigation.

All of the firms have filed Taxotere cases, and two of them have
lawyers on leadership committees for the plaintiffs.

The motion cited a local rule in the Northern District of
California that requires disclosure of third-party funders.  But
that rule pertains to proposed class actions, not personal injury
cases, plaintiffs attorneys wrote in the May 30 response.


SENDINGIO INC: "Bardales" Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
-------------------------------------------------------
Brent Bardales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sendingio, Inc. (d/b/a CAKE), Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-21921 (S.D. Fla., May 23, 2017), seeks an
injunction prohibiting Defendant from using an automatic telephone
dialing system to call and text message telephone numbers assigned
to cellular telephones without the prior express permission of the
called party.  The suit also seeks an award of actual and
statutory damages and such further and other relief under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant is a mobile application developer and operator that
developed and operates Cake, a video messaging application.
Plaintiff received a text message containing a link to download
their services. Plaintiff has never provided Defendant his
telephone number, or provided any type of consent to receive
automated text messages from them. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
      HIRALDO P.A.
      401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 400-4713
      Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


SHAMROCK FOODS: Court Grants Protective Order in "Chavez"
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MIGUEL CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHAMROCK FOODS COMPANY,
Removal an Arizona Corporation, and DOES 1 to 10, Defendant, Case
No. 5:17-cv-00731-SVW-AFM (C.D. Cal.), Judge Alexander MacKinnon
of the United States District Court for the Central District of
California approved the parties' Stipulated Protective Order to
the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential
treatment.

The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not
only Protected Material, but also (i) any information copied or
extracted from Protected Material; (ii) all copies, excerpts,
summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (iii) any
testimony, conversations, or presentations by the Parties or their
Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.

The Stipulation noted that any Party or Non-Party may challenge a
designation of confidentiality at any time that is consistent with
the Court's Scheduling Order.

The Stipulation provided that even after final disposition of this
litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by the Order
shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise
in writing or a court order otherwise directs.  After the final
disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a written request by
the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must return all
Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy such
material.  As used in this subdivision, "all Protected Material"
includes all copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries, and any
other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected
Material.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2017 final order and
judgment is available at https://is.gd/nAZhjZ from Leagle.com

Miguel Chavez, Plaintiff, represented by Craig J. Ackermann,
Ackermann and Tilajef PC.

Miguel Chavez, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Melmed, Melmed
Law Group PC.

Shamrock Foods Company, Defendant, represented by Kara M. Maciel -
- kmaciel@connmaciel.com -- Conn Maciel Carey PLLC, pro hac vice,
Teanna L. Buchner -- tbuchner@selmanlaw.com -- Selman Breitman LLP
& Andrew J. Sommer -- asommer@connmaciel.com -- Conn Maciel Carey
LLP.


SHELTER MUTUAL: Court OK's "Goodner" Settlement, Dismisses Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MICHAEL GOODNER and ROBBIE GOODNER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 4:14-cv-4013 (W.D. Ark.), Judge Susan O. Hickey of the United
States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas,
Texarkana Division, granted final approval of the parties' Amended
Stipulation of Settlement; and dismissed the action with prejudice
in its entirety on the merits, and without leave to amend.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant violated applicable law
and breached its contracts with insureds by wrongfully
depreciating the cost of labor when resolving structural claims in
the State of Arkansas.  Shelter has maintained that it has at all
times paid claims when reasonable and appropriate to do so and has
consistently acted in accordance with the governing laws and
regulations of Arkansas and each State in which it does business.

After litigation between the parties and arms-length negotiations
between Class Counsel and counsel for Shelter, the parties have
reached a settlement that provides substantial benefits to a
Settlement Class, in return for a release and dismissal of claims
against Shelter.

The Plaintiffs and Shelter executed and filed a Stipulation of
Settlement, dated Jan. 17, 2017.  In accordance with the Court's
order entered on Feb. 23, 2017, the parties executed and filed an
Amended Stipulation of Settlement on March 3, 2017.  On the same
day, the Court entered the Preliminary Approval Order,
preliminarily approving class settlement, preliminarily approving
the Stipulation, preliminarily certifying the Settlement Class for
settlement purposes only as a class action, and scheduling a
hearing for May 25, 2017 at 9:00 a.m., to consider final approval
of the Proposed Settlement and other actions described in the
Preliminary Approval Order and the Stipulation.

As part of its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court preliminarily
certified for settlement purposes only a Settlement Class defined
as persons who had a Covered Loss where the claim was paid at less
than the limit of liability (accounting for deductible), and where
Shelter or its Affiliate made an indemnification payment that
included a deduction for estimated depreciation of labor.

On May 15, 2017, the Plaintiffs moved for final approval of the
terms of the Proposed Settlement and for the entry of the Final
Judgment.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
certification of the Settlement Class is confirmed for the purpose
of the Settlement, in accordance with the Stipulation.

The Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval is granted and all
provisions and terms of the Stipulation are finally approved in
all respects.  The Parties to the Stipulation are directed to
consummate the terms of the Stipulation.

Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (g), Plaintiffs Michael Goodner and
Robbie Goodner are appointed as the representatives of the
Settlement Class, and the following Class Counsel are appointed as
counsel for the Settlement Class: (i) D. Matt Keil, Steven E.
Vowell, John C. Goodson, William B. Putman, Keil & Goodson P.A.
Taylor Law Partners 406 Walnut St. 303 E. Millsap Road Texarkana,
Arkansas, P.O. Box 8310 Fayetteville, Arkansas; (ii) Richard E.
Norman A.F. "Tom" Thompson, III, R. Martin Weber, Jr., Casey
Castleberry at Crowley Norman LLP, Thompson, Arnold, Three
Riverway, Ste. 1775 Skinner & Castleberry Houston, Texas, P.O. Box
2595 Batesville, Arkansas; (iii) Jamie Pratt, Jason E. Roselius,
James M. Pratt, Jr. P.A. at Mattungly & Roselius, PLLC, 144
Washington St. NW 13182 N. MacArthur Blvd. Camden, Arkansas,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; (iv) Matthew L. Mustokoff, James A.
Streett, Richard A. Russo, Jr. at Streett Law Firm, P.A. at
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & 107 West Main Street at Check, LLP
Russellville, Arkansas, 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor,
Pennsylvania.

The Class Counsel's Application for Fees is granted.  Pursuant to
Rule 23(h), the Court awards the Class Counsel the total sum of
$6,086,161 in attorneys' fees and costs.  In addition, the Court
awards each Class Representative a participation fee of $5,000.
The Court finds that these amounts are fair and reasonable.
Shelter shall pay such fees to Class Counsel pursuant to the terms
of the Stipulation.

Payments to Eligible Class Members shall be made in the amounts,
within the time periods, and in the manner described in the
Stipulation.

The Court appoints B.J. Joplin of Gibson & Associates as the
Neutral Evaluator to carry out the duties and responsibilities set
forth in the Stipulation.  Neither Plaintiffs, nor Shelter, nor
the parties' counsel shall be liable for any act or omission of
the Neutral Evaluator.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2017 final order and
judgment is available at https://is.gd/FD0CSa from Leagle.com

Michael Goodner, Plaintiff, represented by D. Matt Keil, Attorney
at Law.

Michael Goodner, Plaintiff, represented by George L. McWilliams,
Law Office of George L. McWilliams, P.C., James M. Pratt, Jr.,
James M. Pratt, Jr., P.A., Jason Earnest Roselius, Mattingly &
Roselius, John C. Goodson, Keil & Goodson, Sean M. Handler --
shandler@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Stevan
Earl Vowell -- svowell@taylorlawpartners.com -- Taylor Law Firm,
Timothy J. Myers -- tmyers@taylorlawpartners.com -- Taylor Law
Firm, W.H. Taylor -- whtaylor@taylorlawpartners.com -- Taylor Law
Firm, William B. Putman -- wbputman@taylorlawpartners.com --
Taylor Law Partners, A.F. (Tom) Thompson, III, Murphy, Thompson,
Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry, Kenneth P. Castleberry, Murphy,
Thompson, Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry, Matthew L. Mustokoff --
mmustokoff@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP, R. Martin
Weber, Jr.-- mweber@crowleynorman.com -- Crowley Norman LLP,
Richard E. Norman -- rnorman@crowleynorman.com -- Crowley Norman
LLP & Richard A. Russo, Jr.-- rrusso@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer Check LLP.

Robbie Goodner, Plaintiff, represented by D. Matt Keil, Attorney
at Law, George L. McWilliams, Law Office of George L. McWilliams,
P.C., James M. Pratt, Jr., James M. Pratt, Jr., P.A., Jason
Earnest Roselius, Mattingly & Roselius, John C. Goodson, Keil &
Goodson, Sean M. Handler, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
Stevan Earl Vowell, Taylor Law Firm, Timothy J. Myers, Taylor Law
Firm, W.H. Taylor, Taylor Law Firm, William B. Putman, Taylor Law
Partners, A.F. (Tom) Thompson, III, Murphy, Thompson, Arnold,
Skinner & Castleberry, Kenneth P. Castleberry, Murphy, Thompson,
Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry, Matthew L. Mustokoff, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer Check LLP, R. Martin Weber, Jr., Crowley Norman LLP,
Richard E. Norman, Crowley Norman LLP & Richard A. Russo, Jr.,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP.

Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by John
E. Moore -- john.moore@mrmblaw.com -- Munson, Rowlett, Moore &
Boone, P.A., Beverly A. Rowlett -- beverly.rowlett@mrmblaw.com --
Munson, Rowlett, Moore & Boone, P.A. & Sarah E. Greenwood --
sarah.greenwood@mrmblaw.com -- Munson, Rowlett, Moore & Boone,
P.A..

Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented by
John E. Moore, Munson, Rowlett, Moore & Boone, P.A., Beverly A.
Rowlett, Munson, Rowlett, Moore & Boone, P.A. & Sarah E.
Greenwood, Munson, Rowlett, Moore & Boone, P.A..

Michael Goodner, Counter Defendant, represented by D. Matt Keil,
Attorney at Law, George L. McWilliams, Law Office of George L.
McWilliams, P.C., James M. Pratt, Jr., James M. Pratt, Jr., P.A.,
Jason Earnest Roselius, Mattingly & Roselius, John C. Goodson,
Keil & Goodson, Sean M. Handler, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
LLP, Stevan Earl Vowell, Taylor Law Firm, Timothy J. Myers, Taylor
Law Firm, W.H. Taylor, Taylor Law Firm, William B. Putman, Taylor
Law Partners, A.F. (Tom) Thompson, III, Murphy, Thompson, Arnold,
Skinner & Castleberry, Kenneth P. Castleberry, Murphy, Thompson,
Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry, Matthew L. Mustokoff, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer Check LLP, R. Martin Weber, Jr., Crowley Norman LLP,
Richard E. Norman, Crowley Norman LLP & Richard A. Russo, Jr.,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP.

Robbie Goodner, Counter Defendant, represented by D. Matt Keil,
Attorney at Law, George L. McWilliams, Law Office of George L.
McWilliams, P.C., James M. Pratt, Jr., James M. Pratt, Jr., P.A.,
Jason Earnest Roselius, Mattingly & Roselius, John C. Goodson,
Keil & Goodson, Sean M. Handler, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
LLP, Stevan Earl Vowell, Taylor Law Firm, Timothy J. Myers, Taylor
Law Firm, W.H. Taylor, Taylor Law Firm, William B. Putman, Taylor
Law Partners, A.F. (Tom) Thompson, III, Murphy, Thompson, Arnold,
Skinner & Castleberry, Kenneth P. Castleberry, Murphy, Thompson,
Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry, Matthew L. Mustokoff, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer Check LLP, R. Martin Weber, Jr., Crowley Norman LLP,
Richard E. Norman, Crowley Norman LLP & Richard A. Russo, Jr.,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP.


SOUTHERN KOMFORT: Class Certification Sought in "Bryant" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify the case
entitled CHRISTINA BRYANT, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. SOUTHERN KOMFORT KITCHEN, LLC, Case
No. 4:17-cv-00430 (S.D. Tex.), as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act with respect to all current and former
servers employed by the Defendant at any time three years prior to
the date the Court certifies a class to the present.

Ms. Bryant also asks the Court to authorize e-mailing of the
proposed notice and consent forms to all of the Defendant's
servers via regular mail and e-mail, and to allow the putative
class members 60 days from the date of certification to opt-into
the lawsuit.  She also seeks approval of the sending of notice to
the putative class members twice, and to require the Defendant to
produce the putative class members' necessary information.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KoXveMy4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd Slobin, Esq.
          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Dorian Vandenberg-Rodes, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net
                  rprieto@eeoc.net
                  drodes@eeoc.net


SPAN-AMERICA: "Porter" Files Suit Over Sale to Savaria Corp.
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Porter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Span-America Medical Systems, Inc., Thomas
D. Henrion, James D. Ferguson, Richard C. Coggins, Robert H. Dick,
Thomas F. Grady, Jr., Dan R. Lee, Dr. Linda D. Norman, Terry
Allison Rappuhn and Thomas J. Sullivan, Defendants, Case No. 6:17-
cv-01357 (D.S.C., May 25, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and
permanently enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the
acquisition of Span-America Medical Systems, Inc. Savaria
Corporation through its wholly owned subsidiary, Savaria (SC),
Inc.  The suit further seeks rescissory or other damages in the
event Defendants consummate the said merger; costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees;
and such other and further relief under the Securities and
Exchange Act.

Savaria commenced a tender offer to purchase all of the issued and
outstanding shares of Span common stock for $29.00 in cash per
share, or approximately $80 million in total consideration.
Defendants allegedly did not conduct any pre-signing market check,
entered into an extremely restrictive letter of intent with
Savaria prohibiting Span from negotiating with alternative
potential bidders, agreed to restrictive deal protection devices
that make it highly unlikely that any competing offer to acquire
Span will emerge, declined to engage in discussions with other
bidders and engaged a financial advisor, Robert W. Baird & Co.
which stands to receive $1.3 million, or over 70% of its total
compensation if the merger is consummated. Plaintiff also allege
that the offer price is grossly inadequate and substantially
undervalues Span as it is below the mean and median implied values
based on net sales that Baird calculated.

Span-America offers specialty solutions for pressure management
and patient positioning. It manufactures therapeutic support
surfaces, medical bed frames, patient positioners, mattress
overlays, wheelchair cushions, foam mattress pads and pillows,
skin care products, fall protection products and in-room furniture
used mainly in the long-term care portion of the medical market.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sima Bhakta Patel, Esq.
      Andrew A. Mathias, Esq.
      NEXSEN PRUET, LLC
      P.O. Drawer 10648
      Greenville, SC 29603
      Telephone: (864) 282-1163
      Facsimile: (864) 477-2631
      E-Mail: spatel@nexsenpruet.com
              amathias@nexsenpruet.com

             - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
      Email: denright@zlk.com
             etripodi@zlk.com


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Sciabacucchi" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Sciabacucchi, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Swift Transportation Company,
Richard H. Dozer, Glenn Brown, JosÇ C†rdenas, Jerry Moyes, William
Riley Iii, David Vander Ploeg, Bishop Merger Sub, Inc., and Knight
Transportation, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01683, (D.
Ariz., May 31, 2017), seeks preliminary and permanent enjoinment
from consummating the merger between Swift Transportation Company
and Knight Transportation, Inc.  The suit also seeks rescissory
damages, damages sustained, costs and disbursements of this
action, including reasonable attorney, accountant and expert fees
and such other and further relief under the Securities and
Exchange Act.

Once merger is completed, Knight and Swift stockholders are
expected to own approximately 46% and 54%, respectively, of the
outstanding combined company shares, despite the fact that Swift's
revenue was nearly four times larger than Knight's in 2016, says
the complaint.

The merger's registration statement fails to provide stockholders
with a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics for each set
of projections, as well as each of the line items used to
calculate the Company's unlevered free cash flows that were used
for its cash flow analysis; that the merger is mired with
potential conflicts of interest of the company's directors
specifically that the Board members agreed to pay themselves
additional compensation; and that the board failed to create a
special committee of independent directors to consider the merger.

Swift is a transportation services company, operating one of the
largest fleets of truckload equipment in North America from over
40 terminals near key freight centers and traffic lanes.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-531

            - and -

      Gerald Barrett, Esq.
      WARD, KEENAN & BARRETT, P.C.
      3838 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1720
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (602) 279-1717
      Facsimile: (602) 279-8908
      Email: gbarrett@wardkeenanbarrett.com

            - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800


TATE PUBLISHING: Odds of Class Action in Oklahoma Uncertain
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Brus, writing for The Journal Record, reports that
embezzlement charges filed against Tate Publishing executives by
the state attorney general left many of the company's disgruntled
customers asking how soon a class-action lawsuit would follow.

The odds of that happening are uncertain, Oklahoma City attorneys
said. Any successful class action requires several elements
falling into sync, such as adequate compensation for legal counsel
and whether the defendant even has the money to pay off a
settlement.

"Not many people do class actions in Oklahoma because of the huge
financial exposure and risk to the law firm," said attorney Bill
Federman of the Federman & Sherwood law firm in Oklahoma City.
Richard and Ryan Tate, father-and-son operators of the Mustang-
based company, were arrested in early May on nine complaints of
embezzlement, extortion and racketeering. Attorney General Mike
Hunter's office has received nearly 900 complaints from authors
and musician clients who alleged the Tates failed to pay royalties
and often held back manuscripts as they demanded more money.
Canadian County sheriff's deputies apprehended the men. They were
released on bond after surrendering their passports. Hunter's
spokeswoman, Terri Watkins, said on June 1 the investigation is
continuing but the attorney general has nothing else to announce
in the case yet.

Many complaints logged at Hunter's office and responses to news
stories at The Journal Record website have tried to rally the
alleged victims under a common banner. Writer Orlene Dentone, for
example, who said the Tates charged her $3,000 for editing,
marketing and publishing services, said, "Just not right. . . .
What do you all say, shall we file a class action?"

Author Nena Roberts replied in the next online post, "I would be
on board with a class action suit. I published a book through Tate
titled 'Am I a Christian?' in 2009. I'm thinking the Tate's (sic)
should read it."

Victoria Strauss, who hosts a website called Writer Beware to help
other aspiring authors, was more blasÇ about such efforts.
"A lot of people say they need it, they want it, but nobody seems
to know what to do," the Massachusetts resident told The Journal
Record. "And I doubt it's a viable option anyway. I don't think
there's any money to be gotten. Given what they owe personally and
those big lawsuits? I don't see anybody wanting to take that on.
And I don't know what it would accomplish."

In February, a judgment signed by a U.S. District Court judge
cleared the way for a Tennessee-based printing services company to
collect more than $2 million owed to it by the company and Ryan
Tate, who signed a personal guarantee as part of the deal last
year.

Shortly thereafter, a Canadian County associate district judge
awarded Xerox Corp. authorization to collect $1.45 million from
Tate Publishing and $450,000 from Ryan Tate, in addition to
interest on unpaid debt. Xerox repossessed five printers and
server systems from the company last year.

Several lawyers and firm managers declined to speak to The Journal
Record about the topic because they had already been contacted by
parties involved who might become clients. Others offered to
comment after clarifying that they were not speaking about Tate,
but rather about class-action lawsuits in general.

Attorney Harrison Lujan with Fulmer Group Law said class-action
lawsuits have the advantage of funneling a lot of small injuries
into a large action that makes it worth the trouble to pursue a
settlement. Individuals might otherwise be deterred by litigation
costs.

Even then, lawyers are leery of spending their time on a
contingency, he said, affirming Federman's observation about
financial exposure.

"That's decided on the front end because you have to look at how
the corporate defendant has arranged its assets. And if you do get
a settlement, you have to consider whether they are going to be
able to pay," Lujan said. "We're putting up all the costs, and at
the end of the day sometimes it doesn't make sense for us to go
after a class action."

Federman said people unfairly expect lawyers to put up their own
time and money on behalf of consumers while being further
disadvantaged by state laws that give judges a lot of leeway to
determine attorney fees.

"Everyone complains, 'Oh, I only got 10 cents back on the dollar.'
Well, they would get zero back if not for the attorney risking
time and money to prosecute the case," Federman said. "It's an
economic decision. You don't need to get your money; you could opt
out or refuse the settlement, which people do all the time.
"If you want 100-cents-on-the-dollar recovery, then get a more
solvent defendant or have the AG do his job and throw a couple
executives in jail as opposed to asserting some meaningless fine
against a company that's never going to pay," Federman said. [GN]


TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: "Bushansky" Files Notice of Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case captioned Stephen Bushansky, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tokai
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Jodie P. Morrison, Seth L. Harrison,
Stephen buckley, Jr., Cheryl L. ohen, David A. Kessler and Joseph
A. Yanchik, III, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10621 (D. Mass.,
April 11, 2017) filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, according
to a case docket entry dated June 6, 2017.

The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which Tokai will purchase all of the ordinary and
preferred shares of Otic Pharma, Ltd. ("Otic") in exchange for
shares of Tokai common stocks (the "Proposed Transaction"). As a
result of the Proposed Transaction, Otic will become a wholly
owned subsidiary of Tokai and will operate under the name Otic
Pharma, Inc. In effect, the Proposed Transaction is allowing Tokai
to sell its NASDAQ-listed shell to Otic.

The complaint said the Proxy misrepresented and/or omitted
material facts, including material information about the unfair
sale process for the Company, the financial analyses performed by
the Company's financial advisor, and the actual intrinsic
standalone value of the Company. The Defendants were at least
negligent in filing the Proxy with these materially false and
misleading statements.

Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused
on developing and commercializing innovative therapies for
prostate cancer and other hormonally-driven diseases.

Otic Pharma is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company focusing on
the development and commercialization of products for disorders of
the ear, nose, and throat (ENT). Not named as Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
   Matorin Law Office, LLC
   18 Grove Street, Suite 5
   Wellesley, MA 02482
   Tel: (781) 453-0100
   Email: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com

        - and -

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


UBER: Judge Wary of Approving $7.5MM Settlement Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News, reports that a federal
judge 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, Esq. -- twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com --
of Ahdoot & 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, Judge 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, Esq. -- rfliegel@littler.com -- of
Littler Mendelson P.C. 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. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Okla. Driver Granted Leave to Amend FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KEVIN BRADSHAW, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC. and RASIER, LLC, Defendants, Case No. CIV-16-388-R (W.D.
Okla.), Judge David L. Russell of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma held that the Defendants are
(a) entitled to judgment on the pleadings on (i) violation of the
Oklahoma Minimum Wage Act and the Oklahoma Administrative Code
regarding payroll records; (ii) tortious interference with
business relations; (iii) breach of two separate contracts; (iv)
unjust enrichment; (v) fraud and/or intentional or negligent
misrepresentations; (vi) estoppel and (vii) FLSA overtime; and (b)
not entitled to judgment on pleadings on conversion.

The Plaintiff asserts claims under Oklahoma and federal law
against the Defendants.  Mr. Bradshaw began driving UberX in
February 2014, and continues to do so.  He contends Uber
misclassifies its drivers as independent contractors rather than
employees, doing so in order to avoid state and federal
requirements regarding minimum wage, overtime compensation, and
expense reimbursement.  As a result, the Plaintiff contends that
Uber drivers should be considered employees not independent
contractors, and that as a result, they are entitled to additional
compensation.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff seeks to recover on his
behalf and on behalf of similarly situated persons on theories
that (i) the Defendants violated the Oklahoma Minimum Wage Act and
the Oklahoma Administrative Code regarding payroll records, OAC
380:30-3-3(d); (ii) tortious interference with business relations;
(iii) breach of two separate contracts; (iv) unjust enrichment;
(v) conversion; (vi) fraud and/or intentional or negligent
misrepresentations; (vii) promissory estoppel; and (viii)
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") because the
Defendants failed to pay minimum wage or overtime compensation as
required by federal law.

The Defendants seek judgment on the pleadings and request for
judicial notice.  The request for judicial notice drew no
opposition from the Plaintiff and the Court therefore granted the
request.  The Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion for
judgment on the pleadings and the Defendants filed a reply brief
in support thereof.

The Defendants contend the Court should grant judgment on Count I
of the Complaint because the Oklahoma Minimum Wage Act does not
apply to the Defendants, who concede they are covered by the FLSA.
Although they concede they are covered by the FLSA, they make no
such concession with regard to Mr. Bradshaw or other Uber drivers
as their employees.  The Court concludes, consistent with the
Defendants' contention, that there is no private remedy for
violation of Section 380:30-3-3(d), and accordingly, the
Defendants are entitled to judgment on this portion of Count I.

In Count II, the Plaintiff alleges a claim for tortious
interference with business relations by Uber.  The Court finds
that Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts to establish a
business or contractual right vis-a-vis the riders with which
Defendants interfered.

There are no allegations of a contractual or business right to a
gratuity as required to support the claim for tortious
interference with business relations.  As such, the Court finds
that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for tortious
interference with a contract or business relationship, and the
Defendants are entitled to judgment on the pleadings with regard
to Count II.

In Count III, the Plaintiff alleges that Uber has an implied-in-
fact contract with him, as a driver, requiring that it remit all
gratuities as well as to reimburse him for expenses.  The
Defendants seek dismissal of each claim for breach of implied
contract, asserting that the Complaint fails to allege sufficient
facts, in part because there is an express contract between
drivers and Uber, thereby precluding creation of an implied-in-
fact contract.  The Court finds the Complaint fails to contain
sufficient facts to establish the existence of an implied
contract.  Accordingly, the Defendants are entitled to judgment on
the pleadings on the Plaintiff's breach of implied contract theory
with regard to an alleged contract between the Defendants and the
riders.

The Defendants seek judgment on the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment
claim.  The Plaintiff argues that he is relying on alternative
pleading.  The Court notes, however, that he alleged in the
Complaint that he executed the Dec. 11, 2015 TSA, which contains
terms that expressly govern whether drivers are entitled to be
paid gratuities.  Thus, as a matter of law he may not recover
under a theory of unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff concedes that his claim for conversion is
inappropriate, but seeks leave to amend to assert a claim for
chose in action; the Defendants argue amendment would be futile.
Because the basis for the Defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings is merely the result of mislabeling the claim, in a
manner accepted by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the Court concludes
that the Defendants are not entitled to judgment on the pleadings
on this basis.

The Defendants seeks dismissal of Count VI of the Complaint, the
Plaintiff's claim for fraud and/or intentional or negligent
misrepresentation, asserting that the Plaintiff's Complaint fails
to meet the requirements of Rule 9(b).  The Complaint is devoid of
any additional allegations regarding surge pricing or cancellation
fees, and accordingly, the Court concerns itself with the issue of
guaranteed income and gratuities as clearly there are insufficient
allegations to support a claim of fraud regarding surge pricing or
cancellation fees.  The Court further concludes that the Complaint
fails with regard to guaranteed income.

The Defendants seek dismissal of the Plaintiff's promissory
estoppel claim, Count VII of the Complaint.  Like the Plaintiff's
fraud and misrepresentation claims, the promissory estoppel claims
fail because the Plaintiff fails to sufficiently identify promises
upon which he relied to his detriment.  Accordingly, the
Defendants are entitled to judgment on the pleadings on Count VII
of the Complaint.

The Plaintiff's final claims allege violation of the FLSA, both
its minimum wage and overtime provisions.  The Defendants contend,
however, that the Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to
support his contention that he was paid less than the statutory
minimum wage or that he was entitled to overtime pay.  The Court
finds this is sufficient to plead a minimum wage claim under the
FLSA and the Defendants are not entitled to judgment on the
pleadings with regard to this portion of Count VIII of the
Complaint.  The remaining allegations scattered throughout the
Complaint shed no additional light and provide no additional
factual support for the Plaintiff's overtime compensation claim
under the FLSA.  The Court concludes, accordingly, that the
Defendants are entitled to judgment on the pleadings with regard
to the Plaintiff's FLSA overtime claim.

Finally, the Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to address any
deficiencies identified by the Court.  Granting leave to amend is
a matter for the district court's discretion.  The Court granted
the Plaintiff leave to amend his conversion claim and his overtime
compensation claim under the FLSA within 21 days from the date of
the Order.  In all other respects, the request for leave to amend
is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2017 order is available at
https://is.gd/I5oMxU from Leagle.com

Kevin Bradshaw, Plaintiff, represented by Noble K. McIntyre --
Noble@McIntyreLaw.com -- McIntyre Law PC.

Kevin Bradshaw, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J. Dressel,
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Jeremy A. Thurman -- Jeremy@McIntyrelaw.com
-- McIntyre Law PC, Paul B. Maslo, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Salvatore
C. Badala, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Noble K. McIntyre, McIntyre Law
PC, Andrew J. Dressel, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Jeremy A. Thurman,
McIntyre Law PC, Paul B. Maslo, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC & Salvatore
C. Badala, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC.

Uber Technologies Inc, Defendant, represented by Jonathan G.
Rector -- jrector@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Steven McCown
-- smccown@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.

Rasier LLC, Defendant, represented by Jonathan G. Rector, Littler
Mendelson & Steven McCown, Littler Mendelson.


UNITED STATES: 4th Cir. Affirms Trump's Travel Ban Injunction
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cogan Schneier, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is the first
appellate court to uphold an injunction against President Donald
Trump's revised travel ban executive order, a move that likely
sets the issue up for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The May 25 opinion keeps in place a Maryland district court's
nationwide injunction against the order, issued March 6.  The
executive order blocked the entry of immigrants from six majority-
Muslim countries.

"Congress granted the president broad power to deny entry to
aliens, but that power is not absolute," Judge Roger Gregory
wrote.  "It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the president
wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause
irreparable harm to individuals across this nation."

The Fourth Circuit heard the case en banc earlier in May, meaning
the government's only recourse is to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Trump has indicated he would appeal, though a similar challenge is
pending in the Ninth Circuit.  That court heard arguments a week
after the Fourth Circuit, and a ruling is pending.

The May 25 10-3 ruling was fractured.  Judges Diana Motz, Robert
King, James Wynn, Albert Diaz, Henry Floyd and Pamela Harris
joined in Gregory's opinion.  Judges William Traxler, Barbara
Keenan, Stephanie Thacker and Wynn wrote concurring opinions.
Three of the more conservative judges, Paul Niemeyer, Dennis Shedd
and G. Steven Agee, each wrote dissenting opinions but joined in
each others' dissents.

Central to the case was whether the court should consider Trump's
public comments calling for a complete ban on Muslims entering the
country as evidence that his order discriminated based on
religion.  The government argued the order itself was neutral on
its face, and that the court should not consider what Trump said
as a presidential candidate.

"The government has repeatedly asked this court to ignore
evidence, circumscribe our own review, and blindly defer to
executive action, all in the name of the Constitution's separation
of powers," the opinion said.  "We decline to do so, not only
because it is the particular province of the judicial branch to
say what the law is, but also because we would do a disservice to
our constitutional structure were we to let its mere invocation
silence the call for meaningful judicial review.
The deference we give the coordinate branches is surely powerful,
but even it must yield in certain circumstances, lest we abdicate
our own duties to uphold the Constitution."

In his dissent, Mr. Niemeyer, a President George H.W. Bush
appointee, wrote that the lower court "seriously erred" in
considering Trump's campaign statements, and in refusing to apply
the correct Supreme Court precedent.

"The district court's approach is not only unprecedented, it is
totally unworkable and inappropriate under any standard of
analysis," Mr. Niemeyer wrote.

The majority opinion did not reach the statutory questions
presented under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and instead
focused on the establishment clause claims since those were the
basis of the lower court's injunction.

The case was brought by several refugee assistant groups, who were
represented by a team of lawyers from the American Civil Liberties
Union and the National Immigration Law Center.


VALERO MARKETING: Bautista Moves to Certify Class of Consumers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled FAITH BAUTISTA, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. VALERO MARKETING
AND SUPPLY COMPANY, Case No. 3:15-cv-05557-RS (N.D. Cal.), moves
for certification of this class:

     All consumers who, between December 3, 2011 and the final
     disposition of this action, purchased gasoline with a debit
     card from a Valero-branded station in California that sells
     gasoline for a "cash" price and were charged more money per
     gallon than the available "cash" price (the "Class").

Ms. Bautista also moves to be appointed as class representative
and for the appointment of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and
Hobson Bernardino + Davis LLP as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on September 28, 2017, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Points and
Authorities is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lZiiro7W

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Christopher Gold, Esq.
          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  cmartins@rgrdlaw.com
                  jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick W. Daniels, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: patrickd@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Roxana Pierce, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          1701 K Street NW, Suite 350
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 822-6762
          Facsimile: (202) 828-8528
          E-mail: rpierce@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Rafael Bernardino, Jr., Esq.
          Jason A. Hobson, Esq.
          HOBSON, BERNARDINO + DAVIS LLP
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3230
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 235-9197
          Facsimile: (213) 235-9190
          E-mail: rbernardino@hbdlegal.com
                  jhobson@hbdlegal.com


VISA: Fights Antitrust Allegations
----------------------------------
Angela Underwood, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that Thomas Simeone, Esq., an attorney at Simeone & Miller, LLP,
said major credit card brands have every right to fight antitrust
suits like the one brought against Visa by a California
restaurant.

California-based restaurant Broadway Grill Inc filed a class-
action suit against Visa for "preventing merchants from applying a
surcharge for the use of credit cards," which the restaurant
claims is a violation of antitrust laws.

The restaurant originally included in-state and out-of-state
residents in its class, but later attempted to modify the class to
only include California residents. The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit blocked the restaurant from making the change,
citing the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Simeone explained why Visa won the May 18 ruling.

Simeone told the Northern California Record that the definition of
a class is extremely important because only people who are
included in the definition of a class are bound by the case.

"If someone is not included in the class, they are free to bring a
separate lawsuit," he said. "Therefore, the defendant in a class
action, such as Visa here, has two goals."

He said the first goal is to exclude people who do not have a
valid legal claim because the compensation they must pay in a
settlement or a court judgment will be larger if it must provide
damages to more people.

"Second, the defendant wants the class to include all people who
have valid claims," Simeone said. "That way, they can wrap up the
legal matter without any more lawsuits or claims for compensation
by other people."

The Visa case was also a matter of class definition, Simeone said.

"In this case, the plaintiff class originally included people who
lived both inside and outside of California," he said. "Although
it was filed in California state court, which the plaintiffs
preferred, the 'diversity of jurisdiction' gave Visa the right to
'remove' or transfer the case to federal court, which Visa
wanted."

After removal, the plaintiffs attempted to reduce the class to
only people in California, which would allow it to return to state
court, but the federal appeals court said it was too late to make
that change to the class, Simeone said, adding that Visa's victory
to keep the case in federal court makes it more hospitable to the
major credit brand.

"In fact, in the Broadway Grill case, Visa advised the court
immediately after removal that there was a similar case pending in
New York and suggested that the Broadway Grill case be transferred
to that court," he said.

Simeone said Visa's argument is that it is providing a very
popular service.

"However, if vendors pass Visa's fee on to consumers, consumers
will not use Visa, which will cost Visa income," he said.

Visa includes in its contract with each vendor a provision that
prohibits the vendor from charging consumers more for using Visa,
Simeone said.

"These contract provisions are generally enforceable because the
vendor is free not to enter the agreement and accept Visa cards,"
he said. "Again, under federal and most state laws, these
provisions are legal." [GN]


WATERLOO, ON: Faces Class Suit Over Systematic Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Connor, writing for the Toronto Sun, reports that former
Waterloo police officer Angelina Rivers -- who claims she was
sexually harassed and put in dangerous situations without back-up
-- is part of a CAD150-million class-action lawsuit against the
city's force.

Rivers, who started working as a constable with the Waterloo
Regional Police Service (WRPS) in 2006, told reporters superiors
sent her sexually explicit texts and alleged male officers refused
to provide back-up on dangerous calls.

"When I tried to address the issues, I was dismissed at every
turn," Rivers said at her Toronto lawyer's office on June 1  .

"I was left to my own devices on the road."

The lawsuit filed on May 30 against the WRPS and the Waterloo
Regional Police Association says there was systematic and
institutional gender-based discrimination, sexual harassment and
assault within the force.

"I'm participating in this lawsuit so that my daughters, or any
woman who wants to pursue a career in law enforcement, can do so
without facing the kind of systematic harassment and
discrimination that I faced," Rivers said.

Sharon Zehr was with the WRPS for two years and says she was
forced out because she is a woman.

"On my first day of work, I was told, 'We don't want you here.
It's up to us (male officers) to get all women out,'" she said.

Zehr says on one occasion, five male officers tried to drag her
against her will into the men's change room.

"I was degraded, mocked and abused," Zehr said.

Her husband, retired WRPS superintendent Barry Zehr, is part of an
associated family class-action lawsuit which seeks CAD17 million
in damages.

He said the concerns he raised with superiors about gender-based
discrimination were ignored.

"This is a major human rights issue that has been under the radar
for too long. I'm here to represent the families ... This not only
affects the women officers," he said.

Lawyer Doug Elliot, of Toronto's Grosso McCarthy, said dozens of
people have contacted the law firm about the class action.

He said the mentality "boys will be boys" can't be tolerated.

The WRPS is taking the allegations seriously, Chief Bryan Larkin
said on June 1 in a statement.

"We take the position that the class action is inappropriate. The
Police Services Act provides for a grievance/arbitration system
pursuant to the collective agreement and would have been the
appropriate means to deal with the allegations," Larkin said.

"Some of the allegations attributed by the plaintiffs date back to
1988 and those have only come to the attention of our service.
Some were already the subject of an investigation by an
independent law firm and dealt with appropriately."

None of the allegations that comprise the class-action lawsuit
have been proven in court. [GN]


WAYNE COUNTY, WV: Court Narrows "Hurley" Suit
---------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOANN HURLEY, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WAYNE COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, a West Virginia Political Subdivision, and THOMAS
MESSER, a West Virginia resident, Defendants, Civil Action No.
3:16-9949 (S.D. W. Va.), Judge Robert C. Chambers of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
Huntington Division, denied Hurley's Motion to Amend, granted the
BoE's Amended Motion to Dismiss, and denied the BoE's Motion to
Dismiss as moot.

Hurley brought suit against the BoE for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related federal regulations
for allegedly improper political calls made by the Defendants.
Her Complaint alleges two causes of action: Count One alleges both
the Defendants violated Section 227(d) of the TCPA, which imposes
restrictions on prerecorded phone messages; and Count Two alleges
both the Defendants violated the Federal Communication
Commission's ("FCC") regulations enforcing the TCPA.

The BoE seeks dismissal from the case.  It first filed a motion to
dismiss and an answer in the alternative.  Hurley did not respond
to this motion.  Some weeks later, the BoE filed an amended motion
to dismiss, which sets out in much greater detail the BoE's
arguments in support of its motion.

Hurley's proposed Amended Complaint makes few additions of
consequence to the original Complaint.  Hurley added two
additional claims in response to the Court's Order requesting
additional briefing on whether Section 227(d) provided for a
private cause of action.  She now alleges violations of Section
227(b) and related regulations, while still retaining her 227(d)
claims.  She also makes additions explaining Thomas Messer's
method of placing the calls.  She explains that Messer used online
computer programs to make robocalls at times he designated (1:00
p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) using voice actors that Messer paid through
another online program to record scripts that he wrote.

BoE renewed its arguments supporting its Motion to Dismiss in its
Response to Hurley's Motion to Amend.  BoE maintains that Hurley
has not sufficiently pled facts to support any direct liability
nor has she pled facts to support any kind of vicarious liability.
BoE, relying on its response to the Court's request for additional
briefing, also argues that Section 227(d) of the TCPA does not
provide a private cause of action and therefore Hurley's claims
based on this section must be dismissed.

According to the Court, Hurley has failed to sufficiently plead
either direct liability or vicarious liability claims against the
BoE in her proposed Amended Complaint.  These same defects infect
her original Complaint.  Accordingly, the Court finds that
Hurley's Motion to Amend would be futile as applied to the BoE.
The Court further finds that Hurley has failed to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted against the BoE, and as a
matter of law cannot maintain a claim based on 47 U.S.C. Section
227(d)(3) and 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(b) as against all the Defendants.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend is granted
in part with respect to Messer and denied in part with respect to
Defendant Wayne County BoE.  The Defendant's Amended Motion to
Dismiss is granted, and its Motion to Dismiss is denied as moot.
The Wayne County BoE is dismissed from the case.  The Plaintiff's
case based on her Amended Complaint may continue against Messer,
but only Counts I & II survive.  Counts III & IV are dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 6, 2017 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/39EEfm from Leagle.com

Joann Hurley, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. Majestro,
Powell & Majestro.

Joann Hurley, Plaintiff, represented by J. Ryan Stewart, Bailey
Javins & Carter & Timothy C. Bailey, Bailey Javins & Carter.

Thomas Messer, Defendant, represented by W. Michael Frazier,
Frazier & Oxley.


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Abarca Moves to Certify Truck Drivers Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuits styled EZEQUIEL OLIVARES ABARCA,
ALFREDO ALESNA, JR., DAVID CAGLE, STEPHEN L. DAVIS, FRANK EADS,
and KENNETH J. SURMAN, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., DRIVERS
MANAGEMENT, LLC, and DOES 1 - 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:14-cv-
00319-JFB-FG3 (D. Neb.), and WILLIAM SMITH, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
public v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a C.L. WERNER, INC., a
corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 8:15-cv-00287-
JFB-FG3 (D. Neb.), move for certification of two classes:

   -- The first class (the "Nebraska Class") consists of all
      truck drivers who worked or work anywhere for Werner after
      the completion of training at any time since four years
      before the filing of this legal action until such time as
      there is a final disposition of this lawsuit; and

   -- The second class (the "California Class") consists of all
      truck drivers who worked or work in California for Werner
      after the completion of training at any time since four
      years before the filing of this legal action until such
      time as there is a final disposition of this lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives and to appoint their counsel -- Goldstein, Borgen,
Dardarian & Ho; Law Offices of James M. Sitkin; Swartz Swidler
LLC; and the Turley Law Firm -- as Class Counsel.

Copies of the Motions are available at no charge at:

    http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=y9U9j0es
    http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FXF21kgc

Plaintiffs Ezequiel Olivares Abarca, Alfredo Alesna, Jr., David
Cagle, Stephen L. Davis, Frank Eads and Kenneth J. Surman are
represented by:

          David Borgen, Esq.
          Laura L. Ho, Esq.
          Raymond A. Wendell, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: dborgen@gbdhlegal.com
                  lho@gbdhlegal.com
                  rwendell@gbdhlegal.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          James M. Sitkin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES M. SITKIN
          255 California Street, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 318-1048
          Facsimile: (415) 362-3268
          E-mail: jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com

Plaintiff William Smith is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          THE TURLEY LAW FIRM
          7428 Trade St.
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
          E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com
                  dmara@turleylawfirm.com
                  jserb@turleylawfirm.com


WORTH COUNTY, GA: Sheriff's Dept. Could Face Potential Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Brumback, writing for Star Tribune, reports that an
aggressive search for drugs at a Georgia high school by sheriff's
deputies violated the constitutional rights of hundreds of
students, according to a lawsuit filed on June 1  .

Worth County Sheriff Jeff Hobby went to Worth County High School
on April 14 with a "target list" of 13 students that he suspected
of having drugs, the lawsuit says. Only three of the students on
the list were at school that day, and Hobby asked that they be
brought to school administrative offices.

Hobby then had an announcement made that the school was being
placed on lockdown, and students were confined to their
classrooms, the hallways right outside their classrooms or the
gym, and their cellphones were confiscated so they couldn't call
their parents, the lawsuit says.

Sheriff's deputies then conducted invasive searches of the
students' bodies, including touching students' private parts and
lifting their clothing in view of other students, the lawsuit
says.

Hobby did not immediately respond on June 1 afternoon to a phone
message seeking comment.

One student, identified in the lawsuit as K.P., was called out of
her economics class into the hallway, where a deputy kicked her
legs apart and told her not to look back. The deputy squeezed
K.P.'s breasts and lifted the underwire of her bra through her
shirt and put her hands into the pockets of K.P.'s jeans and,
through the pockets, felt under K.P.'s underwear, the lawsuit
says.

"K.P. was subjected to an intrusive and embarrassing search, for
no good reason, by someone who was supposed to protect her," said
Crystal Redd, an attorney at the Southern Center for Human Rights,
which filed the lawsuit on behalf of K.P. and eight others who
were students at the school that day.

The lawsuit seeks class action status, requests a jury trial and
asks for both punitive and compensatory damages from the sheriff
and more than two dozen deputies.

Worth County High School is in Sylvester, about 170 miles south of
Atlanta.

The sheriff had told the school's principal at the end of March
that he planned to conduct a search at the school but he did not
give a date or say that he planned to conduct body searches of
nearly all the students at the school, the lawsuit says. The
school resource officer was away for training that day and wasn't
aware of plans for a mass search.

The three students whose names were on the sheriff's list were
searched in administrative offices rather than in the hallways or
gym with their peers. The sheriff and his deputies had no reason
to believe any of the other students had been involved in any
illegal activity, the lawsuit says.

The school was on lockdown for about four hours and approximately
900 students were searched, but no illegal drugs or drug
paraphernalia were found, the lawsuit says. [GN]


WILMINGTON TRUST: Aug. 2016 Report & Recommendation Unsealed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE WILMINGTON TRUST SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Master Civ. No. 10-990-SLR-SRF (D. Del.), Magistrate
Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware granted the Lead Plaintiffs' motion to unseal
the Aug. 16, 2016 Report and Recommendation in the redacted form
proposed by Lead Plaintiffs is granted; and denied their motion
for clarification to the extent that it seeks to expand the scope
of the Report and Recommendation to encompass documents in the
possession of third parties such as Treliant Risk Advisors
("Treliant").

The Lead Plaintiffs are institutional investors who purchased the
common stock of Wilmington Trust Corp. ("WTC") between Jan. 18,
2008 and Nov. 1, 2010.  They claim that WTC's lending practices
were part of a massive criminal conspiracy that fraudulently
concealed the Bank's true financial condition and deceived
regulators and the public.  In Sept. 2009, the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System required WTC to enter into a
Memorandum of Understanding which identified failings in the
Bank's lending, risk management, and accounting functions and
forced the Bank to restructure the way it originated, monitored,
and accounted for its loans.

During the second quarter of 2010, WTC utilized Treliant to serve
as a third party reviewer of its risk rating and loan collateral
values as a result of the MOU.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Treliant's updated appraisals preceded WTC's fire sale to M&T Bank
Corp.

On May 13, 2014, the Lead Plaintiffs served a document subpoena on
Treliant to obtain documents in connection with Treliant's
evaluation and review of WTC's loan portfolio.

The Lead Plaintiffs submitted a formal administrative request to
the Federal Reserve on June 4, 2014, seeking a waiver of the bank
examination privilege to authorize Defendants to disclose
confidential supervisory information to the Lead Plaintiffs.  The
Federal Reserve denied the administrative request.  Following the
denial of the request for a waiver, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a
motion to compel in the Court on Aug. 5, 2014, which sought
confidential bank examination documents and an injunction against
future assertions of bank examination privilege.

On Feb. 19, 2016, the Court issued an order requesting the
production of a sampling of certain categories of documents for in
camera review.  Following the in camera review, it issued a sealed
Report and Recommendation on Aug. 16, 2016, granting in part and
denying in part the Lead Plaintiffs' motion to compel.  The Court
recommended denial of the motion to compel with respect to a
limited number of documents.  On Sept. 12, 2016, it adopted the
Report and Recommendation after receiving no objections to its
findings.

On Oct. 12, 2016, the Lead Plaintiffs contacted Treliant to
determine whether Treliant would produce documents in response to
the May 13, 2014 subpoena following the adoption of the Aug. 16,
2016 Report and Recommendation.  Treliant declined to produce any
documents prior to reviewing the sealed Report and Recommendation.
Consequently, the Lead Plaintiffs asked the Defendants, the
Federal Reserve, and other regulators if they would consent to
unsealing the Aug. 16, 2016 Report and Recommendation to allow for
its distribution to subpoenaed third parties such as Treliant.
The Defendants did not object, but the Federal Reserve and other
regulators refused to consent to unsealing the Report and
Recommendation.

On Nov. 1, 2016, the Lead Plaintiffs provided proposed redactions
to the Report and Recommendation in an effort to obtain the
consent of the Federal Reserve and other regulators to unseal the
Report and Recommendation.  The Federal Reserve rejected the
proposed redactions, and on Nov. 3, 2016, offered to provide the
Lead Plaintiffs with its own set of proposed redactions.  To date,
the Federal Reserve has not provided its proposed redactions or
consented to the redactions proposed by Lead Plaintiffs. On Nov.
29, 2016, the Lead Plaintiffs filed the instant motion, seeking to
unseal the Aug. 16, 2016 Report and Recommendation and clarify the
scope of the ruling to extend to third parties such as Treliant.

The Lead Plaintiffs' motion for clarification and to unseal the
Aug. 16, 2016 Report and Recommendation is granted-in-part and
denied-in-part.  Specifically, the Lead Plaintiffs' motion to
unseal the Aug. 16, 2016 Report and Recommendation in the redacted
form proposed by Lead Plaintiffs at D.I. 485 is granted.  Their
motion for clarification is denied to the extent that the motion
seeks to expand the scope of the Aug. 16, 2016 Report and
Recommendation to encompass documents held by third parties such
as Treliant.

The parties may serve and file specific written objections within
14 days after being served with a copy of the Memorandum Order.
They are directed to the Court's Standing Order For Objections
Filed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, dated Oct. 9, 2013.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2017 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/cW8YLU from Leagle.com.

Pipefitters Local 537 Annuity Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Norman M. Monhait, Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A..

Pipefitters Local 537 Annuity Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Peter Bradford deLeeuw, Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A..

Merced County Employees Retirement Association, Plaintiff,
represented by A. Zachary Naylor, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP,
Salvatore J. Graziano, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
pro hac vice, Steven B. Singer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Chimicles &
Tikellis, LLP & Vera Gerrit Belger, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP.

Coral Springs Police Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by A.
Zachary Naylor, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, Jesse L. Jensen,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Julia K.
Tebor, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice,
Salvatore J. Graziano, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
pro hac vice, Steven B. Singer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Chimicles &
Tikellis, LLP & Vera Gerrit Belger, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP.

St. Petersburg Firefighters Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by A. Zachary Naylor, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP,
Salvatore J. Graziano, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
pro hac vice, Steven B. Singer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Chimicles &
Tikellis, LLP & Vera Gerrit Belger, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP.

Pompano Beach General Employees Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by A. Zachary Naylor, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP,
Salvatore J. Graziano, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
pro hac vice, Steven B. Singer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Chimicles &
Tikellis, LLP & Vera Gerrit Belger, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP.

Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund, Plaintiff, represented
by A. Zachary Naylor, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, Brandon
Grzandziel, Saxena White, P.A., pro hac vice, Hannah G. Ross,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Jacob
Nachmani, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice,
Jeremy P. Robinson, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro
hac vice, Jesse L. Jensen, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan M. Stein, Community Legal Services,
pro hac vice, Jorge A. Amador, Saxena White, pro hac vice, Joseph
E. White, Saxena White, pro hac vice, Julia K. Tebor, Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Katherine M.
Sinderson, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac
vice, Kathryn W. Weidner, Saxena White P.A., pro hac vice, Lauren
A. McMillen-Ormsbee, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
pro hac vice, Lester Hooker, Saxena White, pro hac vice, Maya S.
Saxena, Saxena White P.A., pro hac vice, Richard D. Gluck,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Salvatore
J. Graziano, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac
vice, Steven B. Singer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
pro hac vice, Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP &
Vera Gerrit Belger, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP.

Timothy Rooney, Plaintiff, represented by Pamela S. Tikellis,
Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, A. Zachary Naylor, Chimicles &
Tikellis, LLP & Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP.

Mohammed Elzagha, Plaintiff, represented by Norman M. Monhait,
Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A. & Peter Bradford deLeeuw,
Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A..

Wilmington Trust Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jamie
Lynne Edmonson, Venable LLP, Barry S. Simon, Williams & Connolly
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel P. Moylan, Venable LLP, pro hac vice,
Daniel A. O'Brien, Venable LLP, James A. Dunbar, Venable LLP, pro
hac vice, James L. Shea, Venable LLP, pro hac vice, Jessica Wack,
Venable LLP, pro hac vice, Lance A. Wade, Williams & Connolly LLP,
pro hac vice, Margaret A. Keeley, Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac
vice, Matthew R. Alsip, Venable LLP, pro hac vice & Tobin J.
Romero, Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice.

Ted T. Cecala, Defendant, represented by Colm F. Connolly, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP & Jody Barillare, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Donald E. Foley, Defendant, represented by James Harry Stone
Levine, Pepper Hamilton LLP, M. Duncan Grant, Pepper Hamilton LLP
& Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP.

David R. Gibson, Defendant, represented by John S. Malik, John S.
Malik, Esq., John P. Nowak, Paul Hastings LLP, Kenneth M. Breen,
Paul Hastings LLP, pro hac vice, Phara A. Guberman, Paul Hastings
LLP, pro hac vice, Shahzeb Lari, Paul Hastings LLP, pro hac vice &
Zachary S. Zwillinger, Paul Hastings LLP, pro hac vice.

Robert V. A. Harra, Jr., Defendant, represented by Andrew S.
Dupre, McCarter & English, LLP, Daniel J. Brown, McCarter &
English, LLP, Michael P. Kelly, McCarter & English, LLP, Andrew M.
Lawler, Andrew M. Lawler, PC, pro hac vice, Sharon D. Feldman, pro
hac vice & Steven P. Wood, McCarter & English, LLP.

Kevyn N. Rakowski, Defendant, represented by Andrew Caulfield
Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A., Bartholomew J. Dalton, Dalton &
Associates P.A., Helen A. Nau, Dalton & Associates P.A., pro hac
vice & Henry E. Klingeman, Krovatin Klingeman, LLC, pro hac vice.

Carolyn S. Burger, Defendant, represented by James Harry Stone
Levine, Pepper Hamilton LLP, M. Duncan Grant, Pepper Hamilton LLP
& Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP.

R. Keith Elliott, Defendant, represented by James Harry Stone
Levine, Pepper Hamilton LLP, M. Duncan Grant, Pepper Hamilton LLP
& Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP.

Louis J. Freeh, Defendant, represented by James Harry Stone
Levine, Pepper Hamilton LLP, M. Duncan Grant, Pepper Hamilton LLP,
Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Ivan Knauer, Pepper
Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew D. Foster, Pepper Hamilton
LLP, pro hac vice.

Gailen Krug, Defendant, represented by James Harry Stone Levine,
Pepper Hamilton LLP, M. Duncan Grant, Pepper Hamilton LLP &
Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP.


WILMINGTON TRUST: Bid to Produce Docs in Securities Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE WILMINGTON TRUST SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Master Civ. No. 10-990-SLR-SRF (D. Del.), Magistrate
Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a
protective order quashing the Defendants' second request for
production of documents and granted the Defendants' motion to
compel the Plaintiffs to produce all non-privileged documents
responsive to its second request for production of documents.

The Plaintiffs are institutional investors who purchased the
common stock of Wilmington Trust Corp. ("WTC") between Jan. 18,
2008 and Nov. 1, 2010.  They claim that WTC's lending practices
were part of a massive criminal conspiracy that fraudulently
concealed the Bank's true financial condition and deceived
regulators and the public.  The Plaintiffs commenced the instant
civil action on Nov. 18, 2010, and filed their fourth amended
complaint on June 13, 2013.

On May 19, 2014, the Court entered a scheduling order requiring
the parties to substantially complete document production on Oct.
17, 2014, and to serve all requests for the production of
documents so as to complete document production by that date.  On
Aug. 12, 2014, the Court entered a joint Rule 26(f) scheduling
order which incorporated all dates from the May 19, 2014
scheduling order.  In accordance with the scheduling orders, the
parties served document requests in April, June, and August of
2014.

On Oct. 10, 2014, the Government moved to intervene in this action
and requested a limited stay of fact depositions, interrogatories,
and requests for admission.  The Government expressly excluded
from its request document production, discovery relating to class
certification, or any other issues in the Scheduling Order.  On
July 2, 2015, the Court entered an order staying the case.  On
Sept. 3, 2015, the Court clarified that the July 2, 2015 order
staying the case does not stay the completion of document
production that is not the subject of a pending motion to compel.

The Court lifted the stay on Dec. 19, 2016 and ordered the parties
to meet and confer regarding a revised schedule.  The parties were
unable to reach an agreement regarding a revised schedule, and the
Court held a hearing on Jan. 19, 2017 to consider the parties'
competing positions.  On Jan. 24, 2017, the Court issued a
Memorandum Order entering a new scheduling order, which set a
deadline for all fact discovery of June 1, 2017.  The January 24
scheduling order did not specifically mention document production.

On Feb. 23, 2017, the Defendants served their second request for
production of documents.  The Plaintiffs filed the pending motion
to quash the Defendants' second request for production of
documents on March 27, 2017, alleging that the requests should
have been served in advance of the Oct. 17, 2014 deadline.

The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to quash the Defendants'
second request for production of documents because the document
requests are not untimely under either the Court's January 24
scheduling order, which sets a deadline for completion of all fact
discovery on June 1, 2017, or the subsequent stipulation to extend
time, which extended the fact discovery deadline to Aug. 15, 2017.
In previous orders, the Court separately carved out requests for
production of documents when it sought to establish separate
deadlines or requirements for document discovery.  The Court's
failure to specifically address the completion of document
production in its January 24 scheduling order supports the
Defendants' position that the June 1, 2017 deadline for all fact
discovery encompasses document production.

The Court granted the Defendants' motion to compel the Plaintiffs
to produce all non-privileged documents responsive to its second
request for production of documents.  The Plaintiffs are to
produce the requested documents within 14 days of the issuance of
the Memorandum Order.

The parties may serve and file specific written objections within
14 days after being served with a copy of the Memorandum Order.
They are directed to the Court's Standing Order For Objections
Filed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, dated Oct. 9, 2013.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2017 memorandum order is
available at https://is.gd/JMFyL1 from Leagle.com.

Pipefitters Local 537 Annuity Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Norman M. Monhait, Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A..

Pipefitters Local 537 Annuity Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Peter Bradford deLeeuw, Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A..

Merced County Employees Retirement Association, Plaintiff,
represented by A. Zachary Naylor, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP,
Salvatore J. Graziano, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
pro hac vice, Steven B. Singer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Chimicles &
Tikellis, LLP & Vera Gerrit Belger, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP.

Coral Springs Police Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by A.
Zachary Naylor, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, Jesse L. Jensen,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Julia K.
Tebor, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice,
Salvatore J. Graziano, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
pro hac vice, Steven B. Singer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Chimicles &
Tikellis, LLP & Vera Gerrit Belger, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP.

St. Petersburg Firefighters Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by A. Zachary Naylor, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP,
Salvatore J. Graziano, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
pro hac vice, Steven B. Singer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Chimicles &
Tikellis, LLP & Vera Gerrit Belger, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP.

Pompano Beach General Employees Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by A. Zachary Naylor, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP,
Salvatore J. Graziano, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
pro hac vice, Steven B. Singer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Chimicles &
Tikellis, LLP & Vera Gerrit Belger, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP.

Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund, Plaintiff, represented
by A. Zachary Naylor, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, Brandon
Grzandziel, Saxena White, P.A., pro hac vice, Hannah G. Ross,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Jacob
Nachmani, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice,
Jeremy P. Robinson, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro
hac vice, Jesse L. Jensen, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan M. Stein, Community Legal Services,
pro hac vice, Jorge A. Amador, Saxena White, pro hac vice, Joseph
E. White, Saxena White, pro hac vice, Julia K. Tebor, Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Katherine M.
Sinderson, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac
vice, Kathryn W. Weidner, Saxena White P.A., pro hac vice, Lauren
A. McMillen-Ormsbee, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
pro hac vice, Lester Hooker, Saxena White, pro hac vice, Maya S.
Saxena, Saxena White P.A., pro hac vice, Richard D. Gluck,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Salvatore
J. Graziano, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac
vice, Steven B. Singer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
pro hac vice, Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP &
Vera Gerrit Belger, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP.

Timothy Rooney, Plaintiff, represented by Pamela S. Tikellis,
Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, A. Zachary Naylor, Chimicles &
Tikellis, LLP & Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP.

Mohammed Elzagha, Plaintiff, represented by Norman M. Monhait,
Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A. & Peter Bradford deLeeuw,
Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A..

Wilmington Trust Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jamie
Lynne Edmonson, Venable LLP, Barry S. Simon, Williams & Connolly
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel P. Moylan, Venable LLP, pro hac vice,
Daniel A. O'Brien, Venable LLP, James A. Dunbar, Venable LLP, pro
hac vice, James L. Shea, Venable LLP, pro hac vice, Jessica Wack,
Venable LLP, pro hac vice, Lance A. Wade, Williams & Connolly LLP,
pro hac vice, Margaret A. Keeley, Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac
vice, Matthew R. Alsip, Venable LLP, pro hac vice & Tobin J.
Romero, Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice.

Ted T. Cecala, Defendant, represented by Colm F. Connolly, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP & Jody Barillare, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Donald E. Foley, Defendant, represented by James Harry Stone
Levine, Pepper Hamilton LLP, M. Duncan Grant, Pepper Hamilton LLP
& Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP.

David R. Gibson, Defendant, represented by John S. Malik, John S.
Malik, Esq., John P. Nowak, Paul Hastings LLP, Kenneth M. Breen,
Paul Hastings LLP, pro hac vice, Phara A. Guberman, Paul Hastings
LLP, pro hac vice, Shahzeb Lari, Paul Hastings LLP, pro hac vice &
Zachary S. Zwillinger, Paul Hastings LLP, pro hac vice.

Robert V. A. Harra, Jr., Defendant, represented by Andrew S.
Dupre, McCarter & English, LLP, Daniel J. Brown, McCarter &
English, LLP, Michael P. Kelly, McCarter & English, LLP, Andrew M.
Lawler, Andrew M. Lawler, PC, pro hac vice, Sharon D. Feldman, pro
hac vice & Steven P. Wood, McCarter & English, LLP.

Kevyn N. Rakowski, Defendant, represented by Andrew Caulfield
Dalton, Dalton & Associates P.A., Bartholomew J. Dalton, Dalton &
Associates P.A., Helen A. Nau, Dalton & Associates P.A., pro hac
vice & Henry E. Klingeman, Krovatin Klingeman, LLC, pro hac vice.

Carolyn S. Burger, Defendant, represented by James Harry Stone
Levine, Pepper Hamilton LLP, M. Duncan Grant, Pepper Hamilton LLP
& Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP.

R. Keith Elliott, Defendant, represented by James Harry Stone
Levine, Pepper Hamilton LLP, M. Duncan Grant, Pepper Hamilton LLP
& Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP.

Louis J. Freeh, Defendant, represented by James Harry Stone
Levine, Pepper Hamilton LLP, M. Duncan Grant, Pepper Hamilton LLP,
Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Ivan Knauer, Pepper
Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew D. Foster, Pepper Hamilton
LLP, pro hac vice.

Gailen Krug, Defendant, represented by James Harry Stone Levine,
Pepper Hamilton LLP, M. Duncan Grant, Pepper Hamilton LLP &
Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP.


WILMINGTON TRUST: Can Compel Answers to Interrogatories
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE WILMINGTON TRUST SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Master Civ. No. 10-990-SLR-SRF (D. Del.), Magistrate
Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware granted in part the Defendants' motion to
compel answers to the second set of common interrogatories.

The Plaintiffs are institutional investors who purchased the
common stock of WTC between Jan. 18, 2008 and Nov. 1, 2010.  They
claim that WTC's lending practices were part of a massive criminal
conspiracy that fraudulently concealed the Bank's true financial
condition and deceived regulators and the public.  They commenced
the instant civil action on Nov. 18, 2010, and filed their fourth
amended complaint on June 13, 2013.

On July 2, 2015, the Court entered an order staying the case.  It
lifted the stay on Dec. 19, 2016 and ordered the parties to meet
and confer regarding a revised scheduling order.  The parties were
unable to reach an agreement, and the Court held a hearing on Jan.
19, 2017 to consider the parties' competing positions.  On Jan.
24, 2017, the Court issued a Memorandum Order entering a new
scheduling order, which set a deadline for all fact discovery of
June 1, 2017.  The parties subsequently stipulated to extend the
fact discovery deadline to Aug. 15, 2017.

On March 1, 2017, the Defendants served their second set of common
interrogatories.  The Plaintiffs served their answers and
objections to the Interrogatories on March 31, 2017.  The
Defendants conducted a meet and confer with the Plaintiffs on
April 5, 2017 regarding purported deficiencies in the Plaintiffs'
answers and objections to the Interrogatories.  During the meet
and confer, the Plaintiffs indicated their willingness to
supplement their responses if necessary, but no further efforts to
meet and confer or supplement the responses were made.  On April
11, 2017, the Defendants filed the pending motion to compel,
alleging that the Plaintiffs' answers and objections to the
Interrogatories were deficient.

The Defendants' motion to compel answers to the second set of
common interrogatories is granted-in-part.  Specifically, the
motion is granted with respect to Interrogatories 2, 3, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, and denied without prejudice as
it pertains to Interrogatories 4, 5, and 14.  The Plaintiffs are
ordered to provide their responses to the Interrogatories within
10 days of the issuance of the Memorandum Order.

The parties may serve and file specific written objections within
14 days after being served with a copy of the Memorandum Order.
They are directed to the Court's Standing Order For Objections
Filed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, dated Oct. 9, 2013.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2017 memorandum order is
available at https://is.gd/xcrNS3 from Leagle.com.

Pipefitters Local 537 Annuity Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Norman M. Monhait -- nmonhait@rmgglaw.com  -- Rosenthal, Monhait &
Goddess, P.A..

Pipefitters Local 537 Annuity Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Peter Bradford deLeeuw -- bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com -- Rosenthal,
Monhait & Goddess, P.A..

Merced County Employees Retirement Association, Plaintiff,
represented by A. Zachary Naylor -- ZN@chimicles.com -- Chimicles
& Tikellis, LLP, Salvatore J. Graziano -- sgraziano@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Steven B.
Singer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice,
Tiffany Joanne Cramer -- TiffanyCramer@chimicles.com -- Chimicles
& Tikellis, LLP & Vera Gerrit Belger -- VeraGerrity@Chimicles.com
-- Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP.

Coral Springs Police Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by A.
Zachary Naylor, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, Jesse L. Jensen --
jesse.jensen@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, pro hac vice, Julia K. Tebor -- julia.tebor@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Salvatore
J. Graziano, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac
vice, Steven B. Singer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
pro hac vice, Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP &
Vera Gerrit Belger, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP.

St. Petersburg Firefighters Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by A. Zachary Naylor, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP,
Salvatore J. Graziano, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
pro hac vice, Steven B. Singer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Chimicles &
Tikellis, LLP & Vera Gerrit Belger, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP.

Pompano Beach General Employees Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by A. Zachary Naylor, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP,
Salvatore J. Graziano, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
pro hac vice, Steven B. Singer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Chimicles &
Tikellis, LLP & Vera Gerrit Belger, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP.

Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund, Plaintiff, represented
by A. Zachary Naylor, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, Brandon
Grzandziel -- bgrzandziel@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White, P.A.,
pro hac vice, Hannah G. Ross -- hannah@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Jacob Nachmani,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy P.
Robinson -- jeremy@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Jesse L. Jensen, Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan M. Stein, Community
Legal Services, pro hac vice, Jorge A. Amador --
jamador@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White, pro hac vice, Joseph E.
White -- jwhite@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White, pro hac vie,
Julia K. Tebor, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac
vice, Katherine M. Sinderson -- katherinem@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Kathryn
W. Weidner -- kweidner@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White P.A., pro
hac vice, Lauren A. McMillen-Ormsbee -- laurenm@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Lester
Hooker, Saxena White, pro hac vice, Maya S. Saxena --
msaxena@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White P.A., pro hac vice,
Richard D. Gluck -- Rich.Gluck@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Salvatore J. Graziano,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Steven B.
Singer, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice,
Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP & Vera Gerrit
Belger, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP.

Timothy Rooney, Plaintiff, represented by Pamela S. Tikellis --
PamelaTikellis@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, A.
Zachary Naylor, Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP & Robert J. Kriner, Jr.
-- RobertKriner@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP.

Mohammed Elzagha, Plaintiff, represented by Norman M. Monhait,
Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A. & Peter Bradford deLeeuw,
Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A..

Wilmington Trust Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jamie
Lynne Edmonson -- jledmonson@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, Barry S.
Simon -- bsimon@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice,
Daniel P. Moylan -- dpmoylan@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, pro hac
vice, Daniel A. O'Brien -- dao'brien@Venable.com -- Venable LLP,
James A. Dunbar -- jadunbar@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, pro hac
vice, James L. Shea -- jlshea@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, pro hac
vice, Jessica Wack -- jbwack@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, pro hac
vice, Lance A. Wade -- lwade@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP,
pro hac vice, Margaret A. Keeley -- mkeeley@wc.com -- Williams &
Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew R. Alsip --
mralsip@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, pro hac vice & Tobin J. Romero
-- tromero@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice.

Ted T. Cecala, Defendant, represented by Colm F. Connolly --
colm.connolly@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Jody
Barillare -- jody.barillare@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP.

Donald E. Foley, Defendant, represented by James Harry Stone
Levine -- levinejh@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton LLP, M. Duncan
Grant -- grantm@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton LLP & Christopher
Brian Chuff -- chuffc@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton LLP.

David R. Gibson, Defendant, represented by John S. Malik, John S.
Malik, Esq., John P. Nowak -- johnnowak@paulhastings.com -- Paul
Hastings LLP, Kenneth M. Breen -- kennethbreen@paulhastings.com --
Paul Hastings LLP, pro hac vice, Phara A. Guberman --

pharaguberman@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, pro hac vice,
Shahzeb Lari -- shahzeblari@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP,
pro hac vice & Zachary S. Zwillinger --
zacharyzwillinger@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, pro hac
vice.

Robert V. A. Harra, Jr., Defendant, represented by Andrew S. Dupre
-- adupre@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP, Daniel J. Brown
-- djbrown@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP, Michael P.
Kelly -- mkelly@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP, Andrew M.
Lawler, Andrew M. Lawler, PC, pro hac vice, Sharon D. Feldman, pro
hac vice & Steven P. Wood -- swood@mccarter.com -- McCarter &
English, LLP.

Kevyn N. Rakowski, Defendant, represented by Andrew Caulfield
Dalton -- adalton@bdaltonlaw.com -- Dalton & Associates P.A.,
Bartholomew J. Dalton -- bdalton@bdaltonlaw.com -- Dalton &
Associates P.A., Helen A. Nau --  -- Dalton & Associates P.A., pro
hac vice & Henry E. Klingeman -- hklingeman@krovatin.com --
Krovatin Klingeman, LLC, pro hac vice.

Carolyn S. Burger, Defendant, represented by James Harry Stone
Levine, Pepper Hamilton LLP, M. Duncan Grant, Pepper Hamilton LLP
& Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP.

R. Keith Elliott, Defendant, represented by James Harry Stone
Levine, Pepper Hamilton LLP, M. Duncan Grant, Pepper Hamilton LLP
& Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP.

Louis J. Freeh, Defendant, represented by James Harry Stone
Levine, Pepper Hamilton LLP, M. Duncan Grant, Pepper Hamilton LLP,
Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Ivan Knauer, Pepper
Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew D. Foster, Pepper Hamilton
LLP, pro hac vice.

Gailen Krug, Defendant, represented by James Harry Stone Levine,
Pepper Hamilton LLP, M. Duncan Grant, Pepper Hamilton LLP &
Christopher Brian Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP.


WIX.COM,INC: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Wood Law Firm, LLC, and Bill Kenney Law Firm, LLC, announced that
two plaintiffs have filed a putative class-action lawsuit
challenging the telemarketing practices of WIX.com, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges WIX violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act by sending automated telemarketing text messages to cellular
phones without obtaining prior express consent, including to
persons whose phone numbers were registered on the national do-
not-call lists.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege WIX is using caller
identification or other similar technology to capture the cellular
phone number of any person or entity who calls WIX's general
business number (1-800-600-0949) and that WIX automatically
(without human intervention) sends a text message to the captured
cellular phone number containing WIX's logo and/or a link to WIX's
website, www.wix.com.  The plaintiffs seek up to $1,500 for each
person or entity to whom WIX sent a text message from 1-800-600-
0949 in the last four years.

The case is styled Williams, et al. v. WIX.com, Inc., Case No.
4:17-cv-00434 (W.D. Mo.).  The plaintiffs are represented by Noah
Wood and Ari Rodopoulos of Wood Law Firm, LLC and William Kenney
of Bill Kenney Law Firm, LLC.  A copy of the lawsuit and further
information is available from Wood Law Firm, LLC at
www.woodlaw.com/cases/wix. [GN]


ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Zoompass Holdings, Inc. ("Zoompass" or the "Company") (OTCQB:
ZPAS) between April 24, 2017 and May 24, 2017, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Zoompass investors have until July
31, 2017 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Zoompass investments are
encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their legal
rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com. To obtain information, or to get
involved in the action, please visit the Zoompass case page on our
website at www.glancylaw.com/case/zoompass-holdings-inc.

On May 9, 2017 Zoompass disclosed that it had been "made aware of
and requested by the OTC Markets Group, Inc. to comment on recent
trading and potential promotional activity." Following this
announcement, shares fell $1.67 or over 45% over three trading
sessions.

On May 25, 2017, an article was published on SeekingAlpha.com
alleging that Zoompass had erroneously denied its involvement with
a scheme designed to promote Zoompass' stock; and that Zoompass
had purposely kept hidden the fact that the Company's CEO was
involved in a pump-and-dump scheme. On this news, shares of
Zoompass fell over 23% to close at $2.25 per share on May 25,
2017.

The complaint filed in this class action lawsuit alleges that
throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements, and failed to disclose that: (1) Zoompass
unlawfully engaged in a scheme to promote its stock; (2) discovery
of the foregoing conduct would subject Zoompass to heightened
regulatory scrutiny and potential criminal sanctions; and (3) that
as a result, Zoompass' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased shares of Zoompass during the Class Period you
may move the Court no later than July 31, 2017 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-
9224, by email to -- shareholders@glancylaw.com -- or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased. [GN]


* Defendants Can Appeal NC Class Certs Decisions to Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Lathrop, Esq., at Moore & Van Allen PLLC, in an article for
JD Supra, wrote that the North Carolina legislature recently
passed H.B. 239, over Gubernatorial veto, which gives company
defendants the right to appeal trial court decisions allowing
class certification directly to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

This law parts from North Carolina case law precedent and
eliminates the need for the NC Supreme Court to invoke its
supervisory authority to review a grant of class certification
prior to resolution of a trial, as the court recently did in
Fisher v. Flue-Cured Tobacco Coop. Stabilization Corp., 794 S.E.2d
699, 2016 N.C. LEXIS 1120, (NC Dec. 21, 2016). While H.B. 239 does
not single out company defendants for benefit in its language, in
effect the law secures a guaranteed avenue for early review of
class action cases that was not available to companies in the
North Carolina courts before and it minimizes the delay and costs
associated with the two-step appellate process.

NC Class Certification Appeals Before H.B. 239

H.B. 239 is entitled: An Act to Reduce the Number of Judges on the
Court of Appeals to Twelve; to Provide an Appeal of Right for
Trial Court Decisions Regarding Class Action Certification and
Termination of Parental Rights; and to Provide for Discretionary
Review by the Supreme Court in Cases Where the Subject Matter
Involves the Jurisdiction and Integrity of the Court System. The
legislature tackled a lot with H.B. 239, and not without putting
up a fight. The bill granting a right to appeal class
certification decisions was vetoed by Governor Cooper because it
was packaged with the reduction of the number of judges on the
Court of Appeals from fifteen to twelve. The Governor objected to
that portion of the bill due to the increasing burden it would
place on the court and his belief that it is unconstitutional. The
veto was overridden and H.B. 239, Session Law 2017-7 was passed on
April 26, 2017.

Prior to H.B. 239, North Carolina case law recognized that the
denial of class certification affects a substantial right because
it determines the course of the case for the plaintiffs.
Therefore, plaintiffs could immediately appeal a class
certification denial to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
However, the courts found that "no order allowing class
certification has been held to similarly affect a substantial
right such that interlocutory appeal would be permitted." Frost v.
Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 353 N.C. 188, 193, 540 S.E.2d 324, 327
(2000). Under N.C.G.S. Section 7A-32(b) (2015), the NC Supreme
Court has general power to supervise and control the proceedings
of any of the other courts of the General Court of Justice. The
Court invoked this power and bypassed the NC Court of Appeals to
review the grant of class certification in Fisher because it felt
"the subject matter of this case implicates the public interest to
such a degree that invocation of our supervisory authority is
appropriate." In Fisher, the NC Supreme Court ultimately upheld
the class certification decision. But, having resolution of the
issue by the NC high court at that stage in the case provided the
defendant company with a level of certainty from which to proceed
with the litigation. H.B. 239 recognizes the reality that for
company defendants the granting of class certification can be
equally case determinative, as the risks and costs of defending
class action litigation often pressure companies into settling
even meritless cases once a class is certified.

H.B. 239 - Right to Appeal Decisions Regarding Class Certification
In pertinent part, H.B. 239 modifies N.C.G.S. Section 7A-27,
Appeals of right from the courts of the trial divisions, to read:

Appeal lies of right directly to the Supreme Court in any of the
following cases. . . (4) Any trial court's decision regarding
class action certification under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 23.

H.B. 239 grants appellate review as a right, whereas Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(f) leaves it to the discretion of the
appellate court whether to review the trial court's decision to
grant or deny class certification. H.B. 239's broad language
includes the initial grant or denial of class certification, and
arguably any other "decision regarding class action
certification," such as subsequent motions to decertify a class
and some suggest possibly motions to strike class allegations.

With H.B. 239, class action defendants no longer need to wait
until a trial is over to challenge a class certification decision
or for the rare case deemed important enough for the NC Supreme
Court to review class certification early. H.B. 239 reduces some
risk early and saves time and costs by eliminating the
intermediate appellate court. Not having to wonder whether the
certification decision would be overturned following trial,
defendant companies can best strategize about the course of
litigation and settlement prospects.

Standard of Review of Class Certification Decisions
As Fisher illustrates, appellate review of a grant of class
certification does not guarantee the decision will be overturned
and the class action dismantled. This is even more so now that
H.B. 239 provides a right to appeal all decisions regarding class
certification. The Fisher court reiterated the standard of review
for class actions in North Carolina, noting that "[w]hen all the
prerequisites are met, it is left to the trial court's discretion
'whether a class action is superior to other available methods for
the adjudication of th[e] controversy,'" and "[t]he trial court
has 'broad discretion' to allow or deny class certification."
(citing Beroth Oil Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 367 N.C. 333,
337, 757 S.E.2d 466, 470 (2014) and Frost, 353 N.C. at 198, 540
S.E.2d at 331). The appellate court reviews the trial court's
order regarding class certification for abuse of discretion --
findings of fact are binding if supported by competent evidence
and conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

What Now?
Company defendants should confer with counsel regarding the impact
of the new law on their class action cases. Depending on the
disposition of the case, strategies for filing an appeal of a
class certification decision and settlement negotiations may be
impacted, or motions for reconsideration of class certification or
motions to decertify a class may be appropriate. Also, H.B. 239
sets forth two different effective dates for the provisions of the
Act:

SECTION 5. G.S. 7A-27(a)(5), as enacted by Section 2 of this act,
and Section 4 of this act become effective January 1, 2019, and
apply to appeals filed on or after that date. The remainder of
this act is effective when it becomes law.

The provision adding the right to appeal class certification
decisions, N.C.G.S. Section 7A-27(a)(4), falls within the
"remainder of this act is effective when it becomes law," which
was April 26, 2017. Therefore, a question to be explored is
whether class certification decisions currently pending before the
NC Court of Appeals should or can be transferred to the NC Supreme
Court.

Class action law in North Carolina is not yet as fulsome as
federal class action law, but with each year North Carolina law
continues to advance in this critical area of litigation. We will
keep you posted on developments as the courts work through the
nuances of the rights created by H.B. 239. [GN]


* Hospitals' Pension Class Action Victory May be Short-Lived
------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
three religious-affiliated, nonprofit hospital systems won
reprieves from multimillion-dollar class actions on June 5 in the
U.S. Supreme Court.  But that relief may not be long-lasting.

The unanimous court reversed three federal appellate court rulings
that said the hospital systems were not exempt "church plans"
under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or
ERISA.  The justices, led by Justice Elena Kagan, said a pension
plan does not have to be established by a church to be exempt from
ERISA as a "church plan." However, the court added, it does have
to be maintained by an entity that has as its principal purpose
the administration or funding of a pension plan.

Here are some takeaways from plaintiffs' counsel, employment
benefits attorneys, and others on the implications of the high
court's decision.

There are more than 100 lawsuits filed around the country
challenging the "church plan" exemption held by these hospital
systems.  What's the immediate impact of the Supreme Court
decision on those lawsuits?

"It does throw a very large monkey wrench into those lawsuits,"
Howard Shapiro, a partner in Proskauer Rose's employee benefits
and executive compensation group, said.  "They're going to go
forward in some fashion but I think they will be truncated and we
will start to see more motion-to-dismiss victories for
defendants."

Theresa Gee -- tgee@milchev.com -- a Miller & Chevalier employee
benefits lawyer, predicted: "The dispute is far from over.  The
remaining issues entail individualized questions with respect to
the hospitals and the plans' internal benefit committees."

Some of those questions, she added, include: What's the structure
of the internal plan committee and how does it operate? Who are
its members? What functions does it perform? "Justice Kagan made
quite clear the interpretation of these terms 'are not before us
and nothing we say in this opinion expresses a view of how they
should be resolved.'"

Lynn Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- of Keller Rohrback, co-
counsel for the employee challengers in the high court -- along
with Karen Handorf -- khandorf@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll -- said the decision "foreclosed one legal
argument but we will continue advancing others that shed light on
the excessively broad interpretation the hospitals seek."

Did the Supreme Court leave open any doors for future litigation
against these health care system pension plans?
Yes, according to Michael Graham -- mtgraham@michaelbest.com --
chairman of Michael Best & Friedrich's ERISA litigation practice
group in Chicago.  He predicted "the next wave of litigation in
this area may shift to the question of whether an entity qualifies
as a principal-purpose organization."  Mr. Graham said: "That
question may breed a new wave of litigation to further complicate
this already complicated area of ERISA."

Karen Ferguson, director of the Pension Rights Center, said that
despite the first appearance of what she called a "devastating"
decision for current and former employees of religiously
affiliated hospitals and other entities, there is at least one
other avenue to explore.

"Still to be decided is whether government agencies were correct
when they ruled that a plan's internal employee benefit committee
is the organization contemplated by Congress," she said.  "The
plan participants will argue that the law was only intended to
apply to church pension boards, which are financial organizations
that maintain plans for certain denominations."

Mr. Shapiro of Proskauer Rose said: "You have to establish now on
the defense side that the principal purpose entity -- the entity,
committee or organization within the plan sponsor -- is controlled
by and or associated with a church or convention of churches.  We
were able to show exactly that in winning a motion to dismiss in
Overall v. Ascension, which the justices cite favorably in their
analysis.

Beyond ERISA, are there any claims that employees of these health
care systems may make if they believe their pension plans are
underfunded or in trouble?

Joseph Urwitz, an employee benefits partner at McDermott Will &
Emery, said one new avenue that has been overlooked involves state
law claims.  "We've all been so caught up in, 'Gee, what's going
to happen under ERISA?' But since these plans now aren't covered
by ERISA, that means there is no ERISA pre-emption and state law
claims could apply.  I would not be surprised at all if
plaintiffs' firms try to make some state law complaints.  I can't
speculate on results but plaintiffs would be fairly sympathetic to
a lot of state courts."

Mr. Urwitz makes a "valid point," Mr. Shapiro said.  "Most of the
companies I have defended all take the position that state law
governs, not ERISA.  The people on the plaintiffs' side have tried
to paint a picture of a vacuum of legislation. These plans have
always been subject to litigation under state law."
Are there any cautionary notes for these health care systems going
forward?

McDermott's Urwitz said health systems should be mindful of their
church connections.  "The first footnote in the opinion is sort of
interesting.  Justice Kagan said basically, 'We've kind of assumed
these hospitals are sort of closely enough linked with their
churches.'  They still have to kind of watch their connections.
This basically says you don't need to show a church established
these plans, but it's not a complete 'do whatever you want.'"


* John Rabiej Calls for Clear Rules for Managing MDL Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that multidistrict litigation is engulfing the federal court
system and something has to be done.

That's the message from a Duke Law School expert who says it's
time to give judges clear rules for managing the unwieldy dockets,
which constitute roughly one-third of all pending federal cases.

For starters, John Rabiej, director of Duke's Center for Judicial
Studies, suggests distributing the biggest cases to five judges,
instead of just one, for later-stage rulings.

Mr. Rabiej's call-to-action comes amid rising criticism for the
process from law professors, legislators and defense attorneys who
have questioned rulings from some MDL judges.  Though it's
unlikely to be adopted, at least not in its current form, the
proposal is remarkable because it asks the federal Judicial
Conference to adopt a rule specific to MDLs, which it has never
done.

"The unprecedented surge in cases centralized in MDLs demand
uniform and consistent procedures," Mr. Rabiej wrote in a May 19
letter to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules.

More than 130,000 civil cases pending in federal courts are part
of multidistrict litigation, according to Mr. Rabiej, and the
largest 20 MDLs account for about 90 percent of those cases.
That's the segment he wants to address.

"What's happening now is you have these big MDL cases, they're
assigned to a judge who has had little experience in MDLs, and the
judge then has to come up with procedures to handle this," said
Mr. Rabiej, who spent 18 years as a staffer to the rules
committee.  "The argument is the one judge has too much
authority."

The current MDL system has many critics, including on Capitol
Hill, but there's little consensus on what should be done.
Mr. Rabiej's proposal, which would apply to so-called mega-MDLs
consisting of more than 900 cases, quickly drew skeptics.
Deborah Hensler, a law professor at Stanford Law School, called
the idea "ill-conceived."

"If you move in that direction, you're on the road to destroying
what the MDL was supposed to achieve in terms of coordination and
consolidation," she said.

The proposal would be attached to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, which governs class actions.  It would siphon
authority away from a single judge by spreading an MDL before five
judges to make individual case rulings, such as whether they
should be dismissed or remanded to state court.

Mr. Rabiej acknowledged that his suggestion might not go far.
What's important, he said, is getting the idea out there that the
Judicial Conference is the appropriate body to govern MDLs--not
Congress, where some lawmakers have been champing at the bit to
pass tort reform.

The advisory committee on civil rules doesn't have to act on the
submission.  Its next meeting is on Nov. 7 in Washington, D.C.
One-size-fits-all?

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which decides
whether centralization is warranted and then assigns cases to
individual judges, has taken steps to manage the burden by
spreading out cases to new judges, many of whom have no experience
in MDLs.

Once the cases are transferred, MDL judges are left without much
of a road map for handling the complex procedural issues.

In the absence of formal guidance, judges rely on each other's
decisions, or look to other civil rules of procedure.


* Saudi Arabia Conducts Workshop on Draft Regulation of CA Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Market Authority ("CMA") represented by the Legal Affairs
and Enforcement Deputy conducted a workshop on May 31 about the
Draft Regulation of Class Action Suits, which the CMA has
published lately for public consultation. The workshop was
attended by number of lawyers and specialized legal consultants.

The workshop was conducted for the purpose of discussing the
concept of the Class Action Suits, and explaining its mechanisms,
objectives and its important aspects in addition to receiving
comments from the participants regarding the Draft Regulations.
During the workshop, a presentation was given regarding several
aspects including the concept of the Class Action Suits, the
purpose of the Draft Regulation of Class Action Suits, mechanisms
of the  Class Action Suits and the important provisions regulating
the Class Action Suits. Also, during the workshop, the Draft
Regulations was discussed, the participants questions were
answered and their comments were received.

In this regard, the CMA emphasizes its keenness to develop the
Capital Market in the Kingdom which enhances the investors'
protection therein, develop and implement mechanisms for investors
compensation and to facilitate the litigation procedures for the
participants in the Capital Market and facilitate their access to
compensations. The CMA stresses that all opinions and comments on
the Draft Regulations will be studied and considered.
This workshop followed the publication of the Draft Regulation of

Class Action Suits for public consultation on CMA's website in
15/5/2017G for a period lasts until 14/6/2017G. The Draft, to be
incorporated in the Resolution of Securities Disputes Proceedings
Regulations once approved, aims to develop the litigation
mechanisms and procedures to meet the best international practices
in order to promote the attractiveness of the Saudi Capital Market
and minimizes the risks involved in investing therein; in addition
to its role in reducing the time period needed to decide on
investors compensation cases and facilitating its procedures [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  * * *