CAR_Public/170619.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Monday, June 19, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 121



                            Headlines

A&B INSURANCE: Settles "Do Not Call" Class Action for $4.25MM
ADT: Settles Class Actions Over Home Security Systems
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Supreme Court Overturns Opinion in ERISA Case
AFFILIATE ASSET: "Gonzales" Suit Disputes Collection Letter
ALON USA: Shareholder Files Class Action Over Delek Merger

AMES ADVANCED: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Perez" Suit Claims
ANDREA'S FINE: Faces Class Action Over All Natural Labeling
APPLE INC: Accused of Misleading Consumers About Free Repairs
BEST POULTRY: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
CANADA: Military Faces Intensive Archival Research on Purge

CANADA: Northstar Cleanup Continues Years Following Settlement
CANADA: Certification Hearings Set in CAF Sexual Assault Suits
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Denies Involvement in Lac-Megantic Incident
CAPITOL MARKETING: "Cote" Action Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
CATHAY PACIFIC: "Goldthorpe" Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursements

CONNECTICUT: AG Balks at Monitor's Requests in DCF Case
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Aug. 7 Final Hearing on Stamps Bros. Deal
COSMETIC INSTITUTE: Class Action Mulled Over Patient Data Breach
DEL TACO: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Suit Says Schultz Office Used Voice Changer

DS HEALTHCARE: Settles Securities Class Action in Florida
EPIC LANDSCAPE: Denied Overtime Pay, "Albelo" Suit Asserts
ERIC CONN: Court Reviews Benefits of Former Clients
ERIC CONN: Disappears Amidst Fraud Class Action, FBI Says
ETHICON: Nova Scotia Man Blames Physiomesh for Debilitating Pain

FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Jeep Wrangler Engine Damage
FLOWERS FOODS: "Hall" Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
GENERAL MOTORS: Siskinds Sues Over Diesel Truck Emissions
GODADDY: Seeks Dismissal of Microsoft Office Sales Class Action
HEALTH CARE: Court Issues Scheduling Deadlines in "Sawyer" Suit

HENKEL CORP: "Buso" Suit Asserts Laundry Aid Packaging 30% Empty
HOLBROOK CONSTRUCTION: Cal. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
HSBC: Court to Hear Investors' Motion to Consider Class Status
I & I PIZZA: Sued in Ga. Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
INGRAM & ASSOCIATES: "Candela" Action Disputes Collection Letter

INTRAWEST RESORTS: Faces Class Action Over Merger Deal
ISHARES TRUST: Class Action Plaintiffs' Claims Not Time Barred
KATE SPADE & CO: "Jauregi" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Faces "Russell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
KING TACO: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees

LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: ACLU Sues Over Debtor's Prison
LITTLE CAESARS: Lawyers Spar in $100M Lawsuit Over 'Halal' Pizza
MATTAMY HOMES: Faces Class Action Over Property Damage
MCCARTHY BURGESS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Weigle" Suit Claims
MCGUYER HOMEBUILDERS: Faces "Vazquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MISSOURI: Social Services Dept. Sued Over Psychotropic Drugs
NATIONAL PARKING: "Charron" Seeks Overtime Pay, Back Wages
NEW YORK: Commissioner Sued Over LT Care Services Termination
PANERA BREAD: Faces Scott And Gina Suit Over JAB Holdings Merger
PARTY ANIMAL: Falsely Marketed Dog Food, "Black" Suit Claims

PEARLS AUSTRALASIA: Indian Gov't Can Recover Funds in Australia
PRIDE MOBILITY: CAT Takes Permissive Approach in Class Action
PRIORITY WORKFORCE: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers
PROSPECT MEDICAL: "Meneses" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
RED INN: Banquet Wait Staff File Class Action Over Tips

SANTA FE UNIVERSITY: Faces More Fraud Suits From Students
SAUDI ARAMCO: New York Listing Poses Class Action Litigation Risk
SECURE LENDING: "Bruce" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums
SENTRY INSURANCE: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on June 30
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Competing Class Action Hampers Settlement

SOUTHWINDS INSPECTION: "Berrisford" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
SYNGENTA AG: Trial over Viptera Corn Begins in Kansas
TENNESSEE: DCS Soon to Operate Without Court Oversight
THC-ORANGE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Song" Suit Claims
UBER: Fights Drivers' Bid to Revive Claims Over Improper Fees

WHITELINE EXPRESS: "Bell" Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay
WHOLESOME GOURMET: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Chamorro" Suit Says
YELP INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Sapan" Action Claims
ZILLOW: Asserts Zestimates Class Action Without Merit

* Big Changes Could be Coming to Class Action Lawsuits
* Financial Industry Braces Impact of Fiduciary Rule



                            *********


A&B INSURANCE: Settles "Do Not Call" Class Action for $4.25MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Smith, writing for Insurance Business, reports that a Florida
insurance company will pay $4.25 million to settle allegations
that it made unauthorized sales calls to consumers who had placed
themselves on the federal Do Not Call registry.

A&B Insurance and Financial was accused, in a class-action
lawsuit, of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  The
company has agreed to establish a settlement fund to pay customers
who, from August of 2012 through April of this year, received a
call within a year of being placed on the Do Not Call list, or a
call from an automatic dialing system.

Lead consumers Jim Youngman and Robert Allen estimated that each
qualifying member of the class would get about $85 after
attorneys' fees and costs were deducted from the settlement.

Messrs. Youngman and Allen sued the insurer in August.
Mr. Youngman claimed that he began getting telemarketing calls in
January of last year -- including one call during which he was
asked for his Social Security number.  Mr. Youngman had never done
business with A&B Insurance, and he'd been registered on the
federal Do Not Call list for more than a decade.

Mr. Allen claimed that A&B Insurance contacted him in December of
2015, using an auto-dialer and a pre-recorded call.
A&B Insurance continues to deny that it violated the TCPA.  The
lead consumers agreed to settle.

"Plaintiffs believe that the claims asserted in the action have
merit," they wrote in court filings.  "Nonetheless, plaintiffs and
their counsel recognize and acknowledge the expense, time, and
risk associated with continued prosecution of the action against
A&B Insurance.  Therefore, plaintiffs and their counsel believe
that it is desirable that the released claims be fully and finally
compromised, settled, dismissed with prejudice." [GN]


ADT: Settles Class Actions Over Home Security Systems
-----------------------------------------------------
Eric Pritchard, writing for Security InfoWatch, reports that a
class action lawsuit filed against ADT where plaintiff, a
residential subscriber, alleged ADT's wireless home security
equipment that could be hacked by third parties.

As a result, the complaint claimed, signals from ADT's systems
(from panel to peripherals and back again) could be intercepted
and interfered with by persons who wanted to gain access to
premises.  This month's column provides an update -- and a
resolution from ADT's perspective.

Following the filing of the class action lawsuit, Baker vs. ADT,
additional groups of plaintiffs filed similar class actions
against ADT in other state and federal courts.  All said, ADT
faced consumer protection-type class action lawsuits in state or
federal courts in four different states -- California, Illinois,
Arizona and Florida.

Generally speaking, the various class plaintiffs claimed that
third parties -- burglars -- could disable or suppress ADT's
residential security systems or cause those systems to activate
where there actually was no security breach.  According to
plaintiffs, would-be burglars could do so in order to determine if
police were dispatched in response to an alarm and, waiting until
police were not dispatched, in order to strike.  At least one
plaintiff also alleged hackers could use a subscriber's security
cameras to spy on subscribers while in the premises.

The crux of the legal claim was that ADT told its customers the
systems were secure when they were not and that ADT knew the
systems were not secure.

Following months of expensive discovery, including 17 depositions
and ADT's production of 45,000 pages of documents, extensive
settlement negotiations and a two-day mediation conference, ADT
recently announced a $16 million settlement of the lawsuits,
translating into a nationwide class settlement, the payment of
legal fees for class counsel and monetary awards for subscribers
ranging from $15 to $45.  The amount that goes to subscribers
seems quite low given plaintiffs' allegations, but that is typical
of many consumer class actions.

The class consists of all residential subscribers between 2009 and
2016.  The settlement excludes a subscriber's claims for personal
injury or property damage (preserving subscriber claims for
catastrophic losses). [GN]


ADVOCATE HEALTH: Supreme Court Overturns Opinion in ERISA Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Morse, writing for Healthcare Finance, reports that the
Supreme Court on June 5 overturned an appeals court opinion and
ruled that religiously-affiliated hospitals do not have to comply
with federal laws protecting pension benefits for workers.

The Justices, except for Justice Neil Gorsuch who did not take
part in consideration of the case, said the health systems are
exempt, even though the pension plans were established by the
hospitals and are managed internally, according to Justice Elena
Kagan who wrote the opinion.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion though said she
was troubled by the outcome.

"The decision to exempt plans neither established nor maintained
by a church could have the kind of broad effect that is usually
thoroughly debated during the legislative process and thus
recorded in the legislative record," Judge Sotomayor said.  It is
not at all clear that Congress would take the same action today,
"with respect to some of the largest health-care providers in the
country.  Despite their relationship to churches, organizations
such as petitioners operate for-profit subsidiaries."

The 2016 case pitted Advocate Health Care Network, Saint Peter's
Healthcare System and Dignity Health against employees and former
employees for those systems who originally filed a class action
lawsuit.

The Employer Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 obligates
private employers to offer pension plans that adhere to rules to
ensure plan solvency and protects the employees.  Church plans
have long been exempt from these regulations.

The class action lawsuit said the hospitals did not meet the
church exemption status from ERISA because they were not
established by a church.

The question for the Justices was whether a church must have
originally established such a plan for it to qualify for an
exemption, Judge Kagan said.

The three relevant federal agencies responsible for administering
ERISA are the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Labor, and
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

ERISA was amended in 1980 after many religious groups protested
that the Internal Revenue Service was attempting to define what is
and what is not a church.

Congress then categorized that all groups associated with church
activities would receive comparable treatment, Judge Kagan said.

"Under the best reading of the statute, a plan maintained by a
principal-purpose organization therefore qualifies as a 'church
plan,' regardless of who established it," Judge Kagan said.

Tess Gee, a member in the ERISA and employee benefits litigation
practice at Miller & Chevalier said a Supreme Court decision would
not end the controversy.

Had the hospitals lost, they faced funding contributions of
possibly billions of dollars a year plus civil penalties for
failing to comply with ERISA's reporting and disclosure
requirements, Ms. Gee said prior to the SCOTUS ruling.

"Even if the Court decides in their favor, the hospitals will have
to establish that they are a PPO, as their counsel conceded at the
argument, to qualify for the church plan exemption," she said.

Stuart Lark -- slark@shermanhoward.com -- a partner at Sherman &
Howard who represents religious organizations and who submitted
amicus briefs in the Hobby Lobby case said, "The Court's decision
is a welcome development for all religious organizations seeking
to exercise and express their beliefs in context where regulatory
requirements may run contrary to such beliefs."

The Supreme Court case was Advocate Health Care Networks versus
Maria Stapleton, Saint Peter's Healthcare System versus Laurence
Kaplan and Dignity Health versus Starla Rollins. [GN]


AFFILIATE ASSET: "Gonzales" Suit Disputes Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fransoly Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Affiliate Asset Solutions, LLC,
and Pendrick Capital Partners, II, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-01843 (S.D. Ind., June 5, 2017), seeks statutory damages,
costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and such further relief under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt which
Gonzalez allegedly owed to Indiana Emergency Solutions via a
letter which failed to advise Ms. Gonzalez that disputes
requesting validation of the debt had to be in writing to be
effective. Disclosure of this information is mandated by the
FDCPA, says the complaint. [BN]

Affiliate Asset Solutions, LLC and Pendrick Capital Partners II
are debt collector handling consumers in virtually every state.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


ALON USA: Shareholder Files Class Action Over Delek Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer and Zachary Zagger, writing for Law360, report that an
Alon USA Energy shareholder launched a putative class action on
June 2 objecting to the company's $675 million proposed merger
with Delek US Holdings, saying the revenue projections in the
proxy statement are incomplete and misleading.

The proxy statement explaining the merger between the two oil
refining and convenience store corporations uses nonstandard
metrics in its projections of Alon's income without also providing
standard metrics for comparison and failed to provide the
information needed to assess the valuation analysis, shareholder
Stephen Page said in his suit against Alon and its directors.

"Absent disclosure of the foregoing material information prior to
the special shareholder meeting to vote on the proposed merger,
plaintiff and the other members of the class will be unable to
make a fully-informed decision regarding whether to vote in favor
of the proposed merger, and they are thus threatened with
irreparable harm, warranting the injunctive relief sought herein,"
he said.

Under a deal announced in January, Delek, which already owns a 47
percent share in Alon, would acquire the remaining 53 percent
share of Alon's common stock.  Alon stockholders would receive a
little over half a share of Delek stock per Alon share, for a
value of $12.13 per share, the suit claimed.

"The merger consideration and the process by which defendants
agreed to consummate the proposed merger are fundamentally unfair
to Alon's public shareholders in view of the company's recent
financial success and prospects for future growth," Mr. Page said.

Mr. Page claimed the preliminary proxy statement filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission violates the Exchange Act by
disclosing Alon's revenue projections using non-generally accepted
accounting practices metrics without providing the nearest
equivalent GAAP metric for comparison.  The statement itself
acknowledges non-GAAP measures cannot be considered in isolation
from GAAP measures, he said.

"Despite disclosing the misleading and materially incomplete
nature of non-GAAP financial measures, defendants fail to
reconcile the non-GAAP measures disclosed in the proxy statement,"
he said.

Mr. Page also claimed the discounted cash flow analysis provided
by J.P. Morgan Securities LLC provided insufficient information,
failing to define unlevered cash flows or reconcile them with a
comparable GAAP metric or provide the rationale for the growth
rate used.

"As a result of these omissions, shareholders are unable to assess
whether JPM's discounted cash flow analysis, generally considered
the most useful analysis, should be considered in deciding whether
or not to vote," he said.

Counsel for Mr. Page and representatives of Alon did not
immediately respond to requests for comment late on June 5

In 2015 Delek acquired its 47 percent stake of Alon USA Energy
Inc. in a $572.4 million deal combining the two companies'
refining and convenience store businesses.

Mr. Page is represented by Michael Van Gorder --
mvangorder@faruqilaw.com -- Nadeem Faruqi --
nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com -- and James M. Wilson --
jwilson@faruqilaw.com -- of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP.

Counsel information for Alon and the directors was not immediately
available on June 5.

The case is Stephen Page v. Alon USA Energy Inc. et al., case
number 1:17-cv-00671, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware. [GN]


AMES ADVANCED: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Perez" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Perez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. Ames Advanced Materials Corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-
04069 (D.N.J., June 6, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay chemical operators' overtime wages for work in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Headquartered in Glens Falls, New York, Ames Advanced Materials
Corporation, operates a silvery refinery. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
              JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


ANDREA'S FINE: Faces Class Action Over All Natural Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that
a St. Louis consumer has filed a class-action lawsuit against a
food manufacturer, citing alleged false product information for
its labeling all natural product in pumpkin pie products.

Michael Hensel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated in Missouri, filed a complaint on May 26 in the St. Louis
22nd Judicial Circuit Court against Andrea's Fine Foods Inc. and
Andrea's Gluten Free LLC, alleging that the defendants violated
the Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that in
February, the plaintiff purchased the defendant's All Natural
Pumpkin Pie at Dierbergs for $15.99.  The plaintiff claims the
product is labeled as all-natural but lists a synthetic ingredient
xanthin gum thickener.  As a result, the plaintiff claims that the
pumpkins pies contain harmful synthetic ingredients and are sold
at a higher price than they should be.

The plaintiffs hold Andrea's Fine Foods and Andrea's Gluten Free
responsible because the defendants allegedly used false, deceptive
and misleading marketing and advertising procedure by stating the
product is all natural but contains a synthetic ingredient to
entice consumers and sold the product to higher market value.

The plaintiffs request a trial by. They seek class certification
of this case, compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees, cost and for any further relief deemed
proper by the court.  They are represented by Matthew H. Armstrong
of Armstrong Law Firm LLC in St. Louis and Stuart L. Cochran of
Steckler Gresham Cochran PLLC in Dallas.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 17220-CC01421
[GN]


APPLE INC: Accused of Misleading Consumers About Free Repairs
-------------------------------------------------------------
phoneArena.com reported that people might recall the big
hullabaloo that occurred last year when Apple was the subject of a
class action suit in the U.S.  The legal action involved an error
53 message that popped up on certain Apple iPhone models that had
parts repaired by unauthorized personnel.  With the error message,
the affected phone was essentially bricked.  The suit was
eventually thrown out.  In Australia, regulators there are taking
Apple to court over essentially the same issue.  The Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is accusing Apple of
deliberately misleading customers. The trial begins in mid-
December.

The ACCC claims that Apple had been telling iPhone owners that
they were not able to get free repairs for their handsets if they
first had taken them to a third-party repair shop.  Apple repeated
that excuse to customers even when a repair made by the
unauthorized shop had nothing to do with the problem that Apple
wouldn't fix for free.  The ACCC, trying to catch Apple in the
middle of this illegal action, sent out undercover employees to
each of the 13 retailers in the country that sell Apple products.
This was done last June.  The undercovers told Apple staff that
the speakers on their iPhone stopped working after the screens
were repaired by an unauthorized third party.  In each of the 13
visits, Apple incorrectly told the undercover ACCC agent that it
could not repair the speaker for free under Australian consumer
law; the reason given by Apple in each case was that the screen
had been replaced by a repair shop other than Apple Australia or
an Apple-authorized service provider.

Consumer law in Australia states that customers have the right to
free repair or a replacement if a product is faulty or the quality
of the device is unacceptable.  Apple responded to the ACCC's
claims by saying that the undercover operation failed to expose
any breaches by Apple because consumer law does not exist in
"hypothetical circumstances". In other words, Apple claims that
because the undercovers did not have a real iPhone with a real
problem, they were not given the correct information.  The company
went on to say that real customers with real iPhone units would
have been informed of their rights under Australian consumer law.

The error 53 message affected one in 1,000 iPhone units sold by
Apple or its resellers between September 2014 and February 2016.
The message would show up whenever the iOS user would try to
update his device to iOS 8 or iOS 9. [GN]


BEST POULTRY: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Armando Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Best Poultry, Inc., J.G. Foods, Inc., D8 Poultry, LLC,
J.T. Foods Specialty, Inc., Specialty Poultry, Inc., D-8 Foods,
Inc., Tony Bryan, Jesus Gracia, and Does 1 through 100, Case No.
BC663930 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 7, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to overtime and minimum wages and failure
to provide a 30-minute uninterrupted meal period.

The Defendants own and operate a food manufacturing company that
specializes in a variety of case ready meats including chicken,
lamb, beef, and pork. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
      David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
      BIBYAN & BOKHOUR
      287 S. Robertson, Blvd., Suite 303
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 597-1441
      Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
      E-mail: mehrdad@tomorrowlaw.com
              david@tomorrowlaw.com


CANADA: Military Faces Intensive Archival Research on Purge
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hamilton Spectator's Jim Bronskill reports that the Defence
Department says a painstaking review of dusty personnel files in
the national archives may be needed to determine how many people
were forced out of the military for being gay or lesbian.

The Trudeau government has signalled its intention to apologize to
former military members, hoping to make amends to those who
endured federal discrimination over the decades due to their
sexual orientation or gender identity.

The policies had their roots in government efforts that began as
early as the 1940s to delve into the personal lives of employees
who were considered security risks.

However, inquiries to Defence -- including a formal request under
the Access to Information Act -- reveal the department has no firm
sense of the numbers affected between 1969, when homosexual acts
were decriminalized, and 1992, when military restrictions on gays
were lifted.

National Defence's human resources system does not include
information on a person's sexual orientation, nor does it record
the specific reason why a person was released from the Armed
Forces, spokesperson Suzanne Parker said in a written response to
questions from The Canadian Press.

Due to these limitations, it is "impossible to provide a tight
estimate" of the number of Forces members released between 1969
and 1992 due to their sexual orientation, Ms. Parker added.

A February 2016 briefing note to the senior associate deputy
minister of defence, released under the access law, recommended
that "further work be done" to determine the number of people
discriminated against and whether the federal government should
offer a redress package.

The government now faces a brewing class-action lawsuit in Federal
Court that would cover members of the military and other federal
agencies who were "investigated, discharged, terminated,
sanctioned or faced threat of sanction" by the government after
June 27, 1969 because of their sexual orientation, gender identity
or gender expression.

The lawyers chose the date of decriminalization as the starting
point because, since homosexual acts were illegal until that
point, breaking a law would have provided the government with
legal grounds for disciplining or firing employees.

The government is committed to conducting archival research to try
to determine the number of people affected by the policies, Ms.
Parker said.  "It may entail pulling and reviewing every single
personnel file from Library and Archives Canada to determine the
circumstances of each case."

Todd Ross, one of the lead plaintiffs in the court case, joined
the Forces in 1987 at age 18 and came under investigation by the
military police.  He eventually admitted being gay while attached
to a polygraph machine, an experience that was incredibly
traumatic, his lawyers plan to argue in court.

Mr. Ross accepted a discharge rather than spend the remainder of
his naval career performing "general duties," with no hope for
promotion or advancement, they say.

In 1976, the military issued Canadian Forces Administrative Order
19-20, "Homosexuality -- Sexual Abnormality Investigation, Medical
Examination and Disposal," which formally banned gays from
serving.

Openly homosexual recruits were prevented from enlisting, and
soldiers discovered to be gay were dismissed, says the heavily
censored February 2016 briefing note.  Any personnel who suspected
another member of being gay or lesbian was required to inform a
commanding officer.

The policy was loosened somewhat in 1988.  The order to inform
superiors was dropped and dismissal of homosexuals was no longer
automatic, the note points out.  However, those who did not quit
upon discovery were denied access to promotions, security
clearances and transfers.

The official military restrictions on gays were lifted in 1992
after it became clear they violated the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.

Defence records indicate that 43 Canadian Forces members were
released under CFAO 19-20 between January 1985 and January 1988,
says an internal draft note from March of last year, also
disclosed under the access law.  Between January 1988, when the
interim policy came into force, and October 1992 when the policies
on homosexuals were revoked, about 47 members were affected.
Statistics prior to 1985 were not available.

However, another version of the draft note excludes the figures
and says the number of people affected by CFAO 19-20 "is not
known."

"Regardless of the numbers originally mentioned in the draft
document, we are now actively trying to identify these
individuals," Ms. Parker said. [GN]


CANADA: Northstar Cleanup Continues Years Following Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anam Latif, writing for The Record.com, reports that cleanup
continues more than a decade after trichloroethylene contamination
was discovered at the former Northstar Aerospace plant in
Cambridge.

Low levels of the chemical, a colourless liquid used to degrease
metal parts, are still present in the groundwater at the Bishop
Street site.

Now the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change says it is
exploring some new, long-term remedial options for the
neighbourhood where at one point 500 homes were reported to have
been affected.

"It's the start of a long process," Rob Kell, a hydrogeologist
with Dillon Consulting, the new firm hired by the ministry, said
at a public meeting.

That's because it is not known how long cleanup efforts will
actually take.

The ministry says there aren't any available measures to
effectively reduce trichloroethylene (TCE) in the groundwater to
the point where it will stop vaporizing into the air inside
people's homes.

Remediation work fell to the ministry after Northstar went
bankrupt in 2012.  It got a $4.75-million settlement from
Northstar and is using the funds to operate groundwater pumps at
the former plant's site and indoor air-monitoring systems inside
more than 150 homes.

Each year the groundwater, surface water and indoor air quality in
the area is also tested.

Thirteen years later the ministry wants to look at some long-term
approaches to remedy the groundwater contamination.

Two recommended options include an injection of bacteria and metal
into the soil to break down TCE at the site.  This would need to
be repeated every three years for at least a decade, according to
the consultant's report.

The other option is to install an underground barrier filled with
reactive material that will act as a filter to neutralize
groundwater as it flows through it.  This would need to be
reinstalled every 15 years.

"It's a two-pronged approach," Mr. Kell said.

"It's the combination of these two that we think is very
effective."

Residents first learned of TCE contamination in 2005.  Northstar,
and a neighbouring Bishop Street company also involved in the
contamination, GE, started a $20-million cleanup but Northstar
shut down in 2009.

That year it was reported that a $5-million settlement was reached
with area residents who launched a class-action lawsuit.

The efforts may seem drawn out but the Region of Waterloo Public
Health says remediation efforts inside homes in the area have been
successful.

"We've seen good results and we want that to continue," said Chris
Komorowski, manager of health protection and investigation at
public health.

He said the vast majority of homes now have less than 5 micrograms
of TCE per cubic meters of air.

There are about 11 homes in the area that are above that level and
those continue to be prioritized, Mr. Komorowski said.

Public health's target has been to reach 0.5 micrograms per cubic
meters of air.

"These are very low levels and we are not expecting to see health
effects."

The main risk with high levels of TCE exposure is cancer.  The
risks associated with low levels of TCE exposure at 5 micrograms
per cubic metre of air is one in 100,000 over a 70-year period,
according to public health.

For levels around 0.5 micrograms, the ideal target for Bishop
Street homes, the risk is one in one million.

The ministry says it anticipates the chosen long-term remedy will
be put in place by the end of 2022.  Until then it will continue
its current remedial work. [GN]


CANADA: Certification Hearings Set in CAF Sexual Assault Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP on June 5 disclosed that the path has now been
cleared for certification hearings to proceed in two class actions
alleging systemic sexual assault and harassment on behalf of
members of the Canadian Armed Forces.  The Honourable Mr. Justice
Fothergill of the Federal Court on May 30, 2017 ordered the
motions for certification to proceed in Toronto from July 9 to 13,
2018.  The defendant in the class actions is The Attorney General
of Canada.

On March 27, 2015, former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Marie
Deschamps released a report entitled "External Review into Sexual
Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces".
Following months of consultations, interviews and a review of
Canadian Armed Forces policies, procedures and programs in
relation to sexual harassment and sexual assault, Justice
Deschamps' report concluded that the Canadian Armed Forces
maintained a hostile, sexualized workplace, and there was a
"perception in the lower ranks that those in the chain of command
either condone inappropriate sexual conduct, or are willing to
turn a blind-eye to such incidents."

Sherry Heyder, Amy Graham and Nadine Schultz-Nielsen are the
plaintiffs in the Federal Court class action on behalf of women.
They experienced sexual assault, harassment and gender-based
discrimination.  Larry Beattie is the plaintiff in the Federal
Court class action on behalf of men.  He, too, experienced sexual
harassment and assault while he was a member of the Canadian Armed
Forces.  All individuals who have been harmed share a similar
story.  The Statements of Claim allege that sexual assault and
harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces are endemic and the
Canadian Armed Forces has created and maintained a culture where
leadership looks the other way.  The actions are supported by It's
Just 700, a Canada-wide online resource and peer support group for
survivors of Military Sexual Trauma.

"This is the first step in getting justice and recognition for
what I and so many others have had to endure," said plaintiff
Amy Graham.

"Now that Justice Fothergill has scheduled the motions for
certification, we have a clear path to having the victims' voices
heard," said Jonathan Ptak -- jptak@kmlaw.ca -- counsel at Koskie
Minsky LLP, one of the law firms representing the class members.
"Now the ball is in Canada's court to answer our allegations."

If you are a current or former member of the Canadian Armed Forces
who has experienced sexual harassment or assault, please call
1(888) 502-7455, visit www.kmlaw.ca/militaryassaultclassaction or
www.ravenlaw.com/armed-forces-class-action, or email
militaryassaultclassaction@kmlaw.ca or
armedforcesclassaction@ravenlaw.com.

Koskie Minsky LLP, based in Toronto, is one of Canada's foremost
class action, pension, trade union, and litigation firms.  Its
class actions group has been a leader in class actions since 1992
and has prosecuted many of the leading cases in the area.  Koskie
Minsky LLP was counsel to the survivors of former residents of
Huronia Regional Centre and 14 other residential facilities for
people with disabilities against the Province of Ontario, wherein
the Province agreed to pay survivors over $103.6 million and to
provide an apology to former residents for the harm they
sustained. Koskie Minsky LLP was also counsel in Cloud v. Canada,
the first Indian residential schools class action certified in
Canada, which resulted in a $4 billion pan-Canadian settlement.

Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP/s.r.l. --
http://www.kmlaw.ca-- is an Ottawa-based law firm specializing in
labour/employment, human rights, and public law, with involvement
in class action litigation.  RavenLaw has extensive experience in
addressing systemic gender-based discrimination.  The firm was
counsel in the historic $3.2 billion pay equity win for federal
public service employees, the $150 million pay equity award
against Canada Post at the Supreme Court of Canada, and numerous
other pay equity cases, including most recently the $45 million
pay equity settlement at Statistical Survey Operations.  RavenLaw
has been appointed as amicus curiae by the Supreme Court of Canada
and has argued leading cases in the area of human rights and
constitutional law. [GN]


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Denies Involvement in Lac-Megantic Incident
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Adriano, writing for Insurance Business, reports that in
response to a class-action lawsuit, Canadian Pacific Railway filed
its defense denying that it had any involvement in the oil train
explosion in Lac-Megantic in 2013 that took the lives of 47
individuals.

The railway company is facing a number of legal battles in
relation to the incident, including a $409-million damages lawsuit
by the city of Quebec and 10 insurance claims.

In July 2013, an unattended Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway
(MM&A) train of 72 tank cars carrying 7.7 million litres of oil
derailed and detonated.  The blast had destroyed most of the
town's center, forcing nearly 2,000 people from the area.

Search and compare insurance product listings for Transportation
from specialty market providers here

The class-action lawsuit filed against the railway company also
named MM&A and its engineer, Thomas Harding, reported The Globe
and Mail.  About 5,000 people and companies were behind the
lawsuit, representing those who have lost loved ones, properties,
and/or businesses during the accident.

According to CP, its responsibility for the train ended the moment
it had handed over the cargo to MM&A from New Town, North Dakota
to Montreal.  MM&A was to carry it to the Irving Oil refinery in
Saint John.

"[T]here is a transfer of liability when traffic is interchanged
from a carrier to a connecting carrier," the railway company said
in the court document, citing Association of American Railroads
legislation.  "No CP locomotive or tank cars, no CP crew and no CP
tracks were involved in the derailment."

One of the plaintiffs' lawyers argued that CP's liability comes
from its partnership with shipper World Fuel Services and its
entities in the North Dakota rail hub.

The lawsuit purports that the oil shipment was mislabelled to
conceal its volatility.  In turn, the mislabelling allowed the
railway company to use older, cheaper tank cars over the "poorly
maintained and low-cost" MM&A route east of Montreal instead of a
better-maintained line owned by Canadian National Railway.

The Globe and Mail reported that MM&A is currently in bankruptcy
protection, and its assets have been sold. [GN]


CAPITOL MARKETING: "Cote" Action Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angela Cote, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Capitol Marketing Concepts, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 8:17-cv-01321 (M.D. Fla., June 5, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation owed, reinstatement of full fringe benefits, front
and back pay, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs and awarding of all such other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act as well as statutory damages resulting from unlawful
retaliation, emotional distress and anguish.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from November 20, 2002 until
March 29, 2017 in the Sales department. Plaintiff was regularly
required to work in excess of forty hours a workweek but was not
paid overtime compensation. Defendant allegedly failed to keep
accurate time records. During her employment, Plaintiff complained
to management, and was terminated in retaliation for her
complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
      Jason M. Melton, Esq.
      WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
      One Progress Plaza
      200 Central Avenue, #400
      St. Petersburg, FL 33701
      Telephone: (727) 822-1111
      Facsimile: (727) 898-2001
      Email: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
             lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
             kmoran@theFLlawfirm.com


CATHAY PACIFIC: "Goldthorpe" Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Goldthorpe, James Donovan, Chris Bennett, James Isherwood and
David Vincent, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Cathay Pacific Airways Limited and USA
Basing Limited, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-03233 (N.D. Cal.,
June 5, 2016), seeks  unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages,
interest thereon, waiting time penalties, and other penalties,
injunctive relief, declaratory relief and reasonable attorney fees
and costs under the California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code.

Plaintiffs worked as pilots for Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, a
corporation organized under the laws of Hong Kong, with its
operational headquarters located in Hong Kong and its California
corporate headquarters located San Francisco, California.

Defendants operate trans-Pacific passenger flights originating
from Los Angeles International Airport and San Francisco
International Airport in San Francisco to Hong Kong.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Mastagni, Esq.
      Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
      Ace T. Tate, Esq.
      MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      1912 "I" Street
      Sacramento, CA 95811
      Telephone: (916) 446-4692
      Facsimile: (916) 447-4614

             - and -

      Nathan Alder, Esq.
      Sarah E. Spencer, Esq.
      Bryson Brown, Esq.
      CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN
      257 East 200 South, Suite 1100
      Salt Lake City, UT 84111
      Telephone: (801) 323-5000
      Facsimile: (801) 355-3472


CONNECTICUT: AG Balks at Monitor's Requests in DCF Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Mackenzie Rigg, writing for Newstimes, reports that in the 26
years since federal authorities began monitoring Connecticut's
child welfare system, state officials have made progress in
overcoming manhy of its deficiencies.  But now the court-appointed
monitor argues that the progress has slowed so much that he should
be given significant influence over the agency's staffing,
technology and other resources.

"The current caseloads overwhelm an individual social worker and
do not allow them to meet the fundamental requirements of their
job," Raymond Mancuso, the federal monitor, wrote recently in
court documents.

Mr. Mancuso, himself a former employee of the state Department of
Children and Families, was appointed as court monitor after the
1991 settlement of the landmark "Juan F." class action lawsuit,
which alleged chronic mismanagement of the agency.  As part of the
settlement, DCF agreed to a plan, revised several times over the
years, to exit federal oversight by fully complying with 22
performance measures.

But Mr. Mancuso's latest request drew a fiery response from
Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen, who called
Mr. Mancuso's recommendations "a breathtaking intrusion into the
prerogatives of the state's legislative and executive branches and
is unsupported in law."

"At a time when the court has commended the Department of Children
and Families, and when the state faces historic budget challenges,
the court monitor has asked that he be given the authority to
determine the precise resources needed to run DCF and to
micromanage all aspects of fiscal management and policy for the
agency -- likely leading to tens of millions more in court-
mandated spending," Mr. Jepsen said.

DCF's budget is about $800 million this year.

Steven Frederick, a Stamford attorney who is co-counsel for the
plaintiff class, said the additional steps outlined in
Mr. Mancuso's filing were "appropriate" under the circumstances.

"Resources are becoming more scarce, so I think DCF is slipping,"
Mr. Frederick said.  "They did have some improvements, some
dramatic improvements, but they are slipping now."

The monitor is not seeking unilateral authority over the agency,
Mr. Frederick added, because the court would have to approve any
recommendations or remedies proposed.

The next hearing in the long-running case is scheduled for June 29
in U.S. District Court in Hartford.

According to Mr. Mancuso's latest status report, filed in
February, the state was complying with 16 of the 22 measures from
April 1 to Sept. 30, 2016.

Among the measures deemed non-compliant is one requiring that DCF
have treatment plans meeting certain standards in 90 percent of
its cases.

In Region V, which includes Danbury, the agency met those
standards 63.6 percent of the time from July through September,
compared to 52.7 percent statewide.  But in Region I, which serves
Bridgeport, Stamford, Norwalk and Greenwich, treatment plans met
the required standards just 14.3 percent of the time.
The exit plan also requires that at least 80 percent of all
families and children receive medical, dental, mental health and
other services as specified in their treatment plans.  But during
that same period last year, Region I met these needs just 42.9
percent of the time, Region V, 54.6 percent and the state as a
whole 52.7 percent.

The two sides had agreed to update the exit plan last year, about
10 years after its last major revision, an effort the plaintiffs
hoped would remedy key deficiencies.

"We thought that the revised exit plan filed in September 2016
would have solved a lot of these issues," Mr. Frederick said.  "It
had resource provisions and a minimum budget . . . and it also had
provisions requiring the court monitor to file reports on
shortages."

But the General Assembly rejected that plan in February.
Immediately afterward, the plaintiffs notified the federal court
that the state was not complying with the settlement plan because
of shortages at DCF, including a lack of caseworkers and outside
mental health services.

"We were very concerned that the bottom would fall out,"
Mr. Frederick said.

Mr. Mancuso followed up with his request for greater influence
over agency resources.

"While progress has been made and sustained on some individual
Outcome Measures, others have not improved and the harm caused to
the Juan F. Class is serious," Mancuso wrote in his May 1 filing.
Mr. Jepsen argued that the state has made a good-faith effort to
live up to its commitments, but that it rejects Mr. Mancuso's
latest proposal as an "intrusion on its sovereignty."

"DCF has made substantial and sustained progress toward meeting
agreed-to goals and takes its responsibilities seriously,
recognizing that there is more work to be done," he said.

"Indeed, the governor has identified a level of resources that he
believes is adequate for DCF to meet its responsibilities.

"We trust that he and the legislature are best equipped to make
that determination, not an unelected court monitor." [GN]


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Aug. 7 Final Hearing on Stamps Bros. Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma will hold a hearing on August 7, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. CDT
to consider whether the proposed Settlement in the case, Stamps
Brothers Oil & Gas, LLC, vs. Continental Resources, Inc., Case No.
CIV-14-0182-HE (W.D. Okla.), is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The Court will also consider Class Counsel's and Plaintiff's
motion for fees and expenses.

The settlement received preliminary approval on April 6, 2017.

Class Members will be paid on a "claims made" basis.

The deadline for submitting Claim Forms is 90 days from the date
that the final order approving the proposed settlement becomes
final and unappealable. The actual date of this deadline will be
determined at a later date based on future events in the
proceedings. Class Members are encouraged to submit their Claim
Forms as soon as possible.  Otherwise, please check the settlement
website http://www.stampsbrotherssettlement.com/at least weekly
beginning September, 2017.

SETTLEMENT CLASS

All non-excluded persons or entities who are or were royalty
and/or overriding royalty interest owners, from and after January
27, 2009, in oil and gas wells located in Oklahoma and operated by
Continental, and from which Continental sold oil and gas
production at any time from January 27, 2009, through June 30,
2015.

This Settlement Class claims are limited solely to the recovery of
interest as provided by the Oklahoma Production Revenue Standards
Act for Continental's alleged failure to make the first payment of
royalties within six months of the date of first sale of
production.

Persons and/or entities from the Settlement Class are agencies,
departments and instrumentalities of the State of Oklahoma and/or
the Unites States of America, publicly traded oil and gas
exploration and production companies and their affiliates and
subsidiaries, and persons or entities that Plaintiff's counsel is,
or may be prohibited from representing under Rule 1.7 of the
Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct.

IMPORTANT DATES

Class Period: January 27, 2009 through June 30, 2015

Opt Out Deadline: July 7, 2017

Objection Deadline: July 7, 2017

Fairness Hearing: August 7, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.

CONTACT

Stamps Brothers Settlement
Attn: Cynthia Heymans, Settlement Administrator
5030 N May Ave, PMB 348
Oklahoma City, OK 73112
Fax: (405) 270-7298

Class Members - Plaintiff Counsel:
Pate & Wolfe
50 Penn Place
1900 Northwest Expy #1300
Oklahoma City, OK 73118

Two law firms represent the Class: Pate & Wolfe, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, and Taylor, Foster, Mallett, Downs, Ramsey & Russell,
Claremore, Oklahoma.


COSMETIC INSTITUTE: Class Action Mulled Over Patient Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Houghton, writing for The Daily Telegraph, reports that a
shocking data breach by a Sydney cosmetic surgery has been
described as "one of the worst" in Australia's history.

Naked photos and medical records of hundreds of women were
published online by Bondi clinic The Cosmetic Institute. The leak
was not contained until The Saturday Telegraph raised concerns
with management on June 2.

Centennial Lawyers principal solicitor George Newhouse said the
data, which dates back to 2014, could have been viewed by
"potentially millions of people" before the website was shut down.
Mr. Newhouse is working with victims of the breach to see if there
is a case for a class action.

Before-and-after photos of clients who visited The Cosmetic
Institute in Bondi for surgery were revealed through an online
error.

"I've been involved in a number of data breaches but, according to
reports, this is by far the worst because of the sensitive and
intimate nature of the information being released," he said.

"This data breach contains highly sensitive information and . . .
naked photos.  I've never seen anything like it."

Wollongong woman Jess Clough has been in contact with Mr Newhouse
and June 3 said she would consider "all legal options".

The public school teacher, who works with children with
disabilities, had a standard breast augmentation this year to
boost her confidence.

She was horrified to learn a pre-surgical form she submitted
online had been published in the public index of the website
without her consent.

Ms Clough also submitted before-and-after photos of her bare
breasts which she fears were also stored online.

Several other women have said they are interested in seeking
compensation.

The privacy commission urged all women to come forward if they
suspect their information was leaked.

Cosmetic Institute general manager Andrew Gill declined to comment
on June 3 but the business released a statement saying it was
"deeply concerned to learn of the hacking of confidential data and
we are very apologetic to those who have been affected".

"On notification the vulnerability was fixed immediately and we
now have an independent security expert auditing the process," it
said.  It also stressed its "patient database including pre and
post-op photos -- was not accessed". [GN]


DEL TACO: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nelly Reyes Morales, as an individual, and on behalf of all
employees similarly situated v. Del Taco LLC and Does 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2017-00924667-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super.
Ct., June 7, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Del Taco LLC owns and operates a fast food company in California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Treana L. Allen, Esq.
      Alina B. Mazeika, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
      Long Beach, CA 9080244
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
              tallen@mahoney-law.net
              amazeika@mahoney-law.net


DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Suit Says Schultz Office Used Voice Changer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Chaitin, writing for the Washington Examiner, reports that
an ongoing class-action lawsuit against the Democratic National
Committee related to last year's presidential election just took a
turn for the weird and now involves the Capitol Police.

Since the summer of last year, a group of people who supported the
campaign for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., have been waging a legal
battle against the DNC for alleged fraud, claiming the DNC and
then-chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz worked to undermine Sanders in
favor of Hillary Clinton.

A court document filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by their attorneys said that they
received a call for information about the case from the office of
Wasserman Schultz, a Democratic congresswoman from Florida, and
claimed that it sounded like the caller used a voice changer.

According to attorney Elizabeth Lee Beck: "At 4:54 p.m. today
[June 1], an individual called our law office from '305-936-
5724.'" That number is the contact phone number for Wasserman
Schultz's Aventura office in Florida.

"My secretary stated that it sounded like the caller was using a
voice changer, because the voice sounded robotic and genderless --
along the lines of the voice changers used when television show
interviews are kept anonymous," Beck continued. "The caller
concluded with 'Okey dokey,' after my secretary gave the caller
public information about the case. After the call ended, a simple
Google search of the phone number '305-936-5724' shows that it is
the phone number for Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz'
Aventura office ... What just occurred is highly irregular and we
will be filing the instant e-mail with the court forthwith."

Beck also included a screen shot of the caller ID information.

Lawyers representing the defendants claim that no one in Wasserman
Schultz's office, including the congresswoman herself, has any
knowledge of the call. They also contend that there is no one
working in Wasserman Schultz's Aventura office currently "due to
ongoing repairs."

Because the incident is related to congressional phone lines it
was reported to Capitol Police, the document added. [GN]


DS HEALTHCARE: Settles Securities Class Action in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
DS Healthcare Group (DSKX) on June 5 disclosed that it has reached
an agreement, effective June 2, 2017, to settle the securities
class action and the plaintiffs' derivative lawsuits, pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida and in the Circuit Court in and for Broward County.  Both
are subject to court approval.  Preliminary approval has been
granted in the class action.  Daniel Khesin, the former Chief
Executive Officer and Director of the Company, and the other
Directors of the Company at the time of the alleged conduct are
also parties to the settlement agreement.  The lawsuits allege,
among other things, improper revenue recognition.  DS Healthcare
denies the allegations in the lawsuit but is entering into this
settlement to eliminate the uncertainties, burden, and expense of
further litigation.  The settlement will be funded by insurance.
The Company is confident this is a major step towards allowing it
to focus on its core business of developing and delivering its
products to the marketplace.

                    About DS Healthcare Group

DS Healthcare Group Inc. -- http://www.dslaboratories.com--
is a developer of biotechnology for topical therapies. It markets
through online channels, specialty retailers, distributors, and
pharmacies. Its research has led to a highly innovative portfolio
of personal care products and additional innovations in
pharmaceutical projects. [GN]


EPIC LANDSCAPE: Denied Overtime Pay, "Albelo" Suit Asserts
----------------------------------------------------------
Radames Molina Albelo on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Epic Landscape Productions,
L.C., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00454 (W.D. Mo., June 5, 2017)
seeks unpaid straight time, overtime compensation, related
penalties and damages, compensation for wages wrongfully withheld
or deducted liquidated and/or other damages, attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a landscaping company where Albelo worked as a manual
laborer for their locations in Kansas and Missouri.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Hodgson, Esq.
      THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
      6 NW Main St.
      Lee's Summit, MO 64063
      Tel: (913) 890-3529
      Email: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Paul Mose, Esq.
      MOSE LAW LLC
      3111 Strong Avenue
      Kansas City, KS 66106
      Tel: (913) 432-4484
      Fax: (913) 432-4464
      Email: Pablo@moselaw.com


ERIC CONN: Court Reviews Benefits of Former Clients
---------------------------------------------------
Adam Beam, writing for Associated Press, reports that at the time
he was arrested for defrauding taxpayers of $600 million,
disability attorney Eric Conn spoke multiple languages, had
crossed the border 140 times in the past decade and had told at
least six people he would flee the country instead of going to
jail.

Still, a federal judge released Mr. Conn on $1.25 million bail
last year, citing his status as an "honorably discharged veteran
with no known criminal record."  June 3, one month before a judge
was supposed to sentence him to prison, Mr. Conn removed his
electronic monitoring device and disappeared.

His escape was met with shock by some of his former clients who
lost their primary source of income because of his scheme.  Not
surprise that he ran, but shock at the system that let him leave.

Donna Dye was on her porch when she heard.  She had long ago
removed the porch light, one of the many cost-saving measures she
said she was forced to endure since her ex-coal miner husband lost
his disability benefits.  She had sold several pieces of her
home's furniture and rigged a system of hoses to collect water
from a mountain spring to save on utilities.

When the news came across the radio, she laughed.

"Everybody knew he would run.  If it would have been anybody else,
he wouldn't have been home arrest," she said.  "I hope that the
FBI actually goes to the end of the Earth to find this man and
bring him back to justice."

Mr. Conn started his law practice in a trailer in the rural
eastern Kentucky mountains and soon built it into one of the most
lucrative disability practices in the country.  He lived in a
palatial house and billed himself as "Mr. Social Security" in
outlandish TV commercials.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky has
issued a warrant for Mr. Conn's arrest. David Habich, the chief
council for the FBI's Louisville office, said that he had no new
information to share on Conn's whereabouts.

Scott White, Mr. Conn's attorney, sent a text message to an
Associated Press reporter to say he has not heard from Conn and
does not know where he is.

"Im out of the country - NOT with Eric!" the text message read.
"So far as I know he is still out."

In April of last year, shortly after Mr. Conn was arrested, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Robert E. Wier held a hearing to decide whether
Conn should be released from jail pending his trial.  An FBI agent
testified that, as authorities began closing in on
Mr. Conn, he told two of his employees he would flee to Cuba to
avoid extradition.  Another employee said he would run to Ecuador.
Others said he had them shred 26,000 pounds of documents and
transfer money to overseas bank accounts.

One employee said Conn told him: "I'll be dead before the
government charges me."

But Judge Wier said the government's evidence was based on
hearsay.  An FBI agent who testified noted all of Mr. Conn's
statements were made in 2013, three years before his arrest.

"The factors are significantly pro-release," Judge Wier wrote.
"Conn shows mental and physical stability, has a long period of
stable employment, and has life-long ties in Pike County, to
include his aging mother and young daughter and his livelihood."

A person who answered the phone at Judge Wier's office on June 5
said he had no comment.

Judge Wier did order Conn to surrender his passport and said he
could not leave the district without court approval. It's unclear
if Conn traveled with permission in the year since his release.

The federal government has been reviewing the benefits of 1,500 of
Conn's former clients.  Ned Pillersdorf, who represents those
clients in a class-action lawsuit against Conn, said about 800 of
them have lost their benefits.

Ms. Dye said her husband recently won his appeal and hopes
to begin receiving his benefits again soon.

"It has turned our lives totally and completely upside down," she
said.  "I've nearly had nervous breakdowns over worrying with bill
collectors calling, banks calling. . . . I've just given up. I'm
like, 'Oh well, just take it.  You take it and I'll be out on the
street.'

"Eventually, somehow, I'll come back." [GN]


ERIC CONN: Disappears Amidst Fraud Class Action, FBI Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Beam, writing for Island Packet, reports that an eastern
Kentucky disability lawyer scheduled to be sentenced next month
for defrauding the government of nearly $600 million has
disappeared, the FBI said.

Eric Conn pleaded guilty in March to stealing from the federal
government and bribing a judge. He was scheduled to be sentenced
next month and had been ordered to pay the government tens of
millions of dollars.

But June 3, the FBI said Conn removed his electronic monitoring
device, violating the conditions of his bond and prompting the
U.S. District Court to issue a warrant for his arrest. David
Habich, general counsel for the FBI's Louisville office, said
Conn's "whereabouts are currently unknown."

A call to Conn's lawyer was not returned.

Conn started his law practice in a trailer in 1993 and built it
into one of the most lucrative disability law firms in the
country. He created a persona for himself as "Mr. Social
Security," fueled by outlandish TV commercials and small-scale
replicas of the Statute of Liberty and the Lincoln Memorial at his
office in rural eastern Kentucky.

But Conn's empire crumbled when federal investigators uncovered he
had been bribing a doctor and a judge to approve disability claims
based on fake medical evidence. As part of his plea deal in March,
he agreed to pay the federal government $5.7 million and to
reimburse Social Security $46 million. A federal judge ordered
Conn to pay $12 million in damages and $19 million in penalties to
the government and two former Social Security employees who tried
to expose the scheme. And Conn is also facing a liability judgment
from a class action lawsuit brought by his former clients, with a
hearing scheduled for later this month to determine the damages.

"It was totally predictable that he would flee," said attorney Ned
Pillersdorf, who represents Conn's former clients and said Conn's
frequent world traveling was brought up in court to assess whether
he was a flight risk. "I was always shocked that, when he was
arrested, he was actually allowed out on bond. And there has been
a betting pool going on in Prestonsburg on not if he would flee,
but when."

The scandal prompted the federal government to review the
eligibility of about 1,500 people receiving benefits. Pillersdorf
said about 800 of those people lost their benefits.

"The anger toward him is overwhelming," Pillersdorf said. [GN]


ETHICON: Nova Scotia Man Blames Physiomesh for Debilitating Pain
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Julian, writing for CBC News, reports that a Nova Scotia man
believes he's facing debilitating pain because of a hernia repair
mesh that's under a recall by Health Canada.

Eric Hagen, 86, said the pain at his surgery site became
unbearable when it flared up again.

"I can't describe it today in words how much it hurt.  I didn't
think anything could hurt that much," he said.

There are many brands of surgical meshes that can be implanted
along or inside the abdominal wall to help strengthen the repair,
and prevent a recurrence, which is a common issue with hernia
repairs.

Mr. Hagen said he received the Ethicon Physiomesh as part of a
hernia repair at the Dartmouth General Hospital in 2012.  The
material was inserted into his abdomen as part of the surgery.

"The surgeon, she told me that she used the mesh," Mr. Hagen said,
because at the time, "this is a new thing."

Buckled under the pain

His repair gave him no trouble until one morning this March while
he was chatting with a neighbour in his driveway.

"All at once it just hit me, and I was to my knees," he said.

Physiomesh was introduced in 2010 by Ethicon, a manufacturer of
surgical supplies owned by Johnson & Johnson.

The coated polypropylene mesh was designed to be inserted
laparoscopically into the abdomen, and reinforce the site of a
hernia repair.

The company voluntarily withdrew Physiomesh from the market in May
2016.

It wasn't the first time the company chose to pull its surgical
mesh products.  In 2012, it recalled surgical mesh implants used
to treat women's pelvic organ problems following injury claims and
lawsuits.

Product recalled in Canada

In an email statement to CBC News, the company said it withdrew
Physiomesh after it discovered the product was responsible for
more failures and repair operations than other meshes on the
market.

Health Canada recalled the product later that month.

Siskinds, a law firm from London, Ont., is applying to certify a
class action lawsuit on behalf of Canadian patients who have had
problems with Physiomesh.

Similar lawsuits are already underway in the United States.

"What happens is, we allege, is that it triggers major
complications," said Jane McCartney -- jill.mccartney@siskinds.com
-- a lawyer with Siskinds.  "It moves, and then people have mesh
that's either pulled apart or moved, and isn't doing the job it
was put in to do."

Range of complications possible

McCartney said these issues can lead to a range of complications
from minor discomfort to debilitating pain and a recurrence of the
hernia.

The Nova Scotia Health Authority can't say how many Nova Scotians
received the mesh, as those records are kept by hospitals and
surgeons.

Health Canada does not track how many times a medical product is
used in Canada. McCartney said she believes about 30,000 Canadians
received Physiomesh in Canada, an estimate she makes based on U.S.
data.

She said the same data indicate the mesh fails in roughly 10 per
cent of cases.

'Don't panic' surgeon says

A surgeon in Dartmouth said he regularly used Ethicon Physiomesh
to repair abdominal hernias.

"In truth I liked it. It was easy to use. It was relatively easy
to put in.  The results were pretty good, the patient legitimately
was comfortable," said Dr. Alex Mitchell, head of surgery at the
Dartmouth General Hospital.

Dr. Mitchell said hernia patients have no cause to be alarmed.

"If you've had a hernia repair with mesh and you are well, don't
panic," he said.

Dr. Mitchell said it's only worth consulting your family doctor if
you're having ongoing pain or symptoms at the site of the hernia
repair.

'They should be alerted'

Meanwhile, Mr. Hagen said until recently he's taken pride in
leading an active and independent life.

He painted his house last summer, changes the oil on his pickup
truck and helps his neighbours get their lawn mowers started.  But
he believes it's all in jeopardy.

"I'm worried I'm not going to be able to look after myself.  Right
now, I can't look after myself," he said.

Mr. Hagen said at this point he has no interest in joining a
potential lawsuit.  He only wants to raise awareness.

1-8 months to see a surgeon

He believes patients who received a recalled mesh should be
informed by the medical system.

"They should be alerted, so they're forewarned," he said.

Mr. Hagen said he's been referred to a surgeon for a hernia
assessment, but the office won't begin scheduling new appointments
until August.

According to Nova Scotia's health care wait times website, it
takes between one and eight months to see a surgeon about a
hernia.  After that, it takes another one to eight months to
schedule a hernia surgery. [GN]


FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Jeep Wrangler Engine Damage
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Wood, writing for Car Complaints, reports that a Jeep
Wrangler casting sand lawsuit alleges sludge blocks radiators,
engines and oil coolers due to excess sand left from the casting
of the engines during manufacturing.

The class-action lawsuit says 2012-2017 Jeep Wranglers have excess
sand left in the cylinder heads that seeps out gradually as the
vehicles are driven.

The plaintiffs say all the sand must be removed or destroyed
during production of the cylinder head or other component engine
parts will suffer serious problems. Specifically, any residual
sand that remains from the sand-casting process in the engine can
also circulate through the vehicle's cooling system and settle in
the heater core, radiator, and oil cooling systems.

The sand forms a sludge-like build-up in the bottom of the
radiator reservoir that continues to accumulate until heating and
cooling systems malfunction and fail.

In July 2013, Donna and William Mooradian leased a new 2013 Jeep
Wrangler Unlimited that came with Chrysler's New Vehicle Limited
Warranty and Powertrain Limited Warranty. In October 2016, the
heater started blowing cool air from the vents, including while
trying to use the defroster to melt ice on the windshield.

In January 2017 and with the odometer at 33,000 miles, and after
repeatedly experiencing the same problems for several months, the
plaintiffs took the Jeep for repairs and were told a sludge-like
residue was found in the radiator and oil cooler. The sludge had
caused the problems by restricting air flow through the cooling
system.

The class-action lawsuit alleges the sludge-like residue had been
building up in the radiator for a number of years from residual
sand from the engine casting process.

The plaintiffs were informed the radiator, oil cooler and heater
core would need to be replaced, something that would cost $2,600
to fix because the warranty had expired. After speaking with the
service manager, the price was dropped to $300, with the dealer
eating the rest of the cost.

The plaintiffs say Chrysler never told them about the sludge
problem because the automaker knew it would never sell the Jeep.
With the sand and sludge problem, the lawsuit says the value of
the Jeep Wranglers has decreased in every way, including trade-in
and resale values.

Jeep owners ask the automaker to repair the sludge problems within
the warranty period but Chrysler refuses to cover the costs,
telling the plaintiffs the problems aren't included in the
warranty, or the warranty has expired.

The plaintiffs say the automaker knew or should have known about
the sand and sludge in 2011, especially due to the complaints
lodged by Wrangler owners starting in 2012. Once owners brought
the Jeeps to dealerships, those owners were never told the real
cause of the problems and then were told warranties wouldn't cover
the cost of repairs.

According to the lawsuit, there were thousands of Jeeps
manufactured using the sand-casting method since 2012, and
numerous complaints across the Internet attest to the problems
caused by the sand.

"I bought my 2012 Jeep Wrangler used in February 2015 with
approximately 11,110 miles. By this winter (2016) I had put
approximately 26,000 miles on the vehicle. When I went to turn on
the heat the driver's side was blowing cold air and the
passenger's side hot. I took it to my local garage and they said I
had casting sand built up and suggested I replace my heater core
and radiator."

The owner says he was advised to contact Chrysler about a "good
faith" warranty replacement since Chrysler knows about the
problem. The automaker told him the heater core had been replaced
once already and probably needed to be replaced again.

"Soooo, my heater core was flushed and now I have heat again.
However, if this is a problem that results from casting sand build
up (which the dealership mechanic said it was) won't this just
happen again? In summary, at 11,000 miles the heater core was
replaced. The new heater core needed to be replaced after 26,000
miles, but was flushed instead. I'm thinking of trading in the
2012 model for a newer one if this is a known problem with this
year . . . ."

Another 2012 Wrangler owner says the cost to fix heater problems
is keeping him from having the heat he needs.

"I bought my 2012 Jeep Wrangler Sport JK new in 2012 and it was
awesome. At the time, I lived in Arizona and I never really
noticed the heating problem until I moved to Missouri and last
winter, I noticed it. The left side was not blowing near as hot as
the right side. Its barely warm on the left. I have read many
posts about the casting sand issue and I have had it flushed and
it was better for a day or two. It did come back and its like
before. I hear that the job is a new heater core and will cost me
upwards of $2000 and I'm not in a position to pay that right now
so I am just dealing with it. Jeep should take care of this as
many many JK owners have dealt with this in the past."

According to the Wrangler lawsuit, many automakers create engine
parts using a sandcasting method that uses sand molds to form
metal parts from alloys. The Jeep Wranglers have Pentastar V-6
3.6-liter (Penstar) engine blocks made by using a die-casting
method rather than a sand-casting method.

However, the cylinder heads that are located on top of the engines
are made using a sand-casting method. And according to the
plaintiffs, this is not the first time Chrysler has experienced
issues with its cylinder heads in the Penstar engines. In 2012,
Chrysler recalled 7,500 cylinder heads due to a "ticking" sound in
the engine, stalling and other problems.

Jeep Wrangler owners do not learn of the existence of the alleged
defects until the heating and cooling systems fail even though the
sand starts to shed from the cylinder heads and collects in the
radiators immediately after the vehicles are driven.

The problems also allegedly cannot be fixed by normal maintenance
because regular engine flushes do not remove the thick sludge-like
sand residue at the bottom of the radiator. Any relief provided by
a routine engine flush is, at best, only a temporary improvement
because the casting sand has already circulated within the vehicle
and continues to build up in the engine.

The plaintiffs say all the problems will continue until new
engines are installed in the Jeeps, engines that don't contain any
casting sand.

The Jeep Wrangler radiator and engine sludge lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio -
Mooradian et al v. FCA US LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by Landskroner Grieco Merriman,
LLC, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP, and Greg Coleman Law.

CarComplaints.com has complaints about the model year Jeeps named
in the casting sand lawsuit:

Jeep Wrangler - 2012 / 2013 / 2014 / 2015 / 2016 / 2017 [GN]


FLOWERS FOODS: "Hall" Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Hall, James D. House and John K. Ray, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Flowers
Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of Gadsden LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00932 (N.D. Ala., June 5, 2017), seeks unpaid
wages at overtime rates, penalties, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and
such other and further legal and equitable relief under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Alabama law.

Defendants distribute bakery and snack food products to retail
customers using a centralized network of communication,
distribution and warehousing facilities. Plaintiffs work as
distributors for the Defendants, delivering products to customers,
distributors, stocking the products on store shelves and
assembling promotional displays. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan C. Milstein, Esq.
      SHERMAN SILVERSTEIN KOHL ROSE & PODOLSKY
      308 Harper Drive, Suite 308
      Moorestown, NJ 08057
      Tel: (800) 662-0700
      Fax: (856) 488-4744
      Email: amilstein@shermansilverstein.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Siskinds Sues Over Diesel Truck Emissions
---------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds filed a proposed class action against General Motors and
Bosch regarding certain diesel-powered Chevrolet Silverado and GMC
Sierra heavy-duty trucks.

The proposed action alleges that General Motors equipped these
vehicles with software that allows them to defeat emissions
testing. Bosch is alleged to have developed this software and
supplied it to GM.  The action alleges that under ordinary driving
conditions, the vehicles emit levels of pollutants that are far
higher than advertised and allowed by law.

The action seeks to advance claims on behalf of all individuals or
businesses in Canada who purchased or leased a 2011-2016 Chevy
Silverado 2500 or 3500 or a 2011-2016 GMC Sierra 2500 or 3500 with
a Duramax diesel engine.

If you purchased or leased one of these trucks, please contact
Siskinds LLP by phone at (800) 461-6166 ext. 2380 or by email at
nicole.young@siskinds.com.

                      About Siskinds LLP

Siskinds LLP http://www.siskinds.com-- is a full-service law firm
headquartered in London, Ontario and is Canada's leading class
actions firm.  It was also the first law firm to secure
certification of a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings
Act, 1992. [GN]


GODADDY: Seeks Dismissal of Microsoft Office Sales Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Morris and Shayna Posses, writing for Law360, report that
web hosting company GoDaddy.com has urged an Arizona federal judge
to deny a business legal services provider's motion for class
certification in litigation accusing GoDaddy of selling Microsoft
Office products lacking certain features, arguing that the claims
raised are more suited to an individual action.

GoDaddy.com said on June 2 in an opposition to class certification
that Ventures Edge Legal PLLC had failed to show that its claim
for violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act should be handled
as a class action, saying the injuries Ventures Edge alleged are
individual ones that did not affect a wide group of people and
that the legal services provider has failed to point to a
misleading claim by GoDaddy in the course of advertising Microsoft
products.

"Contrary to plaintiff's assertion, there is no uniform omission
of fact in this case," GoDaddy said in its response.  "Nor does
plaintiff identify a uniform advertisement or disclosure related
to GoDaddy's Office 365 Business Premium product that it claims is
misleading -- to be clear, at no point in this litigation has
plaintiff identified a single advertisement on which to base its
claim and plaintiff cannot recall seeing any such advertisement."

Ventures Edge filed suit in November 2015, alleging that Arizona-
based GoDaddy sells a version of Microsoft's Office 365 -- a
software system that provides cloud-based productivity solutions -
- that it calls "Office 365 Business Premium," but doesn't tell
customers that the plan it offers doesn't have all the features
included in Microsoft's plan of the same name.

GoDaddy claimed on June 2 that the arguments raised by Ventures
Edge in its April 20 motion for class certification fail because
Ventures Edge's claims are not typical of the proposed class,
given that Ventures Edge allegedly renewed its Microsoft Office
subscription with GoDaddy after it became aware that GoDaddy's
version was slimmed down from Microsoft's.

The proposed class, defined as "all individuals and entities who
purchased the Office 365 Business Premium plan through GoDaddy's
website since November 13, 2014" is too broad to be certified,
GoDaddy argued. It is made up of customers who may not have
suffered an actual injury, given that they could be happy with
their Office 365 purchase, the company contended.

The company also alleged a potential conflict of interest caused
by the fact that attorney James L. Weintraub is the first cousin
of Ventures Edge's principal Michael Greenberg, a relationship
that could see the interests of a potential class suffer.
Weintraub is not currently representing Ventures Edge, but he
allegedly consulted on the case and will receive 10 percent of any
attorneys' fees awarded in the suit, signifying that Ventures Edge
is concerned more about its own claims than those of the proposed
class, GoDaddy alleged.

U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow in July denied GoDaddy's
attempt to escape the suit for failure to state a claim, finding
that Ventures Edge sufficiently alleged that GoDaddy should have
disclosed the differences between its products and the one
Microsoft sells.

In addition to pushing for denial of class certification, GoDaddy
wants the court to exclude the opinions of Ventures Edge's
experts, calling them "unreliable and irrelevant."

Representatives for both parties could not be reached for comment
on June 5.

Ventures Edge Legal PLLC is represented by Andrew S. Friedman --
afriedman@bffb.com -- of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC,
and David A. Rothstein, Lorenz Michel Pruss, Jared A. Levy and
Christopher M. Drury of Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein PA.

GoDaddy is represented by Paula L. Zecchini -- pzecchini@cozen.com
-- and Aaron M. McKown
-- amckown@cozen.com -- of Cozen O'Connor.

The case is Ventures Edge Legal PLLC v. GoDaddy.com LLC., case
number 2:15-cv-02291, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Arizona. [GN]


HEALTH CARE: Court Issues Scheduling Deadlines in "Sawyer" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., entered an order scheduling
deadlines pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure in the lawsuit entitled JEFFREY SAWYER v. HEALTH CARE
SOLUTIONS AT HOME, INC., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-05674-JFL (E.D.
Pa.).

In the event the Plaintiff's Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional
Certification is granted, all pre-certification class discovery
must be completed on or before 120 days after the date of the
Order in which the Motion is granted.  The Plaintiff will file any
future motion for class certification no later than 21 days after
close of pre-certification class discovery.

In the event the Plaintiff's Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional
Certification is denied, all fact discovery must be completed on
or before 120 days after the date of the Order in which the Motion
is denied.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, L.L.C.
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Marilyn G. Moran, Esq.
          FORD HARRISON, LLP
          30 Rock Hill Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (484) 436-2113
          Facsimile: (610) 668-3306
          E-mail: mmoran@fordharrison.com


HENKEL CORP: "Buso" Suit Asserts Laundry Aid Packaging 30% Empty
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Buso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Henkel Corporation and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01132 (S.D. Cal., June 5,
2017), seeks damages, injunctive relief and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the deceptive
packaging of Defendant's Purex Crystals product in violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law,
False Advertising Law and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act.

Defendant allegedly package its "Purex Crystals" product in opaque
containers so it could hide the 30% empty space. Purex Crystals is
an in-wash fragrance booster for laundry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
      PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Tel: (949) 706-6464
      Fax: (949) 706-6469
      Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


HOLBROOK CONSTRUCTION: Cal. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Ramirez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Holbrook Construction Company, Inc., South East
Employee Leasing Services, Inc., South East Personnel Leasing,
Inc., Bar Group, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
BC664307 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 7, 2017), seeks to recover
penalties arising from unpaid wages earned and due, including but
not limited to unpaid and illegally calculated overtime and
minimum wage compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies,
failure to pay all wages due to discharged or quitting employees,
failure to maintain required records, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay wages during
employment, and failure to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures and losses incurred in discharging their duties.

Holbrook Construction Company, Inc. operates a construction
company located at 14730 Firestone Blvd # 309, La Mirada, CA
90638.

South East Employee Leasing Services, Inc. and South East
Personnel Leasing, Inc. operates a payroll services company
located at 2739 US-19, Holiday, FL 34691.

Bar Group, Inc. operates a freight shipping and trucking company
running freight hauling business from Las Vegas, Nevada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
      Braunson C. Virjee, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901

HSBC: Court to Hear Investors' Motion to Consider Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
DSNews reports that BlackRock Inc., along with other investors of
residential mortgage-backed securities, recently petitioned New
York federal Judge Lorna G. Schofield to hear oral arguments to
advance their case (BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio (FI) et
al, v HSBC Bank USA NA, Case number 1:14-cv-09366) to class status
as they seek to collect over $3 billion in lost assets from HSBC.

The initial suit claims that HSBC did not do its due diligence in
protecting certificate holders, and that they failed to ensure the
home loans being sold from mortgage originators and sponsors to
the trust were only selling debt from credit-worthy borrowers. The
suit further says that HSBC should've filtered out the bad
mortgages and demanded sellers buy them back.  The plaintiff's
claim that HSBC's direct neglect was the cause of loses when
default rates hit their peak during the housing crisis.

Lawyers for BlackRock Inc., Pimco, Prudential, Charles Schwab,
TIAA, and others argue that a class action suit would cover an
estimated hundreds of other entities that had residential mortgage
backed securities (RMBS) holdings with HSBC ranging anywhere from
$100,000 to $100 million.  Records and dispositions obtained from
preliminary proceedings have turned up over 7.9 million documents
thus far.

Despite HSBC's repeated attempts to get this case and others like
it thrown out, the court has agreed that the plaintiff has met the
burden of proof and will now hear their motion to consider class
status.  In response, HSBC has filed a request for oral arguments
on the matter and will attempt to block any class categorization
moving forward.

HSBC is also under scrutiny from a European group of certificate
holders, Royal Park Investments SA/NV, who will be representing
investors in three of the trusts in a separate, yet related
lawsuit.  No date has currently been set for oral arguments. [GN]


I & I PIZZA: Sued in Ga. Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamaal Russ, Anessa Walker and Christi Grant, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. I & I Pizza of Atlanta,
Inc. d/b/a Sarpino's Pizzeria and Ihar Dziatko, Case No. 1:17-cv-
02058-AT (N.D. Ga., June 6, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Sarpino's Pizzeria located at 1156
Ponce De Leon, Atlanta, Georgia 30366. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
      Kevin D. Fitzpatrick Jr., Esq.
      DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC
      3100 Centennial Tower
      101 Marietta Street
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 979-3150
      Facsimile: (404) 979-3170
      E-mail: kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com
              charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com


INGRAM & ASSOCIATES: "Candela" Action Disputes Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Candela and Douglas Handy, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ingram & Associates LLC,
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and OPTUM360, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-03367 (E.D. N.Y., June 5, 2017), seeks to recover damages,
attorneys' fees and such other relief for violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices.

Ingram is a wholly owned subsidiary of OPTUM and UnitedHealth. It
is in the business of collecting debts allegedly owed by consumers
in behalf of OPTUM and UnitedHealth.

The complaint says collections letter sent by Ingram do not
contain any transitional language notifying Plaintiffs of their
validation rights and demanding Plaintiffs make immediate payment
without explaining that such demand does not override the
Plaintiffs' right to dispute the debt. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 203-7600
      Fax: (516) 706-5055
      Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


INTRAWEST RESORTS: Faces Class Action Over Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins, writing for Law360, reports that investors hit
Intrawest Resort Holdings Inc. and its board with class
allegations that shareholders were never given proper information
to evaluate the fairness of the luxury adventure company's $1.5
billion merger deal with Aspen Skiing Co. LLC and KSL Capital
Partners.

Filed in Colorado federal court, the proposed class action claims
that Intrawest's May 22 information sheet filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission contains materially incomplete
and misleading information on Intrawest's financial projections.
The sheet also does not explain how Intrawest's financial advisers
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. and Moelis & Co. LLC valued the
adventure company.

"While defendants are touting the fairness of the merger [offer]
to the company's stockholders in the information statement, they
have failed to disclose certain material information that is
necessary for stockholders to properly assess the fairness of the
proposed merger," the suit says.

On April 7, Intrawest's board entered into a merger agreement with
the newly formed entity Hawk Holding Company Inc., which is
controlled by ski resort company Aspen SkiCo and private equity
shop KSL. Under the merger, stockholders would receive $23.75 in
cash for each share of Intrawest common stock they own.

The next day, on April 8, Fortress Investment Group LLC, which
owned 67.9 percent of the Intrawest's nearly 40 million
outstanding shares, approved all respects the proposed merger. As
a result, no further action by any stockholders is required to
adopt the merger, and the company does not have to solicit any
votes from the shareholders, the suit says.

On April 10, Intrawest announced it had entered into an agreement
to be acquired by KSL and Aspen SkiCo, which owns and operates
four high-end mountain ski areas in Aspen, Colorado.

June 2's suit says that at the time of the merger agreement, on
April 7, Intrawest's stock was trading at $25.50 per share. But
instead of receiving a premium for their shares, as is customary
in merger situations, the merger forces investors to sell their
shares for a discount, the suit claims. The suit notes that since
the announcement, Intrawest's stock price has fallen "sharply" to
$23.60.

"In sum, it appears that the merger consideration fails to
adequately compensate Intrawest stockholders, and is the result of
a flawed sales process during which company management and the
board failed to conduct a sufficient and robust review of
strategic alternatives," the complaint states.

The suit claims that it is "imperative" that Intrawest disclose
the material information that has been omitted to stockholders
immediately. Stockholders have until June 12 to submit a written
demand for appraisal, and if they do not, they will lose all
appraisal rights, the suit says.

The merger is expected to close by the end of the third quarter of
calendar year, according to Intrawest's announcement.

Intrawest owns and operates six mountain resorts, including
Steamboat Springs and Winter Park. Collectively, the resorts have
approximately 8,000 skiable acres and more than 1,100 acres of
land for real estate development, according to the company's site.
Intrawest's income was $156.3 million in its third quarter,
according to a May 5 report.

Representatives for Intrawest and counsel for the shareholders did
not immediately respond June 2 to requests for comment.

The shareholders are represented by Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. --
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com -- of Monteverde & Associates PC and
Nadeem Faruqi, Esq., and James M. Wilson Jr., Esq. --
jwilson@faruqilaw.com -- of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP.

Counsel information for Intrawest was not immediately available.

The case is Hyden v. Intrawest Resorts Holdings Inc. et al., case
number 1:17-cv-01337, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado. [GN]


ISHARES TRUST: Class Action Plaintiffs' Claims Not Time Barred
--------------------------------------------------------------
All About Alpha reports that late last year a California state
court found that the plaintiffs in a class action suit stated a
cause of action when they alleged that the defendant, iShares
Trust, had failed to disclose the material risk of using market or
stop loss orders in connection with ETFs.

This spring the same court also said that the plaintiffs have
stated factual claims that could allow them to overcome their
statute-of-limitations problem.

The plaintiff class consists of those who bought shares of
BlackRock iShares ETFs between June 2013 and August 2015, in time
to be hurt by the "flash crash" in that latter month.  The
complaint (in the court's paraphrase) "alleges pertinent offering
documents did not contain sufficient warnings including those on
the peculiar susceptibility of ETFs to flash crashes."

The statute of limitations issue arose because the defendants
plausibly claimed that the very large drop in ETF trading prices
in 2010 should have provided a "storm warning" to any diligent
investor that ETFs are subject to such risks.  The plaintiffs were
then on constructive notice of their claims more than one year
before their filing: thus the bar.

In the end, the Hon. Curtis E.A. Karnow of the Superior Court
decided that the claims are not time barred, because the
plaintiffs have alleged actions by the defendants obfuscating the
cautionary nature of the 2010 event, an obfuscation that if it
happened as alleged might well have confused a reasonable
investor.

This litigation may have a long and winding road ahead of it, but
the fact that the plaintiffs have gotten as far as they have
should give the managers of ETFs pause.  It isn't just a matter of
re-working the offering documentation.  Managers must work harder
than they sometimes have to be sure that what they provide to
investors by way of information is in line with what investors
want and need from them.

This, as it happens, was the subject of an important EDHEC
document from last August, one dealing with a particular piece of
the ETF market, the smart beta indexed ETFs.  Is management giving
investors what they want and need in that space?

Deemed to Be Important

The document is based upon EDHEC's 9th annual survey of European
investment professionals on the question of how they perceive the
role of exchange traded funds in their portfolio management.  It
was the third year in a row that EDHEC had dedicated a portion of
the survey to the use of products that track smart beta indexes.

These "smart beta" index ETFs have seen "tremendous growth
recently, in terms of both assets under management and new
products, as illustrated by global figures provided by ETFGI," a
consultancy headquartered in London.

One problem, though, that may slow growth going forward is that
there is a gap between information about these products that is
"deemed to be important" by actual or potential investors, and
information that is readily available.

For example, on a scale of 0 to 5 (where 0 represents information
of no value whatsoever and 5 represents information of
metaphysical or eschatological significance) investors rate
information about the index construction methodology very high:
4.28.  On the same 0-5 scale for ease of access, though, investors
rate this point at 3.07.

On another issue that was important to the plaintiffs in the
iShares Trust case, that of liquidity/capacity, the importance
number is 4.2, the ease of access number is 3.05.

Information About Beta Products

The mean score for importance is 3.82.  The mean for access is
2.75.  These results, say EDHEC's authors, "suggest that investors
do not believe that information considered important for assessing
smart beta strategies is made available to them with sufficient
ease."

The Authors

Noel Amenc, first-named author of the study, is a professor of
finance at EDHEC-Risk Institute and the CEO of ERI Scientific
Beta.  He's also a member of the Monetary Authority of Singapore
Finance Research Council.

Felix Goltz is the head of applied research at EDHEC-Risk
Institute.

Veronique Le Sourd has a Master's Degree in applied mathematics
from Curie University in Paris, and is at present a senior
research engineer at EDHEC-Risk. [GN]


KATE SPADE & CO: "Jauregi" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Jauregi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated stockholders, 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-04205 (S.D. N.Y., June 5, 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 seeks costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for 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:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKI & SMITH, LLC
      9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
      Beverly Hills CA
      Telephone: (877) 834-2590
      Email: esmith@brodskismith.com


KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Faces "Russell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Russell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kehe Distributors, Inc. and Does 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:17-at-00592 (E.D. Cal., June 6, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Headquartered in Illinois, Kehe Distributors, Inc. is a natural
foods distributor. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
      William J. Gorham, Esq.
      Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq.
      John P. Briscoe, Esq.
      MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
      2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
      Stockton, CA 95207-8253
      Telephone: (209) 477-3833
      Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
      E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
              wgorham@mayallaw.com
              nscardigli@mayallaw.com
              jbriscoe@mayallaw.com


KING TACO: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarahi Lopez, individually an on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. King Taco Restaurant, Inc. and Does 1 through 30,
inclusive, Case No. BC664175 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 7, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure provide accurate wage
statements, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to reimburse all
business-related expenses in violation of the California Labor
Code.

King Taco Restaurant, Inc. owns and operates a chain of Mexican
fast-food restaurants in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry W. Lee, Esq.
      DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, PC
      515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 488-6555
      Facsimile: (213) 488-6554


LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: ACLU Sues Over Debtor's Prison
----------------------------------------------------
Abigail Darlington, writing for Post and Courier, reports for
people living below the poverty line across South Carolina, a
single traffic violation can be enough to send them into a
downward spiral of debt, jail time and more debt.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Terrell Marshall Law Group
are targeting the issue with a class-action lawsuit filed on June
1 in a U.S. District Court in Columbia. The case challenges
Lexington County's practice of jailing people who can't afford to
pay court fines for minor offenses.

Nusrat Choudhury, the senior staff attorney with ACLU's Racial
Justice Program, said the groups also will notify other entities
in South Carolina about the need to address what she called "the
modern-day debtors' prison."

"This lawsuit is a call to action," she said. "Poor people should
never be locked up behind bars because of their poverty."

The lawsuit is the latest of at least seven the ACLU has pursued
around the country since 2015. Others that were successful in
Dekalb County, Ga., and Biloxi, Miss., led local courts to reform
how they treated low-income people faced with fines, such as
holding hearings to determine how much they could afford to pay.

Some similar reforms are taking shape in Charleston, where the
Charleston County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council is
examining how offenders of minor crimes can avoid bench warrants
and jail time. Some strategies include pretrial screenings to
evaluate whether an offender is indigent, and if so, ensuring he
or she has a public defender.

Kristy Danford, who works with the council, wasn't surprised the
ACLU was putting a spotlight on South Carolina.

"This is a big national issue, and we're seeing it play out here
just like we're seeing it across the country," she said. "I think
it's our obligation to be mindful of the principles of justice in
general. If we are stepping out of those lines, we need to find
our way back to them."

South Carolina law allows county court clerks to issue bench
warrants when fines are past due, in some cases only five days
after they're issued. The state can levy other penalties, such as
revoking someone's driver's license, but many offenders end up
spending time in county jails across the state.

Before his death by a North Charleston police officer in 2015,
Walter Scott had a warrant out for his arrest for failing to make
child support payments that had added up to more than $18,000.

He ran from an April 4, 2015, traffic stop and got into a struggle
with North Charleston officer Michael Slager. The officer said
Scott grabbed his Taser during the scuffle. As Scott started
running again, Slager fired eight shots, hitting him five times in
the back.

Slager has since pleaded guilty in federal court to violating
Scott's civil rights.

Scott was sent to jail at least three times over a 15-year period
for not paying child support. He told The Post and Courier in 2003
that serving jail time caused him to lose his job, and made it
more difficult to stay on top of the payments.

Rodney Scott, his brother, has said he thinks his brother ran from
the officer because he didn't want to go back to jail.

Orrie West, a circuit public defender in Horry County, said she's
seen many poor and homeless people stuck in a cycle of debt and
incarceration.

"They lose their jobs, then they lose their public housing," she
said. "Then, when they finally get out (of jail), they get a low-
paying job at McDonald's, and they still can't afford to pay their
fine."

More than 30 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that judges
cannot send people to jail just because they are too poor to pay
their court fines. But many judges have said it's difficult to
determine if a defendant can pay.

Lexington County records show more than 1,000 people risked jail
time in the past year for failing to pay fines owed to the
magistrate court, according to the statement released on June 1 by
the ACLU.

The ACLU also said many of those arrested ended up staying in jail
for weeks without seeing a judge or getting help from an attorney.

One plaintiff in the case, Marshinda Brown, said she spent 57 days
in the Lexington County jail because she fell behind on payments
for a traffic citation. She lives in subsidized housing with her
children and works at a fast food restaurant.

"The poorest people among us, particularly people of color, are
punished disproportionately," said Choudhury of the ACLU. "It's
not just wrong and unfair, it's counterproductive and wasteful."

The Lexington County Detention Center was built to hold 599
inmates, but it has struggled for years with overcrowding.
Choudhury said finding alternatives to incarceration, such as
income-based payment plans for citations, would help Lexington
County solve two problems at once.

"What we see around the country is that courts can and do hold
people accountable while protecting fairness and treating the rich
and poor equally," she said.

Harrison Cahill, Lexington County's public information officer,
said the county's attorney is reviewing the court documents but
declined to comment further. [GN]


LITTLE CAESARS: Lawyers Spar in $100M Lawsuit Over 'Halal' Pizza
----------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit News reports that Little Caesars claimed on June 2 that a
Muslim man suing the company for $100 million after he allegedly
ate pizza containing pork pepperoni, despite ordering halal, got
what he asked for.

"He had ordered a halal pizza, came into the store, canceled that
order and asked for a Hot and Ready instead," said attorney J.
Michael Huget, who represents Little Caesars. "That's what he
ordered."

Huget said the company's investigation into the May 24 incident
concluded that Mohamad Bazzi, a 32-year-old Dearborn man, looked
at his pizza at the restaurant and then changed his order to a Hot
and Ready pizza, which contains pork pepperoni.

A conversation with a store employee, which Bazzi secretly
recorded as he later confronted the worker, supports the company's
stance, Huget said.

"A quote from one of the store employees is 'That's what you asked
for,'" Huget said.

Bazzi's attorney, Majed Moughni, has denied those claims. On June
2, Moughni said another complaint from a separate plaintiff -- a
former Dearborn Police officer -- could be filed as early as next
week.

Bazzi's class action lawsuit filed in Wayne County Circuit Court
claims the restaurant violated Michigan State Law 750.297f, which
it referred to as the "Wayne County Halal and Kosher Anti-Fraud
and Truth-in-labeling ordinance."

Islamic law prohibits Muslims from eating pork.

Bazzi claims that in two separate incidents -- in March and May --
he received pizzas with pork pepperoni when he had ordered halal
pepperoni.

Named as defendants in the suit are Little Caesars Pizza, Little
Caesar Enterprises Inc., a manager named Denise and two unnamed
employees.

In the March 20 incident, Huget said he hasn't seen any evidence
to support Bazzi's claims that he received a pizza with pork
pepperoni despite ordering halal.

"We don't have the pizza," Huget said. "The pictures aren't very
good. He has a sticker on a box. We don't know if he bought
another pizza and swapped it."

The pizza company, Moughni contends, is trying to discredit his
client by saying earlier June 2 that Moughni had plans to drop the
lawsuit following a meeting on June 1 over Bazzi's claims.

"Little Caesars lied," Moughni said. "They lied about the talks
that we had with them. The email (Huget) clearly says we are going
to refile. We have other plaintiffs. I don't know why they would
jump the gun."

"It seems like Little Caesars wants to try this case in the media
and not the court of law," Moughni added.

Earlier June 2, Huget said the case was going to be dropped. He
later followed up saying Bazzi changed his mind and would be
pursuing the lawsuit.

"(Moughni) said 'I'm going to dismissed the Bazzi lawsuit,' "
Huget said. He added that Moughni didn't say he wasn't going to
pursue a case against the company, just not with Bazzi as a
plaintiff.

"I thought we established that (Bazzi's) claims were not well
founded," Huget said. "That's what he told me and he obviously
changed his mind."

Moughni said that he was going to file a new lawsuit to make some
changes -- such as the length of time Bazzi said he was in the
store -- and to name additional plaintiffs. The plan was never to
drop Bazzi's claims, he said.

"It's the same story over and over again," Moughni said. "These
people can tell they've been eating pork. They put two and two
together." [GN]


MATTAMY HOMES: Faces Class Action Over Property Damage
------------------------------------------------------
Yolian Ortiz, writing for Fox 46, reports that an overflow pipe in
a new development is causing property damage to a Steele Creek
home. The homeowner reached out to FOX 46 Charlotte to get some
pressure put on the developers to fix the flooding that's forming
in his property.

Mattamy Homes is already facing a citation from the City of
Charlotte because part of the lake they are building eroded and
sediment from it went into Lake Wylie. The overflow pipe was built
to let the water drain from the lake to avoid that problem but the
issue it's now draining straight into David Smith's property.

Smith says on rainy days his backyard looks more like a swamp than
his garden.

"It's stagnant. It smells. There's mosquitos. Not one of the
happiest places to be," Smith said.

photo
The issue started in October when this pipe was put in but
directed straight into Smith's property.

Smith says he's tried to resolve the situation with attorneys and
had a couple meetings with Mattamy home but was dismissed by the
company and since then nothing has changed.

"No one came to my house, no one send me a letter, no one gave me
a phone call. They just went ahead and did it without permission,"
Smith said.

The City of Charlotte's Land Development division tells FOX 46
Charlotte the pipe was put in according to the approved plans and
permits.

"Someone from the city came up with the concept of 'yes your
design is extremely good' but I think they completely forgot they
were dumping it into my property," Smith said.

The recent erosion of the man-made lake caused sediment to flow
into his property and Lake Wylie.

With permission from Smith, Mattamy Homes came into his property
to fix the breach putting in bags across the stream to filter the
sediment.

"It just doesn't work," Smith said.

A month ago Smith finally filed a class action lawsuit against
Mattamy Homes and still hasn't heard anything from the company.
He's spent about $10,000 in legal fees but he's hoping this time
around Mattamy Homes actually fixes the problem and gets rid of
the swam his yard has become.

FOX 46 Charlotte reached out to Mattamy Homes and in an e-mail
Spokeperson Brent Carey says:

"Because this case is currently before the courts, we won't be
able to provide any comments."

FOX 46 Charlotte showed Smith's video of the pipe to the Land
Development Division of the City of Charlotte and they say the
water should be running clear and that's something that alarms
them and will be looking into the case. [GN]


MCCARTHY BURGESS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Weigle" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Weigle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-
01874-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind., June 6, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, specifically by failure to state in the initial form
collection letter the name of the creditor to whom the debt was
then currently owed.

McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc. operates a debt collection
business and attempts to collect debts from consumers in many
states, including consumers in the State of Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


MCGUYER HOMEBUILDERS: Faces "Vazquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Epifanio Vazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. McGuyer Homebuilders, Inc. a/k/a Plantation Homes,
Aguilar Masonry, and Adalith Aguilar, Case No. 3:17-cv-01494-L
(N.D. Tex., June 6, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours weekly.

McGuyer Homebuilders, Inc. engages in building luxurious and
customized homes in Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
      Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
              rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
              josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


MISSOURI: Social Services Dept. Sued Over Psychotropic Drugs
------------------------------------------------------------
Summer Ballentine, writing for the Associated Press, reports that
child advocates groups, Children's Rights, the National Center for
Youth Law and Saint Louis University School of Law Legal Clinics,
filed a federal lawsuit against the Missouri Department of Social
Services June 12 over allegations of inappropriately providing
psychotropic drugs to foster care children and systemic lack of
oversight of the medications.  According to AP, the organizations
filed the lawsuit on behalf of several Missouri children currently
or formerly in foster care, including a 14-year-old boy who has
been prescribed as many as seven psychotropic drugs at one time.
They ask a federal district judge to grant the lawsuit class-
action status and order Missouri to implement systemic changes
aimed at curtailing potential overprescribing of the drugs.

According to the report, the lawsuit claims psychotropic drugs are
often prescribed as "chemical straight-jackets" for foster care
children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or conduct
disorder even though there are few to no Food and Drug
Administration-approved uses for the drugs among children. The
plaintiffs' attorneys say there's little research on how the drugs
impact children's brains, and that possible side effects include
disorders that cause twitching, Type 2 diabetes, psychosis and
suicidal thoughts.

Attorneys for the group say the lawsuit is the first of its kind
nationwide that focuses only on psychotropic drugs given to foster
children, according to the report.

The state attorney general's office didn't immediately comment on
the lawsuit, the report says.


NATIONAL PARKING: "Charron" Seeks Overtime Pay, Back Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Charron, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Parking Solutions, LLC and Marc
Ebersole, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02047, (N.D.
Ga., June 5, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages and unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a full service valet parking and parking management
company specializing in high-service parking programs where
Plaintiff worked as a valet attendant. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
     Post Office Box 57007
     Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
     Tel: (404) 965-8811
     Facsimile: (404) 496-7405
     Email: CLeach@forthepeople.com


NEW YORK: Commissioner Sued Over LT Care Services Termination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Turano, Leonard Turano and Gemma Samele, individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Howard Zucker, Case
No. cv-17-3397 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2017), is brought on behalf of
all recipients of Medicaid who have long-term illnesses and
disabilities that make them dependent on long-term care services,
including home care, in order to continue living in their homes in
the community, that are now at risk of reductions or terminations
of their care in violation of the Medicaid Act and the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Howard Zucker is the Commissioner of the New York State Department
of Health. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jane Greengold Stevens, Esq.
      Elizabeth Jois, Esq.
      Ben Taylor, Esq.
      Stewart Dearing, Esq.
      7 Hanover Square, 18th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 613-5000
      Facsimile: (212) 750-0820
      E-mail: jstevens@nylag.org
              ejois@nylag.org
              btaylor@nylag.org
              sdearing@nylag.org


PANERA BREAD: Faces Scott And Gina Suit Over JAB Holdings Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott And Gina Rudy Living Trust Dated March 18, 2011, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated v. Panera Bread
Company, Ronald Shaich, William W. Moreton, Domenic Colasacco,
Larry Franklin, Fred Foulkes, Thomas E. Lynch, Diane Hessan, Mark
Stoever, and James White, Case No. 4:17-cv-01627 (E.D. Mis., June
6, 2017), is brought on behalf of public stockholders of Panera
Bread Company , to enjoin the merger agreement of Panera with JAB
Holdings  B.V., Rye Parent Corp., and Rye Merger Sub, Inc. for
$315.00 in cash per share.

According to the complaint, in order to convince Panera's
stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the
Director Defendants authorized the filing of a misleading Form
PREM 14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about
May 12, 2017 in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The Proxy contains incomplete and materially
misleading information regarding: (i) the process that resulted in
the Proposed Transaction and the conflicts of interest infecting
it, (ii) the financial analysis conducted by the Company's
financial advisor, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("Morgan Stanley"),
and (iii) the projections used by Morgan Stanley in those
analyses.

Panera Bread Company is a national food service company known for
its bakery-cafe concept. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
      CAREY DANIS & LOWE
      8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 725-7700
      Facsimile: (314)721-0905
      E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com

         - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      The Empire State Building
      350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 971-1341
      Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
      E-mail jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


PARTY ANIMAL: Falsely Marketed Dog Food, "Black" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Black, an individual and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Party Animal, Inc., Evanger's Dog and Cat
Food Company, Inc., and Does 1 through 500, inclusive, Case No.
BC664138 (C.D. Cal., June 6, 2017), is brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased Party Animal organic brand dog food that was
falsely marketed by the Defendants as "organic" and "healthy",
when in fact it contains substances that are toxic to animals and
that have resulted in the serious illness and deaths of pets
around the United States.

The Defendants manufacture, distributes, markets and sells pet
foods in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jane M. Braugh, Esq.
      SICO HOELSCHER, HARRIS & BRAUGH LLP
      225 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 300
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (626) 432-5476
      Facsimile: (626) 432-5477

         - and -

      Roger S. Braugh Jr., Esq.
      SICO HOELSCHER, HARRIS & BRAUGH LLP
      802 N. Carancahua, Suite 900
      Corpus Christi, TX 98401
      Telephone: (361) 653-3300
      Facsimile: (361) 653-3333


PEARLS AUSTRALASIA: Indian Gov't Can Recover Funds in Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Klan, writing for The Australian, reports that Indian
authorities will be quarantined from about $100 million being
recovered from the sale of Australian luxury properties bought
with money from the subcontinent's $10 billion Pearls Ponzi scam.

Judge Bernard Murphy of the Federal Court in Brisbane said the
Indian government would not be handed the money and instead Indian
investors would be required to apply to Australia to recover their
portion of the recovered funds.

The move was to shield the money from issues with the Indian-
government bureaucracy, in the case investors were successful in
their legal bid to recover the funds.

Lawyer and corporate investigator Niall Coburn, who is
representing 46,000 Pearls investors seeking to recover funds from
Australia, said the move was "very good news" for investors.

"I've spoken to investors and they are very pleased with the
judge's comments because they believe if the funds went home they
may never see them," he said.

In 2009, an arm of Pearls, Pearls Australasia, was created and an
estimated $130m of investor funds were brought here, funding the
purchase of the Sheraton Mirage on the Gold Coast and several
luxury homes bought in the names of children of Pearls founder
Nirmil Singh Bhangoo.

Pearls collapsed, leaving its tens of millions of mainly poor
investors with nothing.

Pearls Australasia was founded by Mr Bhangoo and family members,
and two Gold Coast property developers, Paul Brinsmead and Peter
Madrers, who were introduced to Pearls by government business
investment agency Austrade.

Despite investing no money in the Sheraton, and owning less than
0.5 per cent of the shares in the company that bought the five-
star hotel, Mr Madrers and Mr Brinsmead claim they are owed half
of the $87m gained from its recent sale.

The action taken by Mr Coburn has meant that the money has all
been placed in a trust account while the class action case is
worked through the courts and a decision is made on who owns the
money.

Mr Coburn said Mr Madrers and Mr Brinsmead had recently served an
affidavit claiming they "urgently need a couple of million from
the fund", which a court will be required to rule on.

It can also be revealed that two of Mr Bhangoo's daughters and
their husbands have been served with notices informing them the
class action is attempting to sell the luxury homes bought with
Pearls money.  Those include a Gold Coast Sanctuary Cove mansion
bought for $4.95m and a home in Melbourne's Mont Albert bought for
$2.38m.

Mr Coburn said the homes were worth between $12m and $15m in all,
taking to about $100m the funds the class action is seeking to
have returned to Indian investors.  He said Indian authorities
had refused to assist in his class action last year, but now it
appeared a large amount of money was at stake, the Securities and
Exchange Board of India had taken an interest in the case,
becoming legally involved. [GN]


PRIDE MOBILITY: CAT Takes Permissive Approach in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Out-Law.com reports that National Pensioners Convention (NPC)
general secretary Dot Gibson launched the claim last year against
Pride Mobility Products, arguing that the company had breached
competition law and overcharged around 30,000 customers. The claim
followed an Office of Fair Trading (OFT) finding of illegal resale
price maintenance (RPM) by Pride in 2014.

The claim was the first case filed in the wake of the introduction
of opt-out collective action rules through the 2015 Consumer
Rights Act.  They allow damages actions to be brought on behalf of
groups of individuals in certain circumstances, regardless of
whether they have actively 'opted in' to the claim. Previously,
collective actions could only be brought on an 'opt in' basis, and
by a listed 'representative body'.

Such claims can only proceed after a certification hearing by the
Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT), which decides whether or not
the claim can proceed on a collective basis.  In the case brought
by Gibson the CAT hearing lasted three days and involved an
examination of the proposed economic analysis behind the claim,
which estimated that damages would be worth between GBP2.7 million
and GBP3.2m, before interest.

In March the Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) handed down
judgment, expressing significant concerns with the economic
approach to the claim.  It adjourned the application to give
Ms. Gibson the opportunity to amend her claim.

On June 2 the NPC said Ms. Gibson was withdrawing the claim,
having decided it was "not worth enough money to proceed given the
costs".

Competition law expert Ben Lasserson --
ben.lasserson@pinsentmasons.com -- of Pinsent Masons, the law firm
behind Out-Law.com, said: "The CAT took a permissive approach,
allowing a 'second bite at the cherry' in terms of the
certification application, but in this particular instance the
level of potential damages available meant that it did not make
sense to pursue the claim further.

"The CAT's judgment nevertheless offers helpful guidance as to the
approach that will generally be taken to certification in future
cases.  In particular, applicants should expect their economic
methodology to damages to be scrutinised carefully even at this
early stage," Mr. Lasserson said. [GN]


PRIORITY WORKFORCE: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Esparza and Ruiz De Lara, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Priority Workforce, Inc., South East Employee Leasing
Svcs, South East Personnel Leasing, Inc., Weckerle Sales
Corporation, Weckerle Gmbh, Weckerle Cosmetics, and Does 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. BC663894 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 6, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to permit a first meal
period to the employees' sixth hour of work or pay meal premium
wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to
timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment.

The Defendants provide customized staffing solutions in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROSPECT MEDICAL: "Meneses" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Meneses, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated and the general public v. Prospect Medical Holdings,
Inc., Alta Los Angeles Hospitals, Inc. d/b/a Los Angeles Community
Hospital, and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. BC664012 (Cal.
Super. Ct., June 6, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
injunctive relief, declaratory relief and restitution in violation
of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate a healthcare services company that owns and
operates 18 hospitals in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Antonelli, Esq.
      Janelle Carney, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
      14758 Pipeline Ave., Suite E, 2nd Floor
      Chino Hills, CA 91709
      Telephone: (909) 393-0223
      Facsimile: (909) 393-0471
      E-mail: JAntonelli@antonellilaw.com

         - and -

      Barry S. Phillips, Esq.
      100 S. Citrus Ave., Suite 101
      Covina, CA 91723-2680
      Telephone: (626) 915-0610
      Facsimile: (626) 915-1415
      E-mail: BP@barryphillips.com


RED INN: Banquet Wait Staff File Class Action Over Tips
-------------------------------------------------------
Katy Ward, writing for Wicked Local, reports that a class action
suit has been filed against Red Inn owner David Silva and managers
Philip Mossy Jr. and Sean Burke alleging that they used wait staff
gratuities from banquets to defray labor costs, violating the
state's tipping and minimum wage laws.

Nathan Butera, who worked as a server at the restaurant from April
2011 to October 2016, is spearheading the lawsuit on behalf of a
group of other wait staff, which could include 25 people or more.
The owner and managers, Mr. Butera claims, were giving tips to the
front desk host, kitchen staff, dishwashers, managers and
housekeepers for the inn, all of whom are not eligible under state
law to be compensated in that way.

"After working there for a while you get an idea how much [an
event] will cost," Mr. Butera said on June 2 during a conference
call.  "I started discussing it with other servers and we couldn't
make the numbers work as far as tips from the event from the
owners."

Attorney Adelaide Pagano -- apagano@llrlaw.com -- of Lichten &
Liss-Riordan filed an amended version of the suit on March 9,
which states that the defendants failed to give full gratuities to
banquet wait staff; required wait staff to pay five percent of
their tips to employees who are ineligible to share wait staff
tips; paid wait staff the tipped service rate ($3.75) rather than
minimum wage ($11); and thus violated state law.

"It's fine if they want to be generous, but what they are really
doing is using our tip money to defray their labor costs,"
Mr. Butera said.  "If they wanted to be generous they should be
paying [other employees] more rather than using our tip money.
Also the customers are under the impression that servers are
receiving the gratuity, and that's misleading to the customer."

Before seeking legal help, Mr. Butera confronted Silva, Mossy and
Burke, but says he did not receive any credible answers.

"They claimed to be ignorant of this law," Mr. Butera said.  "It
became clear that they didn't want to change their policy and
going into the next year it would be the same.  That wasn't
acceptable to us. . . . It was also clear they did not see
anything wrong with it and were not going to change.  Our only
other option was to seek legal help, and that's what we did."

In May, however, the Red Inn issued a "confidential settlement
agreement and release of claims" to current and former servers.

"The release is something they are sending to current and former
employees," Ms. Pagano said.  "The idea being if they sign and
accept it they would not be a part of our case.  That was
something that concerns us because we want to make sure people are
making decisions not because they are intimidated, coerced or
don't have all the information."

The settlement offer asks current and former employees, by
signing, to confirm that the Red Inn did not engage in any
wrongdoing, did not violate the law and did not act improperly,
and that they believe the punitive class action has no merit.

David Chick, a server at the Red Inn from June to October 2016,
received a document offering a settlement payment of $175.

"The parties agree that the Settlement Payment represents a full
settlement of all claims of any nature whatsoever that Chick has
raised or could raise against the Red Inn parties," the agreement
states.

Mr. Chick will not sign it.

"I'll do anything I can to support [this class action suit],"
Mr. Chick said, adding that he witnessed a lot of "shenanigans"
and favoritism happening in his one season there.

But others might sign.  Mr. Butera thinks some people are worried
they'll be fired or lose shifts if they don't.

"The thing is, you don't have to fire a server," Mr. Butera said.
"You can just dramatically reduce their income by reducing their
time and giving them poor shifts. . . . I think some people are
scared to speak publicly.  It's scary and it's a small town. I'm
hoping to see some positive changes made."

Ms. Pagano said it's hard to say how much Mr. Butera and class
members might receive because the case is still in its early
stages.  In addition to restitution, they are also seeking
statutory trebling of damages (potentially tripling the settlement
amount) and attorney fees.

"We haven't done discovery, where we get access to records and do
a full accounting to find out how much money was diverted," she
said. "It could potentially be a lot of money."

The defendants' response to Mr. Butera's motion is due on June 21.

"We filed the case as a class action so that we could try to
recover what is owed to the entire group and make everyone whole,"
Ms. Pagano said.

Messrs. Silva, Mossy and Burke all declined the Banner's requests
for comment.  Their attorneys, Robin Reid of Provincetown and
Brian Haney of Sweden and Ross in Boston, did not return calls.
[GN]


SANTA FE UNIVERSITY: Faces More Fraud Suits From Students
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Nott, writing for The New Mexican, reports that three more
students are suing the Santa Fe University of Art and Design,
accusing the for-profit school and its parent company, Laureate
Education Inc., of fraud and breach of contract for deciding to
close the school after the spring 2018 semester.

The class-action lawsuit, filed in state District Court, is
similar to a lawsuit filed by three other students in April,
shortly after university officials announced plans for closing the
school next year. Only students who will be seniors can return to
the four-year university in the fall to complete their degrees.
The students in the latest lawsuit -- Zac Franklin, Raven Two
Feathers and Kevin Brennan -- are asking the court to award them
damages to be determined by a trial.

Justin Miller, one of several Santa Fe attorneys representing
students in both cases, said the three new plaintiffs are
representative of all the students who would have returned to the
college next year had it not made plans to close down.
Miller said an another 21 students have joined the original
lawsuit, filed by students Lucian Orsinger, Mark Baker-Sanchez and
Calvin Ambrose Taylor.

College spokeswoman Rachael Lighty said the university will not
comment on litigation. [GN]


SAUDI ARAMCO: New York Listing Poses Class Action Litigation Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reported that the legal firm working on Saudi Aramco's
flotation has advised the kingdom that a New York listing poses
the greatest litigation risk of any jurisdiction.

White & Case and others offering informal counsel have briefed top
oil executives and the kingdom's highest authorities, emphasizing
a litigious culture in the United States, the FT said.

Legal risks arising from a New York listing include U.S.
legislation that could allow families of the victims of the 9/11
attacks of 2001 to sue Saudi Arabia, the FT said.

Aramco could also face class-action suits if it did not comply
with U.S. regulators' rules on disclosing reserves and data for
oil companies, while aggressive shareholder lobby groups in the
United States are also seen as a threat.

A New York Stock Exchange listing and one on Saudi Arabia's
Tadawul exchange has been the favored option for Saudi Aramco as
Saudi officials and Saudi Aramco's financial advisers believe the
venue has the deepest pool of investors and is the most
prestigious, the FT said, citing documents.

A premium category listing on the London Stock Exchange alongside
a domestic offering was seen as the next best option, followed by
a standard listing on the LSE for Saudi Aramco, the FT said,
citing the documents.  Legal counsel is now implying that London
is now the front-runner, it said.

Saudi Aramco did not immediately respond to requests for comment
outside regular business hours.  White & Case declined to comment
on the report.

Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is the head of Saudi
Arabia's oil affairs, is expected to make a final decision within
weeks, the FT said, citing an internal timetable.

The LSE, seen as one of the front-runners to win part of the IPO,
has been pushing hard to land it.  Sources told Reuters in May
that the LSE is working on a new type of listing structure that
would make it more attractive for Saudi Aramco to join. [GN]


SECURE LENDING: "Bruce" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums
----------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Bruce, John Lee and Travis Pearson, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Secure
Lending Inc. and Mehedi Hassan, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01172, (Del. Ch., June 2, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own and/or operate Secure Lending Inc., a loan service
and finance company whose primary marketplace offering is loan-
and-financing-related services. Plaintiffs worked for the
Defendants as Inside Sales Agents, performing various repetitive
tasks such as cold calling potential customers using leads
provided by Defendants in order to pre-qualify potential customers
for loans, loan refinancing, mortgages, reverse mortgages, and
other sales-related work. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clifford P. Bendau II, Esq.
      Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
      THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
      P.O. Box 97066
      Phoenix, AZ 85060
      Telephone: (480) 382-5176
      Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

             - and -

      James L. Simon, Esq.
      6000 Freedom Square Dr.
      Independence, OH 44131
      Telephone: (216) 525-8890
      Facsimile: (216) 642-5814
      Email: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com


SENTRY INSURANCE: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Kenton Circuit Court (Division 3), in Covington, Kentucky,
will hold a hearing on June 30, 2017, to consider final approval
of the settlement reached in the case captioned, Patricia Jarboe
v. Sentry Insurance, A Mutual Company, Civil Action No. 08-CI-
2173.

Objections to the settlement are due June 28, 2017.

The settlement applies only to Kentucky residents whose homes or
cars were insured by Sentry Insurance (SIAMCO), for any period of
time between June 22, 2001, and December 31, 2007. Non-Kentucky
residents are not eligible.

The lawsuit alleged that certain local government taxes on
insurance policy premiums paid by Sentry insureds residing in
Kentucky were overcharged or improperly collected. Kenton Circuit
Court certified a class action for settlement purposes to resolve
the lawsuit.

Former insureds in Kentucky who paid insurance premiums to Sentry
between June 22, 2001 and December 31, 2007 are entitled to a
refund of $25.00 for each home or car insurance policy.

Refund checks will be mailed to qualified claimants.

Information on the settlement is available at:

   http://www.KentuckyPolicyPremiumSettlement.com

The court appointed, as attorneys for all Settlement Class
Members:

     Alexander F. Edmondson, Esq.
     Jason V. Reed, Esq.
     Edmondson & Associates
     28 West Fifth Street
     Covington, KY 41011

          - and -

     John C. Whitfield, Esq.
     Whitfield & Cox, P.S.C.
     19 N Main St
     Madisonville, KY 42431
     Tel: 270-821-0656

         - and -

     Gary E. Mason, Esq.
     The Mason Law Firm, L.L.P.
     1625 Massachusetts Ave NW #605
     Washington, DC 20036
     Tel: 202-429-2294

Kurtzman Carson Consultants serves as claims administrator.

Copies of the settlement objections must be sent to Edmondson &
Associates, and to:

     John L. Tate, Esq.
     Stites & Harbison PLLC
     400 W. Market Street, 18th Floor
     Louisville, KY 40202


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Competing Class Action Hampers Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Max Brantley, writing for Arkansas Times, reports that a $45
million settlement of a class action lawsuit against Southwestern
Energy is imperiled by heated action in a competing class action
lawsuit in federal court.

Late in May, Southwestern Energy announced a preliminary
settlement of a lawsuit claiming royalty owners in the
Fayetteville shale had been underpaid for gas taken from their
land.  That was in a Conway County circuit court case and a final
hearing on that settlement is scheduled later this month.

The settlement provides that about $20 million of the settlement
will go to lawyers.

Some, but not all of the same landowners are covered in a class
action case in federal court.  It was scheduled to go to trial on
June 5 before federal Judge Brian Miller.  Key issue: The
settlement terms in the state case provide that the settlement may
be terminated if the case goes to trial on June 5.

The federal filings have come fast and furiously in recent days.
They have included emergency appeals by the gas company in favor
of preserving the state court settlement.  Allegations of
misconduct mark the pleadings. Settling parties in the state case
are anxious to dispose of the federal case, which they see as just
a bid by lawyers to get a share of fees.  The lawyers for
landowners in the federal case argue that the settlement is a bad
deal for landowners and a good deal for the lawyers in the state
case and the gas company.

A gas glut has dropped gas prices and resulted in a virtual end to
exploration in the Fayetteville shale, a relatively expensive gas
play to drill.  But gas continues to be produced from the play.
The suit settled in state court has been litigated for seven years
and covers some 13,000 landowners deprived of proper payments from
2006 to 2016.  It provides for compensation for past underpayments
and a new calculation of exploration expenses on future payments.

Southwestern Energy has tried repeatedly to delay the June 5
trial.  Words have grown heated.

In an order on May 31 Judge Miller described the motions as
delaying actions and responded sharply to the gas company's
criticism of his handling of the case.

The gist of their argument, said Judge Miller, is that the
plaintiffs' attorneys should be disqualified for entering into a
"secret" agreement with attorneys representing state court class
members so that the two suits could proceed on parallel tracks.
That is, the state claim would represent Arkansas residents and
the federal court claim would cover people outside Arkansas.  The
argument goes that they no longer want to go along with that
agreement (the existence of which is disputed by the plaintiffs in
the federal case.) The judge wrote:

"Suspecting such an agreement existed, defense counsel alerted the
federal court that lawyers were attempting to certify "slice[s]"
of the class action pie and divide fees between the lawyers.

"The defendants advocated for a broad nationwide class in federal
court, and defense counsel represented that such an arrangement
would eliminate prejudice from any suspected agreement "because
there is no longer any charge of divided loyalties" between class
counsel and its class members.  The nationwide class without the
Arkansas exclusions was eventually certified, and the defendants
have not raised that issue again until now, though now they frame
their argument as one premised on class counsel misleading the
federal court.  For the defendants to now argue that the agreement
jeopardizes class counsels' adequacy -- but apparently, only class
counsel in the federal case where a settlement has not
materialized -- is disingenuous."

Judge Miller refused to stop the long-scheduled trial in federal
court.  On June 2, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied
the gas company's emergency request to override Miller.  So, at
the moment, the case is on for June 5.

The filings in the case have grown heated.  The gas company has
accused Miller of abusing his discretion.  He's forcefully
disputed that.

Lawyers for plaintiffs in the federal case (known as the "Smith
case") have accused those who settled the state case (known as the
"Snow case") of collusion with the gas company.

. . . in an attempt to settle on the cheap and avoid a trial
here, Defendants entered into a collusive reverse auction
settlement that (i) pays the Snow plaintiffs' attorneys two-thirds
of the cash benefit ($20 million), (ii) judicially endorses a
fraudulently-created gathering charge which guarantees Defendants
$101 million in future profits from the Smith Class, and (iii)
provides less than $10 million to be shared amongst over 12,000
settlement class members to address well over $193 million in
actual and statutory damages.

Second, as evidenced by the Snow transcript, Defendants violated
ethical rules and the Court's Orders and disrupted this litigation
by sending notice to the Smith class.  In addition to violating
Court Orders and the attorney-client relationship between Class
Counsel and the Class, the notice -- rushed out around midnight on
May 19 -- was misleading because it contained no reference to the
Smith case nor any explanation of how the Snow settlement effects
Smith Class members. Given the misleading nature of the Snow
notice and the fact that this Court's notice advised Class members
that if they "DO NOTHING," they will "[s]tay in this lawsuit" and
"stay in [this] Class" approximately 12,000 Smith Class members
would have no reason to respond to the Snow notice.  Instead, they
would reasonably rely on the representations in the Smith notice
that this Court would oversee their claims that would be litigated
by Smith Class Counsel in federal court.  Smith Class members have
been provided no reason to believe otherwise.

This is not a mistake. Defendants knowingly created this situation
in an effort to jam a collusive settlement through state court
before the impending trial in this case.  The Court cannot allow
the claims of Smith Class members -- over which it exercises
supervisory control -- to be waived or their Due Process rights to
be violated as a result of Defendants' end-run around the Court's
supervisory authority.

Lawyers for Smith case plaintiffs want sanctions imposed against
the defense lawyers for misleading their clients about the nature
of the state settlement.  Among others, they want records in the
federal case unsealed so they could be available for the state
judge to consider in a final hearing on approving the state court
settlement to help judge whether that settlement is fair.

Here's the full motion for sanctions.

The record indicates Judge Miller still has under submission the
request for a contempt citation and sanctions against the defense
lawyers.  He has granted a defense motion to exclude testimony
about the state court settlement from the federal trial.

The developments have brought new parties into the case, including
an effort to intervene by a landowner covered in the state court
settlement who argued that the Smith case lawyers are trying to
undermine that settlement only because they want out of the
supposed secret fee agreement.  The potential intervenor (whose
effort to enter the case was denied by MIller) said they have
decided to risk a trial "not for the benefit of the Class, but
because their settlement hands are tied due to a substantial and
irreconcilable conflict of interest."

The case employs an army of lawyers.  Lawyers for plaintiffs in
the federal case include Ben Caruth of Morrilton, Erik Danielson
of Fayeteville, members of the Kessler Topaz firm of Pennsylvania
that has figured in many a hot class action legal/political story
in Arkansas, former state senator Allen Gordon, lawyers from Texas
and Oklahoma and J.F. Valley of Helena-West Helena.  Lawyers on
the defense side include lawyers from Texas, Rex Terry of Fort
Smith and lawyers from the Kutak Rock office in Little Rock, with
recent filings attempting to stop the trial coming particularly
from Jess Askew of Little Rock with Kutak Rock.

Plaintiffs lawyers in the state court settlement include Tulsa
lawyers and Joe Cambiano and Dale Lipsmeyer of Morrilton. In state
court, they've filed an extensive brief disputing the allegations
of collusion raised in the federal case.  They contend that their
suit, as the first of several filed over gas payments, should take
priority. It faults the Smith counsel for failing to include more
than 4,000 landowners covered in their case.  "The potential for
chaos has been heightened and inflamed" by counsel in the federal
case, they said. They contend there IS a fee settlement agreement
and the Smith lawyers have breached it and lied about it.  The
federal court lawyers said they had an agreement only as it
applied to a mediation effort, which failed. The state court
lawyers dispute this vigorously.

The nut of that argument is in this portion of the pleading in
Morrilton.

It closes by saying that, due to actions by the federal case
lawyers, "the settlement in this case is in grave danger."

There's a third class action, known as the Stewmon case, in state
court but it has seen little action since being certified as a
class action. [GN]


SOUTHWINDS INSPECTION: "Berrisford" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlo Berrisford, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. Southwinds Inspection Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00117 (D.N.D., June 5, 2017), seeks
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Southwinds Inspection Corp. is an oilfield services company that
provides specialized inspection services to its clients in the
drilling and pipeline industries where Plaintiff worked as an
inspector from approximately February of 2012 to February of 2016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Neuman, Esq.
      SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      5612 Chaucer Drive
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (281) 885-8844
      Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
      Email: jneuman@smnlawfirm.com


SYNGENTA AG: Trial over Viptera Corn Begins in Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------
Steve Vockrodt, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that a
major trial started June 5 in Kansas City, Kan., that has farmers
accusing Swiss agriculture giant Syngenta AG of hurting the
domestic market for corn when it introduced a strain of corn seed
in the U.S. that the Chinese government for years would not accept
for import.

The report notes the trial consolidated thousands of cases brought
by farmers who are prepared to argue that their damages could
reach $5.77 billion as a result of using Syngenta's corn seed.

Syngenta maintains that the domestic corn market was not harmed by
China's decision to stop importing corn grown with one of its seed
products, according to the report.

The report recounts that Syngenta sold a strain of corn seed in
the U.S. called Viptera in 2010, a genetically-modified corn seed
product. The U.S. allowed the use of Syngenta's products in 2010.
China, meanwhile, had to approve the import of corn grown with
genetically-modified corn seed. Syngenta told farmers that China
would accept corn crops for import for the 2011 harvest.  China
ultimately stopped accepting imports of U.S. corn grown with
Viptera in 2013.

The report notes that local law firms involved in the Syngenta
litigation include Stueve Siegel Hanson as lead and liaison
counsel for the plaintiffs and Berkowitz Oliver as liaison counsel
for Syngenta.


TENNESSEE: DCS Soon to Operate Without Court Oversight
------------------------------------------------------
Anita Wadhwani writing for The Tennessean reports that a 17-year-
old federal court case against the Department of Children's
Services is expected to reach an end, allowing the child welfare
agency to operate independently for the first time since a New
York watchdog agency filed suit.

The case began in 2000, when attorneys for Children's Rights
charged in a federal class-action lawsuit that DCS was violating
the rights of kids in foster care and subjecting children to
physical and emotional harm.

Named for Brian A., a 9-year-old boy who spent seven months in an
overcrowded Memphis emergency shelter with dangerous older boys
and little access to education, the suit resulted in hundreds of
new standards that DCS was required to meet.

Last year DCS was able to demonstrate that it had met or exceeded
a host of benchmarks that include smaller caseloads for social
workers, keeping siblings together, and limiting the number of
times kids move from one foster family to another. Under its
agreement with Children's Rights, DCS had to maintain those
benchmarks for a full year before the case could end.

The court-ordered changes included better services for youth who
are 18 when they leave foster care. Previously many of those
children had no place to go and no support.

Hannah Harrison, 23, said such DCS programs helped her as a
freshman in college after spending the prior eight years in foster
care, where she was placed after being abused by her mother. Her
father, who was an alcoholic, died when she was 8.

"It was a really hard time for me and I was struggling," Harrison
said. "I was able to learn different life skills, how to apply for
a job -- just the kind of skills you need as an adult that foster
kids don't often have."

Longtime child welfare advocates said the agency has made vast
improvements from the often appalling conditions faced by foster
children 17 years ago.

"In the old days, kids would come into care and it would be a
black hole," said Pat Lawler, CEO of Youth Villages, which
contracts with DCS to provide foster homes and treatment to about
2,300 children each day.

Lawler said a key shift has been focusing on getting children out
of state custody as quickly as possible.

"What's so different now is that everyone at DCS, advocates,
judges, providers are all in line in wondering what's best for
children and families, and it's not living in a foster home or an
institutional home for the rest of their young lives," he said.

Under the terms of the legal settlement, DCS will create an
"external accountability center" of outside and neutral experts
from Vanderbilt University and the Chapin Hall Center for Children
at the University of Chicago, which will take over from the court
the job of independently monitoring the state's child welfare
agency for another 18 months and providing public updates on its
operations.

The agency was expected to reach the end of court oversight years
ago, but suffered serious setbacks after revelations about the
department's slow responses to child deaths and a flawed computer
system that could not track child deaths. The agency and its
former chief Kate O'Day came under intense scrutiny from state
lawmakers, child advocacy groups and a Tennessean investigation
into the deaths or near deaths of more than 200 children in state
care. O'Day subsequently resigned.

Last month The Tennessean reported that kids were sleeping in DCS
offices because there was no place else to put them. DCS
Commissioner Bonnie Hommrich said "it breaks all of our hearts,"
and said DCS officials are working to expand the number of
available beds for children.

Hommrich said that while she is "thrilled" the case is drawing to
a close, "the work goes on. We will always have tough problems
before us. At DCS, we promise to bring our full energy and
attention to whatever lies ahead. And we will use the same focus
and dedication that has brought us to this point today." [GN]


THC-ORANGE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Song" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emmy Song, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THC-Orange County, Inc. and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 8:17-cv-00965 (C.D. Cal., June 6, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay proper minimum
and overtime wages, provide accurate itemized wage statements, and
failure to timely pay wages to terminated employees in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

THC-Orange County, Inc. provides healthcare services in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry W. Lee, Esq.
      DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 488-6555
      Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
      E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

         - and -

      Edward W. Choi, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
      515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 381-1515
      Facsimile: (213) 465-4885
      E-mail: edward.choi@calaw.biz
         - and -

      Alex Cha, Esq.
      J. Edward Kim, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ALEX CHA
      1055 W 7th St., Fl. 28
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 351-3513
      Facsimile: (213) 351-3514
      E-mail: alex@alexchalaw.com
              edward@alexchalaw.com


UBER: Fights Drivers' Bid to Revive Claims Over Improper Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc has told a U.S. judge that despite its recent
admission that drivers in New York were charged millions of
dollars in inflated fees, he should not consider reviving a
proposed class action claim that the company breached its contract
with them.

Uber's lawyers at Littler Mendelson filed a short letter in
federal court in Brooklyn on June 1 asking U.S. District Judge
Nicholas Garaufis to reject a request by two drivers to reconsider
his March decision dismissing the claim, which is part of a larger
lawsuit, in light of the company's concession. [GN]


WHITELINE EXPRESS: "Bell" Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Bell, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
nationwide, Plaintiff, v. Whiteline Express, Ltd., Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-01481 (N.D. Tex., June 5, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees,
litigation costs, costs of court, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and injunctive relief under the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff work as a shuttle driver for the Defendant's commercial
trucking business. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Tom Carse, Esq.
     CARSE LAW FIRM
     6220 Campbell Road, Ste. 401
     Dallas, TX 75248
     Telephone: (972) 503-6338
     Facsimile: (972) 503-6348
     Email: tom@carselaw.com


WHOLESOME GOURMET: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Chamorro" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Jorge Chamorro, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Wholesome Gourmet Market, Inc. and
Brooklyns Natural Food Corp. V, and/or any other entities
affiliated with or controlled by Wholesome Gourmet Martket, Inc.
and Brooklyns Natural Food Corp. V, Case No. 155220/2017 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., June 7, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work over 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a gourmet grocery store located at
534 Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn, 1306 Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn,
and 2126 Caton Ave. in Brooklyn. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      Jack Newhouse, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
              jnewhouse@vandallp.com


YELP INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Sapan" Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Sapan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Yelp, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-03240 (N.D. Cal., June 6,
20170, seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an
artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without
prior express consent of the called party.

Yelp, Inc. is on online service that publishes and curates reviews
of local businesses throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Reichman, Esq.
      PRATO & REICHMAN, APC
      8555 Aero Drive, Suite 303
      San Diego, CA 92123
      Telephone: (619) 683-7971
      E-mail: chrisr@prato-reichman.com


ZILLOW: Asserts Zestimates Class Action Without Merit
-----------------------------------------------------
Harold Bubil, writing for Herald Tribune, reports Zillow, the
online real estate marketing company, gets most of the criticism
in its field because it is the biggest player in its field. Redfin
and Trulia give online estimates of home values, but it is
Zillow's Zestimate that is the most popular of these similar
features.

For one thing, it's free, and you don't have to fill out a form
and await a response.

But Zestimate also is the reason Zillow is being hit with a class-
action lawsuit.

A homeowner in Illinois claims the Zestimate on her townhouse is
too low by about $75,000 and is preventing her from being able to
sell the property. She has had it listed at $626,000.

She claims Zillow is acting as a real estate appraiser without a
license and not doing a very good job of it. She calls the
Zestimate deceptive and unfair to consumers.

Zillow says the suit is without merit. It notes that the median
error rate on Zestimates is 5 percent -- a lot better than it used
to be. Still, the company is offering $1 million to the person or
team that comes up with the best renovation of Zillow's automated
valuation algorithms. This may be a dare on Zilllow's part, as in,
"We dare you to come up with a better procedure than ours."

I say, if you want your house appraised, hire a licensed real
estate appraiser. If you want to price it for sale, invite a few
real estate agents over to give you comparative market analyses.

If you want a quick, cheap, easy talking point for your next
dinner party, stick with the Zestimate.

Regarding the suit, the Zestimate -- I like it as a starting point
for conversations about home values -- amounts to free speech and
fair comment. You may think of your home as private property, but
in another sense, you are a caretaker; the home remains in the
community realm and generates tax dollars for the common good. Its
value is important to your neighbors.

Information from public property-tax records is fed into Zillow's
"proprietary" formula to reach an estimated market value for each
of the 110 million homes in its database. It is extremely unlikely
that these value estimates would be as accurate as an appraisal
prepared by a professional appraiser over the course of a day or
two of research.

No, the Zestimate is the application of computer science and math
to data sets that do not necessarily have all the relevant facts.
Appraising is an art as well as a science. Appraisers do their
homework and find out if the property in question has been
completely renovated or is functionally obsolete. Conversely, the
computer may not know about adverse conditions that might affect
its value. The appraiser likely will.

Real estate agents claim Zillow is full of inaccurate information.
Pointing to the fact that rival Realtor.com's listings are updated
every 15 minutes from Multiple Listing Services, they say listings
on Zillow tend to linger in "for-sale" status long after they have
sold, for example. My experience with this is that since the
Herald-Tribune started publishing its Market Snapshot feature in
the Saturday Real Estate section in 2011, Zillow has been used as
a source of information -- as well as Realtor.com -- for photo
captions and rarely has been wrong. (One Realtor did complain that
he had changed brokerages six months earlier and also had changed
the price of the property that I had published, and that Zillow
still showed the old brokerage and the old price. But he had not
updated the listing information in Zillow.)

I also wonder if people complain to Zillow that their Zestimate is
too low if they are using it to appeal a property tax assessment.

This class-action suit seems questionable to me. Zillow markets
properties and provides advertising services for real estate
agents. Its Zestimate is an automated opinion, at best. If you
really want to know what your house is worth (unless you live in a
tract development where the homes are pretty much the same), hire
a pro. [GN]


* Big Changes Could be Coming to Class Action Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------
Philip Barilovits, Esq., at Hinshaaw and Culbertson LLP, in an
article for JD Supra, wrote that class actions, especially those
with nationwide scope and the specter of huge payouts, have long
been the stuff of nightmares for in-house counsel and corporate
executives. The press regularly report on settlements where
plaintiffs' counsel walked away with millions in attorney fees
while the aggregate recovery by the class was much smaller.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (the 2005 CAFA)
significantly changed how class actions were litigated. Advocates
of the legislation said it would reduce forum shopping by
expanding federal jurisdiction over certain class actions and
allowing greater court scrutiny of class action settlement
agreements (including settlements with so-called "coupon"
components).

But the 2005 CAFA did not solve all the problems that class action
critics wanted Congress to address.  In response, the U.S. House
of Representatives passed H.R. 985 in March of this year, with the
relevant section of the bill titled the "Fairness in Class Action
Litigation Act of 2017.". For simplicity's sake, we will call this
bill the 2017 CAFA. The bill has now moved on to the Senate, and
in late March was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Given the current political situation in Washington, it's anyone's
guess as to when the bill will be reported out of committee (if at
all) much less come to a full vote.

Corporate clients should, nonetheless, be aware of the terms of
the bill being considered.  If the Senate ends up passing the bill
and the President signs it into law, the 2017 CAFA has the
potential to change class action practice in dramatic ways. Here
are the 2017 CAFA's main provisions, each of which will make
important changes to the current law for class actions:

     1. Similarity of Injury:  Before a federal judge can certify
a class for personal injury or monetary damages, the named
plaintiff must "demonstrate that each proposed class member
suffered from the same type and scope of injury" as the putative
class representative.  In any order certifying such a class, the
court "shall" include a determination, based on a "rigorous
analysis" of the evidence submitted that this requirement has been
met. (Section 1716.)

     2. Conflicts of Interest/Disclosures:  The bill would also
require, in any class action complaint, a statement by the
putative class counsel whether the proposed class representative
is a relative, a former or present employee, a former or present
client (with the exception of the class action at issue) or
whether the class representative has any contractual relationship
with the class counsel.  A court may not certify a class where any
such conflicts of interest exist.  Interestingly, the complaint
must also "describe the circumstances" in which the named
plaintiff in which the named representative agreed to be included
in the complaint and any other class actions the named
representative has played a "similar role."  (Section 1717.)

     3. Ascertainability:  Addressing an issue that has garnered
the attention of several federal courts of appeal, the bill would
mandate that no class could be certified unless the class is
defined with "objective criteria" and the class representative
"affirmatively demonstrates" that there is a reliable and feasible
mechanism for the court to determine if the proposed class members
fall within the class definition and "distributing directly to a
substantial majority of class members any monetary relief for the
class."  (Section 1718(a)).  Although many courts had read an
ascertainability requirement as being implicit in Rule 23 already,
some courts, notably recently the Ninth Circuit, see Briseno v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2017), disagreed.
This would essentially end that debate and, arguably, strengthen
the ascertainability requirement many courts had already mandated.

     4. Attorney Fees.  In a significant departure from practice,
CAFA 2017 would specifically require that no class attorney fees
will be "determined or paid" until the distribution of any funds
to the class members "has been completed."  (Section 1718(b)(1).)
In another significant departure, a federal court could not grant
attorney fees to any class counsel beyond a "reasonable
percentage" of any amounts "distributed to and received by class
members."  (Section 1717(b)(2).)  This would seem to prohibit so-
called "claims-made" settlements, where class counsel would be
paid according to what a theoretical upper limit of recovery for
the class is no matter how small that recovery ends up being. This
practice has been under some criticism, such as from Judge Richard
Posner of the Seventh Circuit. "In no event," the bill continues,
"shall the attorney fees award exceed the total amount of money
directly distributed to and received by all class members."
(Section 1717(b)(2).)

     5. Stay of Discovery:  If any motion (such as a motion to
dismiss, motion to strike class allegations, or any other motion
which would dispose of the class allegations) is filed, "all
discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed" unless the motion
is brought and the court finds that discovery must continue to
preserve evidence or avoid undue prejudice.  (Section 1721.)

     6. Appeal:  The bill would also give an immediate right to
appeal from a class certification order. (Section 1723.)  Current
law (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)) allows for an appeal,
but both the trial court and the appeals court must agree to
consider the appeal.

     7. Third Party Funding Disclosure:  The bill would also
require disclosure of any third party (besides members of the
class or class counsel) who would have any contingent right to
receive proceeds of the lawsuit. (Section 1722.)

     8. Money Distribution Data:  The bill would also require
reporting a detailed list of actual moneys distributed to class
members to two federal court administrative bodies, which will
then be required to submit an annual report summarizing such
information.  (Section 1720.)

     9. Effective Date.  Finally, the version of the bill passed
by the House provides that these amendments "shall apply to any
civil action pending on the date of enactment . . . or commenced
thereafter."  (Section 107.)

This bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
There, it could be adopted in substantially the same form, adopted
with major changes (perhaps requiring a conference between the two
houses) or outright rejected. We will monitor this important
bill's progress in the coming months. [GN]


* Financial Industry Braces Impact of Fiduciary Rule
----------------------------------------------------
Joseph Lawler, writing for Washington Examiner, reports that with
a major Obama rule that will reshape the financial planning sector
set to start going into effect, the industry is plotting its
options for lightening its burden.

To ease the impact of the Department of Labor fiduciary rule,
which will require financial advisers to act in their clients'
best interests, the Chamber of Commerce and other big industry
groups hope to enlist Congress in pressuring the Trump Labor
Department to revise the rule and for the more business-friendly
Securities and Exchange Commission to write its own rule on the
topic.

"This may end up being a three-legged stool," said David
Hirschmann, head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Center for
Capital Markets Competitiveness, referring to the prospect of
action by Congress, the SEC and the Labor Department.

The financial industry lobbied hard over the past year and a half
to stop the Obama administration from implementing the fiduciary
rule, as it is known.  Teaming with congressional liberals, Obama
pushed the rule as part of his fourth-quarter, pen-and-phone
regulatory agenda.  He argued that the rule was necessary to
prevent some advisers and brokers from bilking savers with tax-
privileged accounts, such as IRAs. Conflicts of interest in the
industry, with brokers steering clients into inappropriate high-
fee investment products in return for kickbacks, cost savers $17
billion annually, the Obama White House calculated.

Industry groups, however, argued that the rule would make it
unprofitable to maintain clients who are small savers or small
businesses, resulting in many people losing access to investment
advice.

President Trump gave them hope in January, when he issued an
executive order requiring the Labor Department to review the rule
before it was supposed to take effect, which prompted a brief
delay from the agency.  Although that was seen as the possible
prelude to a much longer delay and possible walking back of the
rule, newly installed Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta announced
in a late May Wall Street Journal op-ed that part of the rule
would be enacted on June 9.  Administrative law prevented him from
further delaying the rule, he explained.

Yet his agency is still reviewing comments it solicited during the
brief delay and is expected soon to solicit more comments from
businesses and advocates on both sides of the issue.

Some Republicans objected to the Trump Labor Department's letting
the rule go through at all.  Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the chairman of
the House Financial Services Committee, suggested that Obama
holdovers in the agency subverted the administration's will.  In
the meantime, industry groups aim to keep the pressure on Congress
and the agencies by highlighting people who will be disadvantaged
by the rule, even if outright blocking it is no longer a
possibility.

"Our goal now is to work to mitigate that harm and to work with
the regulator both at the SEC and at the Department of Labor,"
said Jill Hoffman, vice president of Government Affairs for
Investment Management at the Financial Services Roundtable.

Some members of her trade group are still trying to calculate the
effects of the new regulation and what they can and cannot live
with, she said.

At issue is the threat of class-action lawsuits against advisers
and brokers.  While companies can usually conform to and plan
around regulations, Mr. Hirschmann said, "that's such a jackpot
justice arrangement that it simply makes it hard to understand
what your costs are going to be, who you can serve."

In a 20-page report, the Chamber of Commerce listed a range of
problems that the fiduciary rule would create or has already
generated for savers, according to industry sources who filed
comments with the Labor Department.  Up to 11 million people with
IRAs through brokers could lose their brokers, according to the
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.  One survey
found that nearly three-quarters of financial advisers plan to
drop some low-balance clients.

Anecdotally, many firms have begun preparing for the rule by
moving away from commissions and toward a flat fee for investment
advice or by limiting human advice provided to small savers in
favor of cheaper robo-advisers.

From the perspective of advisers, that is the problem. The harm is
the "rule's bias against commission sales," said Howard Bard, vice
president for taxes and retirement security for the American
Council of Life Insurers.

In fact, a shift away from commissions was part of the Obama
administration's design, and the changes that advisers, brokers
and insurers are already making to comply with the rule represent
a partial victory for industry critics. Obama Labor Secretary
Thomas Perez touted robo-advisers such as Wealthfront as a model
of low-cost fiduciary advice.

Yet those gains could be lost if the Labor Department's rule were
to be rolled back, said Marcus Stanley, a policy expert with the
left-leaning group Americans for Financial Reform.  "There's money
to be made by steering people into products that are the wrong
products for them," he said, meaning that some brokers would
return to bilking clients in the absence of enforcement.

As for legislative options, there is one set to hit the House
floor, in the form of the Financial Choice Act, a sweeping
revision of post-crisis banking rules offered by
Mr. Hensarling that also would outright repeal the fiduciary rule.

That legislative package, though, is thought to have poor
prospects in the Senate. Congressional action is more likely to
take the form of leaning on the agencies rather than legislative
changes.

To that end, fiduciary rule proponents fear the influence of the
SEC under the direction of new Trump Chairman Jay Clayton, a
former Wall Street lawyer.  In years past, Stanley noted, the SEC
has declined to write a fiduciary rule and has discussed only
relatively watered-down proposals, such as more stringent
disclosure requirements.

Republicans favor the SEC, however, on the grounds that it has
more relevant experience with investor-client relations.  Last
year, House Republicans advanced legislation that would prevent
the Labor Department from writing a rule until the SEC weighed in
on the topic.  Liberals criticized the measure as effectively
blocking a rule, because action from the SEC would never happen or
wouldn't set an effective requirement that advisers act in their
clients' best interests. [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  * * *