CAR_Public/170620.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Tuesday, June 20, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 122



                            Headlines

326 RESTAURANT: Faces "Lemieux" Suit in S.D. New York
500 FOREST: Faces "Sampedro" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
ACCOUNT SERVICES: Faces "Phillips" Suit in N.D. Texas
AF MASONRY: Faces "Vazquez" Suit in Middle District of Florida
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Gil" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: "Abdurahman" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
APRIL CORP: Faces "Campos" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
APTOS INC: Faces "Provost" Suit in Northern Dist. of Georgia
ARTURO'S PARK: Faces "Candia" Suit in S.D. New York
ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Reid" Suit in Northern Dist. of Georgia

BNC BANCORP: Faces "Giles" Suit Over Pinnacle Financial Merger
CAPITAL CONTRACTORS: Bid to Certify Class in Sanchez Suit Denied
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Bruno" Suit in E.D. New York
CARACO PHARMA: Trial Court Ruling in Shareholders' Suit Reversed
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces "Alvarez" Suit in D. New Jersey

CIUSSS DE LA CAPITALE: More Legionella Case Defendants May Emerge
CJS SOLUTIONS: "Garrett" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Glick" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE: Court Certifies 2 Classes in "West" Suit
CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Faces "Searcy" Suit in Tenn. Cir. Court

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Sweeney" Suit in E.D. New York
CREDICO (USA): Faces "Huffman" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
DDR CORP: Faces "Gellatly" Suit in Western Dist. of Pennsylvania
DIAMOND PROPERTY: Faces "Camacho" Suit in S.D. New York
DILLON LAW: Faces "Rushing" Suit in Northern Dist. of Georgia

DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces "Pennzello" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Leitner" Suit in E.D. New York
EXPRESS RECOVERY: Faces "McMillan" Suit in N.D. Georgia
FERGUSON, MO: Fant Moves to Certify Three Classes & One Subclass
FIDELITY RESOURCES: Faces "Jones" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Labor Laws

FIELDTURF USA: Paw, Inc.'s Suit Over Turf Fields Sent to N.J.
FOOD LLC: Faces "Guarnero-Ruiz" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: KPH Healthcare Alleges Price Fixing
GATESTONE & CO: Faces "Traina" Suit in E.D. New York
GATESTONE & CO: Faces "Aguilar" Suit in S.D. California

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Fenner" Suit Over Duramax Engine Claims
GREAT HEALTHWORKS: Bid to Dismiss "Harrison" Suit Denied
GROCER DIRECT: "Baum" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
HOME CARE: Court Certifies FLSA, Rule 23 Classes in "Dillow" Suit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Vinci" Suit in C.D. California

IHEARTMEDIA INC: Judge Tosses Pre-1972 Royalties Class Action
ISLAND COMMONS: Faces W.H.M. Suit in New York Supreme Court
J. CREW GROUP: New Jersey Court Dismisses"Kamal" Suit
JMA ENERGY: "Speed" Suit Remanded to Oklahoma State Court
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces "Bowling" Suit Over Benecol Spread Ad

JP MORGAN: Quinn Emanuel Ordered to Turn Over Forex Case Docs
JUNO USA: Faces "Razzak" Suit in Southern District of New York
KATE SPADE: D&Os Face "Jauregui" Suit over Coach Merger
KCG HOLDINGS: Faces "Evangelista" Lawsuit Over Virtu Merger
LANNETT CO: KPH Files Lawsuit Over Levothyroxine Pricing

LAUFER & ASSOCIATE: Faces "Flore" Suit in S.D. New York
LEASE FINANCE: Ahmed Suit Moved to Northern District of Georgia
LOCK HAVEN: Female Athletes File Discrimination Class Action
LONGHUA ZHU: "Oseguera" Suit Alleges Cal. Labor Laws Violations
MARKETPLACE 41: Faces "Duran" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York

MDL 2665: Court Denies Bid to Redact March 21 Opinion
MDLIVE INC: App User Voluntarily Dismisses Class Action
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Carall" Suit in E.D. New York
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Kraus" Suit in E.D. New York
METHODIST HEALTHCARE: "K.B" Suit Moved to District of Tennessee

MICHIGAN: Dismissal of Suits vs. Corrections Dept. Affirmed
MODERNIZE INC: Faces "Hopkins" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
MRI INT'L: "Takiguchi" Class Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Faces Concussion Class Action in Kansas
NAT'L FOOTBALL: August 7 Deadline Set for Concussion Claims

NAT'L HOCKEY: Wrongful Death Suit Tossed Amid Class Action
NORTHERN TRUST: Banks Seeks to Certify 3 Classes & 3 Subclasses
ONE PLANET: Johansen Seeks to Certify Do Not Call Registry Class
OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Certification of Classes Sought in "Vega" Suit
PEDRO'S BAR: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York

PENN CREDIT: "Nitti" Files Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
PRETIUM RESOURCES: NY Securities Suit Dismissed, Case Closed
PROFESSIONAL BUREAU OF COLLECTIONS: Faces "Kraus" Suit in D. Md.
RAYMOND JAMES: No Objections Filed Against Ponzi Case Settlement
RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Faces "Arroyo" Suit in E.D. New York

ROBINSON NURSING: Understaffing Class Action Can Proceed
ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: Faces "Thomas" Suit in Ill. Cir. Ct.
SAJAN INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
SOLOMON AND ASSOCIATES: "Knutson" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
STATE FARM: Faces "Ochoa" Suit Over Dividends "Underpayment"

SUNSET EXPRESS: Faces "Gallezzo" Suit Under Mich. Labor Act.
TANGOE INC: Faces "Levine" Suit Over Marlin Management Merger
TELIGENT INC: Faces KPH Suit in Eastern District of Pennsylvania
TEXTBOOK WAREHOUSE: Bais Yaakov Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
THERANOS INC: Bid to Dismiss Arizona Suit Partly Granted

TONAWANDA COKE: Soil Study Still Underway Amid Class Action
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Alamia" Suit in E.D. New York
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Background Check Service Class Action
UNITED COLLECTION: Class Certification Sought in "Machnik" Suit
UNITED STATES: DOJ Faces "Schneider" Suit in E.D. Mo.

UNITED STATES: Tax Preparers Get Favorable Ruling in Class Action
UNITED STATES: Travel Ban Litigation Reaches Supreme Court
UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Lakkard Moves for Certification of Class
US PIZZA: Court Certifies Class of Servers in "Latcham" Suit
VOESTALPINE: Class Action Mulled Over Black Dust Material

WAL-MART STORES: Certification of Class Sought in "Smith" Suit
WALTER INVESTMENT: R. Worley Named Lead Plaintiff in "Elkin"
WORKS & LENTZ: Faces "Wall" Suit in Northern District of Oklahoma
ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Schwartz" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

* Site Predicts Uptick in Litigation Funding Growth in Australia



                            *********



326 RESTAURANT: Faces "Lemieux" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 326 Restaurant Corp.
The case is captioned as Crystal Lemieux, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 326 Restaurant Corp.,
doing business as: Joe Allen Restaurant, Joe Allen, and Claire
Choveaux, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04292 (S.D.N.Y., June
7, 2017).

326 Restaurant owns and operates the Joe Allen Restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


500 FOREST: Faces "Sampedro" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 500 Forest Avenue
Corp. The case is styled as Kared Sampedro, individually and in
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
500 Forest Avenue Corp., doing business as: King's Arms Restaurant
jointly and severally and Dimitrios Koutsovasilis, jointly and
severally, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03423 (E.D.N.Y., June
7, 2017).

Kings Arms restaurant offers award-winning dining in the heart of
Christchurch, Dorset.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ACCOUNT SERVICES: Faces "Phillips" Suit in N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Account Services
USA. The case is captioned as Nanthaley Phillips, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Account Services USA and John Does 1-25, the Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-01523-L (N.D. Tex., June 8, 2017). The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Sam A Lindsay.[BN]

Account Services is a collection service agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth P Crosland, Esq.
          CROSLAND LAW FIRM
          320 Decker Drive
          Irving, TX 75062
          Telephone: (972) 591 6919
          Facsimile: (972) 804 0713
          E-mail: seth@croslandlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695 3282


AF MASONRY: Faces "Vazquez" Suit in Middle District of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AF Masonry, Inc. The
case is captioned as Moises Vazquez, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AF Masonry, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01362-JSM-JSS (M.D. Fla., June 9,
2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James S. Moody, Jr.

AF Masonry is a Translation and Localization company located in
3368 Royal Oak Dr., Mulberry, Florida, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo A Duarte, Esq.
          CANTRELL DUARTE, PLLC
          401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 867 0015
          Facsimile: (813) 867 0116
          E-mail: rduarte@cantrellduarte.com

               - and -

          William Jason Cantrell, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. - TAMPA
          100 N Tampa St Ste 3600
          Tampa, FL 33602-5867
          Telephone: (813) 289 1247
          Facsimile: (813) 289 6530
          E-mail: william.cantrell@ogletreedeakins.com


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Gil" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Interstate
LLC. The case is captioned as Sally Gil and Suzette Rene,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Allied Interstate LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-03362 (E.D.N.Y., June 5, 2017).

Allied Interstate is a collection agency that is attempting to
collect a debt.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: "Abdurahman" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
ZOHAL ABDURAHMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP, Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-01080-AJB-BLM (S.D. Cal., May 25, 2017), alleges that
Defendant's debt collection practice is largely automated and
utilizes standardized form letters or templates.  This practice
violates the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Allegedly, sometime after November 9, 2016, Plaintiff received her
first collection notice dated November 9, 2016 from Defendant,
attempting to collect a debt in the amount of $10,024.42. The debt
was allegedly owed to American Express Co. Sometime after December
14, 2016, Plaintiff received a second collection notice, dated
December 14, 2016, from Defendant attempting to collect a debt in
the amount of $10,218.43. The debt increased from $10,024.42 to
$10,218.43, says the complaint.

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alex Asil Mashiri, Esq.
     MASHIRI LAW FIRM
     11251 Rancho Carmel Drive #500694
     San Diego, CA 92150
     Phone: (858) 348-4938
     Fax: (858) 348-4939
     E-mail: alexmashiri@yahoo.com

        - and -

     Tamim Jami, Esq.
     THE JAMI LAW FIRM P.C.
     3525 Del Mar Heights Rd #941
     San Diego, CA 92130
     Phone: (858) 284-0248
     Fax: (858) 284-0977
     E-mail: tamim@jamilaw.com


APRIL CORP: Faces "Campos" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against April Corp. The case
is styled as Eleazar Catalan Campos, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. April Corp.
doing business as: Terra Market, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
04211 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2017).

Terra Market offers fruits and vegetables.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


APTOS INC: Faces "Provost" Suit in Northern Dist. of Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aptos, Inc.  The
case is styled as Michelle Provost, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Aptos, Inc. and
Tempur Sealy International, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-02120-ELR (N.D. Ga., June 9, 2017). The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Eleanor L. Ross.

Aptos owns and operates an online platform that provides retail
enterprise management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David James Worley, Esq.
          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
          8100 A Roswell Road, Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30350
          Telephone: (404) 205 8400
          Facsimile: (404) 205 8395
          E-mail: david@ewlawllc.com
                  jim@ewlawllc.com

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          210 Summit Avenue
          Montvale, NJ 07645
          Telephone: (201) 391 7600
          Facsimile: (201) 307 1086+6
          E-mail: GGRAIFMAN@KGGLAW.COM

               - and -

          Kristi Stahnke McGregor, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP-NY
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Telephone: (212) 594 5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868 1229
          E-mail: kristi@ewlawllc.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235 1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239 2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


ARTURO'S PARK: Faces "Candia" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arturo's Park Inc.
The case is captioned as Antolin Nicolas Candia, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Arturo's
Park Inc., doing business as: Arturo's Restaurant, JJ Nap Inc.,
doing business as: Arturo's Pizzeria, Joseph Napolitano, Vincent
Napolitano, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04241 (S.D.N.Y., June
6, 2017).

Arturo's Restaurant opened in Midland Park in 1982. Arturo's
serves Italian cuisine based on the family recipes of Arturo
Allegra.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Reid" Suit in Northern Dist. of Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is titled as Mianca Reid, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Asset
Recovery Solutions, LLC and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-02095-AT-JFK (N.D. Ga., June 7, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg.

Asset Recovery is a full service asset recovery management
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Misty Ann Oaks, Esq.
          THE OAKS FIRM
          3515 Charlston Court
          Decatur, GA 30034
          Telephone: (404) 725 5697
          E-mail: attyoaks@yahoo.com


BNC BANCORP: Faces "Giles" Suit Over Pinnacle Financial Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Giles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BNC Bancorp., Thomas R. Sloan, James T.
Bolt Jr., Abney S. Boxley III, Richard D. Callicutt II, Joseph M.
Coltrane, Jr., Charles T. Hagan III, Elaine M. Lyerly, Matthew
Walsh McInnis, W. Swope Montgomery, Jr., Lenin J. Peters, John S.
Ramsey, Jr., Thomas R. Smith, Robert A. Team, Jr., G. Kennedy
Thompson, D. Vann Williford, Richard F. Wood, and Pinnacle
Financial Partners, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00482
(M.D.N.C., May 25, 2017), alleges that Defendants authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Joint Definitive
Proxy Statement in relation to the proposed merger between BNC and
Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. in violation of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act.

Pursuant to the Transaction, the Company's shareholders stand to
receive 0.5235 shares of Pinnacle common stock for each share of
BNC stock they own.

The complain asserts that the Proxy contains materially incomplete
and misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections
for the Company and Pinnacle; (ii) the valuation analyses
performed by financial advisors, Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P.,
BSP Securities, LLC, and Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., in support
of their respective fairness opinions; (iii) the fees Sandler
O'Neill and BSP stand to receive in connection with the Proposed
Merger; and (iv) conflicts of interest faced by BNC's directors.

BNC Bancorp. is a bank holding company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Fax: (212) 983-9331
     Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com

        - and -

     Janet Ward Black, Esq.
     Nancy Meyers, Esq.
     WARD BLACK LAW
     208 West Wendover Ave.
     Greensboro, NC 27401-1307
     Phone: 336-2244
     Fax: 336 379 9415
     E-mail: jwblack@wardblacklaw.com
             nmeyers@wardblacklaw.com


CAPITAL CONTRACTORS: Bid to Certify Class in Sanchez Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Maxine M. Chesney denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification filed in the lawsuit captioned LILLIANA SANCHEZ, ET
AL. v. CAPITAL CONTRACTORS, INC., Case No. 3:14-cv-02622-MMC (N.D.
Cal.).

Judge Chesney opined, among other things, that Plaintiffs Lilliana
Sanchez, Yolanda Camey and Juan Carlos Ramirez have failed to show
a determination as to employment status is amenable to classwide
proof.

The class proposed by the Plaintiffs consists of "[a]ll persons
who, from April 25, 2010 to final judgment, have been (a) employed
by Capital . . . pursuant to contract in the State of California
to perform cleaning services at Capital's clients' locations; and
(b) classified as an 'independent contractor' while performing
cleaning services and/or supervising the performance of cleaning
services at Capital's clients' properties."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ogexfdV8


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Bruno" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management
Services, LP. The case is entitled as Andrew Bruno, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Capital Management Services, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
03412 (E.D.N.Y., June 7, 2017).

Capital Management is a nationally licensed and recognized
collections agency, providing the highest level of delinquent
receivables resolution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


CARACO PHARMA: Trial Court Ruling in Shareholders' Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES
SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION.  JOSEPH ALESSI, SANJEEV ARORA, MADHU
ARORA, and SARAH ARORA, Plaintiff-Appellants, v. CARACO
PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES, LTD., GURPARTAP SINGH SACHDEVA,
FOLSOM F. BELL, TIMOTHY S. MANNEY, EDDIE MUNSON, SUN
PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES, LTD., and SUN PHARMA GLOBAL, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees. and SUDHIR V. VALIA, SAILESH T. DESAI,
JITENDRA N. DOSHI, and DILIP S. SHANGHVI, Defendants, No. 329933,
(Mich. App.), the Court of Appeals of Michigan reversed the trial
court's ruling and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

On April 11, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a four-count consolidated
class-action complaint.  In Count I, they alleged that the going-
private transaction (GPT) (i.e., the merger of Sun Pharmaceutical
and Caraco) substantially underestimated Caraco's true value and
was not procedurally or financially fair to the minority
shareholders.  They alleged in Count II that Defendants Shanghvi,
Sachdeva, Desai, and Valia breached their fiduciary duties to
Caraco's public stockholders by favoring the interests of the
majority shareholders and forcing through the GPT at an inadequate
price.  In Count III, the Plaintiffs alleged that defendants
Sachdeva, Desai, and Valia aided and abetted Sun Pharmaceutical,
Sun Global, and Shanghvi in their breach of the fiduciary duties
they owed to plaintiffs.  Finally, they alleged in Count IV that
defendants Bell, Munson, and Manney, the Independent Committee,
breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs by agreeing to GPT
terms that were exceedingly favorable to Sun at the expense of
Caraco's minority shareholders.

The Defendants moved for summary disposition of the Plaintiffs'
complaint pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8).  At the conclusion of an
Aug. 31, 2011 hearing, the trial court, Judge Gershwin A. Drain
presiding, granted the motion.  After the court announced its
ruling, the Plaintiffs' counsel requested leave to amend the
complaint.  Judge Drain denied the request for leave to amend, but
implied that plaintiffs could include their request in a motion
and brief for reconsideration.  On Oct. 11, 2011, the Plaintiffs
filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying
their request to amend the complaint.  The trial court denied the
motion in an order stating that the Plaintiffs had not met their
burden of demonstrating that the matter warranted reconsideration.

The Plaintiffs appealed Judge Drain's denial of their motion for
leave to amend their complaint in the Court, which concluded that
Judge Drain had abused his discretion by denying plaintiffs the
opportunity to provide legally sufficient allegations in an
amended complaint"  The Court reversed Judge Drain's order, and
remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its
opinion.  On remand, the trial court granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend their complaint.

Generally speaking, the six-count amended complaint contained
specific allegations of a scheme by Bell and Shanghvi to devalue
Caraco's stock in the months preceding the GPT in order to lower
the cost of the GPT and to force the GPT to take place.

In lieu of an answer to the complaint, Defendants Bell, Manney,
Munson, Caraco, and Sachdeva filed a motion for summary
disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8); Sun Global filed a
concurrence.

The Plaintiffs opposed the Defendants' motion on grounds similar
to those they raise on appeal.  After hearing oral argument on the
Defendants' motion on May 7, 2015, the trial court stated that it
would like to hold an additional hearing and would inform the
parties if it required any additional information.  On the second
day of the hearing, June 18, 2015, the court explained that it
intended to rule consistently with Judge Drain as it pertains to
the original complaint, and wanted the parties to identify
specific differences between the original complaint and the
amended complaint.  At the close of the hearing, the trial court
invited supplemental briefs addressing whether Bell's requested
success fee and communications with Blair were generally accepted
practices.  Both parties filed supplemental briefs and reply
briefs.

On Oct. 13, 2015, the trial court issued a written opinion
granting the Defendants' motion pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8).  The
Plaintiffs appeal as of right the trial court's Oct. 13, 2015
opinion and order granting summary disposition in favor of all the
Defendants pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) (failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted).

The concluded that the trial court erred in applying the law of
the case doctrine to dismiss Counts II through V of the
Plaintiffs' complaint.  Accepting as true Plaintiffs' factual
allegations in support of their claim and any reasonable
inferences or conclusions drawn from those facts, Gorman, 302 Mich
App at 131, and construing them in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiffs, Johnson, 491 Mich at 435, it also concluded that the
Plaintiffs' amended complaint states a claim for breach of
fiduciary duty with regard to Bell and his alleged dealings with
Blair and Shanghvi (Count I).  A motion brought pursuant to MCR
2.116(C)(8) should be granted only when the claim is so clearly
unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could
possibly justify recovery.  In light of the allegations contained
in the Plaintiffs' amended complaint, and considering the standard
of review for a (C)(8) motion, the Court cannot say that no
factual development could possibly justify recovery.  Therefore,
the Court reversed the order granting the Defendant's motion for
summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8), and remanded the
matter for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/GqNWhM from Leagle.com.

Anthony L. Deluca, for Joseph Alessi, Plaintiff-Appellant.

Dennis J. Levasseur -- dlevasseur@bodmanlaw.com -- for Caraco
Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd., Defendant-Appellee.

Patrick F. Hickey -- phickey@hhbjlaw.com -- for Folsom F. Bell,
Defendant-Appellee.

Morley Witus -- mwitus@bsdd.com -- for Sun Pharmaceutical
Laboratories, Ltd., Defendant-Appellee.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces "Alvarez" Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chipotle Mexican
Grill, Inc. The case is captioned as CARMEN ALVAREZ, On behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. and CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04095-KM-JBC (D.N.J., June 7, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kevin McNulty.[BN]

Chipotle Mexican is an American chain of fast casual restaurants
in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France,
specializing in tacos and Mission-style burritos.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glen D. Savits, Esq.
          GREEN SAVITS, LLC
          25b Vreeland Road, Suite 207
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 695 7777
          Facsimile: (973) 695 7788
          E-mail: gsavits@greensavits.com


CIUSSS DE LA CAPITALE: More Legionella Case Defendants May Emerge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raquel Fletcher, writing for Global News, reports that an outbreak
of a rare disease in 2012 caused 14 deaths in Quebec City -- the
cause was soon linked to poor maintenance of building cooling
towers.

Five years later, victims of a class-action lawsuit still don't
know who to hold responsible.

One of those victims is Nadya Champagne's father, who succumbed to
Legionella, a disease many Quebecers had never heard of until a
major outbreak in the province's capital in the summer of 2012.

Mr. Champagne was only 55.

On June 5, his daughter was emotional at the courthouse as she
spoke about the long process.

The legionella was caused by a bacteria built up in two cooling
towers on the roof of the building of the Gabrielle Roy Library.

It spread through the air -- fourteen people died and hundreds of
others got sick.

"There is around more than 180 people that have been
contaminated," said health lawyer, Jean-Pierre Menard.

Mr. Menard is representing the victims and their families in a
class-action lawsuit against the owner of the cooling towers and
the CIUSSS de la Capitale-Nationale.

However, those defendants say others are responsible, something
that infuriates the victims' families.

"Who's fault is it?" Champagne asked.  "That little drop of water
came from somewhere!"

The owners say the three maintenance providers should also be
named in the lawsuit and the health region says the Regie du
batiment should be involved for allegedly not developing proper
regulations.

If the judge agrees, there will be seven defendants in total.

"Some of the defendants are trying to involve other parties that
we have not sued at the beginning to be involved in the process
and to share with them eventually any cost of the compensation,"
Mr. Menard explained.

He added that it will make the case much more complicated, but
will not result in any higher pay-outs for victims.

"We can't grieve until this is over," Ms. Champagne said.
She added that she's exhausted.

Comforted by her brother, she says she can't wait for the trial to
be finished.

But first, the judge must determine when, and against whom, it
will begin. [GN]


CJS SOLUTIONS: "Garrett" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jaimey Garrett, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The
CJS Solutions Group, LLC, doing business as: The HCI Group, the
Defendant, Case No. 17-00002-10799-9-SEA, was removed June 5, 2017
from the King County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington (Seattle). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00863 to the proceeding.

CJS Solutions provides IT consulting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth E Terrell, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Ste 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816 6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319 5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  jmurray@terrellmarshall.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Susan Kathleen Stahlfeld, Esq.
          MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN LLP
          2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98121-1128
          Telephone: (206) 624 8300
          Facsimile: (206) 340 9599
          E-mail: susan.stahlfeld@millernash.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Glick" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services,
Inc. The case is styled as Toba Glick, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Client
Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03433 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 7, 2017).

Client Services is a full service accounts receivable management
firm offering a diverse selection of collection and recovery
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          Marcus Zelman LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695 3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE: Court Certifies 2 Classes in "West" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Frank D. Whitney grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification filed in the lawsuit styled MARK WEST et al. v.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE, INC., and PENSION PLAN FOR HOURLY-PAID
EMPLOYEES OF CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE, INC. and CERTAIN AFFILIATE
COMPANIES, Case No. 3:16-cv-00502-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.).

The Court certifies these Classes:

   Class 1: All individuals who are or were participants or
            beneficiaries under the Pension Plan for Hourly-Paid
            Employees of Continental Automotive, Inc. and Certain
            Affiliated Companies at the Charlotte, North Carolina
            Plant for a minimum of three years whose recall
            rights expired on or after January 1, 2008, and their
            eligible spouses, dependents, and survivors, who are
            now receiving, are entitled to receive, or will be
            entitled to receive retirement or pension benefits
            under the Plan, and whose benefit calculations by
            Defendants failed to include Vesting and Eligibility
            Service during periods of layoff with recall rights
            and for whom additional Vesting and Eligibility
            Service would impact their eligibility for benefits
            under the Plan.

   Class 2: All individuals who are or were participants or
            beneficiaries under the Pension Plan for Hourly-Paid
            Employees of Continental Automotive, Inc. and Certain
            Affiliated Companies at the Charlotte, North Carolina
            Plant for a minimum of three years whose recall
            rights expired on or after January 1, 2008, and their
            eligible spouses, dependents, and survivors, who
            accepted lump sum distributions of their retirement
            or pension benefits from the Plan, and whose benefit
            calculations by Defendants failed to include Vesting
            and Eligibility Service during periods of layoff with
            recall rights and for whom additional Vesting and
            Eligibility Service would impact their eligibility
            for benefits under the Plan.

The Plaintiffs are participants in and beneficiaries of the
Pension Plan for Hourly-Paid Employees of Continental Automotive,
Inc. and Certain Affiliated Companies, which is an employee
pension benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and sponsored by Continental Automotive, Inc.  The
Plaintiffs assert in their complaint that the Defendants violated
ERISA by improperly excluding and thereby miscalculating their
Vesting and Eligibility Service under the Plan for the period of
time they were laid off with recall rights.

Judge Whitney appoints Mark West, Rickie Don Bash, Raynard Stewart
Moore, Sharlene Knight, Bruce Adams, Brian Thompson, Michael
McManus, Steven Price, and Carl Harvell as representatives of the
Class.  The Court finds that Stacia Wilkes is not an appropriate
class representative and, therefore, declines to appoint Stacia
Wilkes as a class representative.

Judge Whitney also designates Norris A. Adams, II, Esq., Edward G.
Connette, Esq., and Caitlin H. Walton, Esq., as co-lead counsel.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=T7xK7qwy

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Norris A. Adams, II, Esq.
          Edward G. Connette, Esq.
          Caitlin H. Walton, Esq.
          ESSEX RICHARDS, P.A.
          1701 South Boulevard
          Charlotte, NC 28203
          Telephone: (704) 377-4300
          Facsimile: (704) 372-1357
          E-mail: nadams@essexrichards.com
                  EConnette@EssexRichards.com
                  CWalton@essexrichards.com


CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Faces "Searcy" Suit in Tenn. Cir. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corecivic of
Tennessee, LLC. The case is styled as SEARCY, CARRIE, SEARCY, JT,
YATES, SCOTTY, JONES, MATTHEW, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. CORECIVIC OF
TENNESSEE, LLC A/N/K CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, the
Defendant, Case No. 17C1409 (Tenn. Cir. Ct., June 8, 2017).

Founded in 2001, Corecivic Of Tennessee, LLC is a large-sized
organization in the facilities support services industry located
in Nashville, TN.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Gary Blackburn, Esq.
          Bryant Kroll, Esq.
          Jeffery S. Roberts, Esq.
          Robert Joshua McKee, Esq.
          213 5th Ave N Ste 300
          Nashville, TN, 37219-1908
          Tel: (615) 254-7770


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Sweeney" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Costco Wholesale
Corporation. The case is entitled as Michelle Sweeney,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-03353 (E.D.N.Y., June 5, 2017).

Costco Wholesale Corporation is the largest American membership-
only warehouse club that provides a wide selection of merchandise,
and as of 2015, was the second largest retailer in the world after
Walmart.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CREDICO (USA): Faces "Huffman" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAELA HUFFMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CREDICO (USA) LLC, Credico,
Case No. 1:17-cv-04242 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2017), asserts that
Credico and its subcontractors have misclassified agents who
provide face-to-face marketing services for Credico's clients as
independent contractors and, in so doing, have violated the
federal Fair Labor Standard Act by failing to pay them minimum
wage for all hours worked, and overtime for hours worked over 40.

Defendant Credico contracts with clients in the telecommunications
and energy industries, as well as charitable organizations, to
provide face-to-face marketing services through its network of
workers located around the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jill Kahn, Esq.
     Harold Lichten, Esq.
     Olena Savytska, Esq.
     LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Phone:(617) 994-5800
     E-mail: jkahn@llrlaw.com
             hlichten@llrlaw.com
             osavytska@llrlaw.com


DDR CORP: Faces "Gellatly" Suit in Western Dist. of Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DDR Corp. The case
is styled as EMILY GELLATLY and CEARA NARIO-REDMOND, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
DDR CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00147-BR (W.D. Pa.,
June 6, 2017).

DDR Corp. is a publicly traded real estate investment trust that
owns and manages value-oriented, open-air retail shopping centers,
or "power centers" in the United States mainland and Puerto
Rico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322 9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231 0246
          E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com


DIAMOND PROPERTY: Faces "Camacho" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Diamond Property
Group Inc. The case is titled as Joel Camacho, individually and on
behalf of others similarly, the Plaintiff, v. The Diamond Property
Group Inc. doing business as: Diamond Properties; Rosenberg-
Diamond Development Corp. doing business as: Diamond Properties;
1654 Monroe Realty, LLC doing business as: Diamond Properties;
David T. Diamond; Jonathan D. Berman; and Robert Rosenberg, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04247 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2017).

The Diamond Property Group is in the real estate managers
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


DILLON LAW: Faces "Rushing" Suit in Northern Dist. of Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Dillon Law Firm,
PC.  The case is titled as Jashuan Rushing, pleading on his own
behalf and on behalf of all other similarly, the Plaintiff, v. The
Dillon Law Firm, PC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02122-CC-WEJ
(N.D. Ga., June 9, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Clarence Cooper.

The Dillon Law Firm, P.C. is a law firm practicing Collection law
in Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq.
          MASON LAW GROUP, LLC - GA
          1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 920 8040
          Facsimile: (404) 920 8039
          E-mail: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces "Pennzello" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified
Consultants Inc. The case is captioned as Danielle Pennzello,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Diversified Consultants Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-03366 (E.D.N.Y., June 5, 2017).

Diversified Consultants is a business specializing in accounts
receivable management functions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Leitner" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC. The case is titled as Jacob Leitner, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-03468 (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2017).

Enhanced Recovery provides business process outsourcing services
that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


EXPRESS RECOVERY: Faces "McMillan" Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Express Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Karen McMillan,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Express Recovery Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02096-SCJ-LTW (N.D. Ga., June 7,
2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Steve C Jones.[BN]

Express Recovery is a consumer services company located in 1128 E
5150 S, Ogden, Utah, United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Misty Ann Oaks, Esq.
          THE OAKS FIRM
          3515 Charlston Court
          Decatur, GA 30034
          Telephone: (404) 725 5697
          E-mail: attyoaks@yahoo.com


FERGUSON, MO: Fant Moves to Certify Three Classes & One Subclass
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled KEILEE FANT, ROELIF CARTER,
ALLISON NELSON, HERBERT NELSON JR., ALFRED MORRIS, ANTHONY KIMBLE,
DONYALE THOMAS, SHAMEIKA MORRIS, DANIEL JENKINS, RONNIE TUCKER,
TONYA DEBERRY, et al. v. THE CITY OF FERGUSON, Case No. 4:15-cv-
00253-AGF (E.D. Mo.), ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives and their counsel as Class Counsel, and to certify
three classes and one subclass:

   a. A Declaratory and Injunctive Class consisting of all
      persons who currently owe or who will incur debts to the
      City of Ferguson from fines, fees, costs, or surcharges
      arising from judgments in cases prosecuted by the City;

   b. A Pretrial Class consisting of all persons who have, at any
      time since February 8, 2010, been kept in jail by the City
      because they could not pay a cash bond amount in connection
      with an alleged municipal ordinance violation for which
      they had not been convicted;

   c. A Gerstein Subclass of the Pretrial Class, consisting of
      all persons who have, at any time since February 8, 2010,
      been held in jail by the City of Ferguson after a
      warrantless arrest for longer than a reasonable period of
      time, 48 hours at a maximum, prior to a finding of probable
      cause by a neutral magistrate for their arrest and
      continued detention; and

   d. A Post-Judgment Class consisting of all persons who have,
      at any time since February 8, 2010, been held in jail by
      the City of Ferguson because of their non-payment in
      connection with a prior judgment.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dcP9c5qR

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Tomback, Esq.
          Alice Tsier, Esq.
          Dorian Panchyson, Esq.
          Larry Moscowitz, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 819-8200
          E-mail: andrew.tomback@whitecase.com
                  atsier@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Sonia W. Murphy, Esq.
          Margaret Spicer, Esq.
          Vivake Prasad, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          701 13th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 637-6161
          E-mail: smurphy@whitecase.com
                  margaret.spicer@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          916 G Street, NW, Suite 701
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 681-2409
          E-mail: alec@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Thomas B. Harvey, Esq.
          Michael-John Voss, Esq.
          ARCHCITY DEFENDERS
          812 N. Collins Alley
          Saint Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: 855-724-2489
          E-mail: tharvey@archcitydefenders.org
                  mjvoss@archcitydefenders.org

               - and -

          John J. Ammann, Esq.
          Brendan Roediger, Esq.
          SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
          100 N. Tucker Blvd.
          Saint Louis, MO 63101-1930
          Telephone: (314) 977-2778
          Facsimile: (314) 977-1180
          E-mail: ammannjj@slu.edu
                  broedige@slu.edu

The Defendant is represented by:

          Peter J. Dunne, Esq.
          Robert T. Plunkert, Esq.
          PITZER SNODGRASS, P.C.
          100 S. Fourth Street, Suite 400
          St. Louis, MO 63102-1821
          Telephone: (314) 421-5545
          Facsimile: (314) 421-3144
          E-mail: dunne@pspclaw.com
                  plunkert@pspclaw.com

               - and -

          Aarnarian (Apollo) D. Carey, Esq.
          Ronald A. Norwood, Esq.
          LEWIS RICE, LLC
          600 Washington, Suite 2500
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 444-7788
          Facsimile: (314) 612-7788
          E-mail: acarey@lewisrice.com
                  rnorwood@lewisrice.com


FIDELITY RESOURCES: Faces "Jones" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Labor Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEVIN JONES (5038 Plymouth Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21214,
Resident of Baltimore City), Plaintiff, Individually and on Behalf
of All Similarly Situated Employees v. FIDELITY RESOURCES,
INCORPORATED (1018 Cromwell Bridge Road, Towson, Maryland 21286
Serve: Chris Duru, 6505 Sanzo Road, Apartment F, Pikesville,
Maryland 21209) Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01447-RDB (D. Md., May
25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under Section 16(b)
of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act; unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
Maryland Wage and Hour Law,; and unpaid wages, interest, treble
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Allegedly, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were
required to work overnight and weekend shifts to ensure that their
clients were constantly monitored. For safety reasons, Plaintiff
and other caregivers were not permitted to sleep during their
shifts. These shifts were often of substantial length. For
instance, weekend shifts could last as long as forty-eight (48)
hours. Consequently, Plaintiff and other caregivers consistently
worked well over forty (40) hours each week. Plaintiff and others
routinely worked as many as sixty (60) to eighty (80) hours
weekly.

Defendant provides home healthcare services to persons with
special needs.  Defendant hired Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees to assist with providing care to these
individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert J. Leonard, Esq.
     Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 244-7005
     Fax: (410) 244-8454
     E-mail: rleonard@nicholllaw.com
             bdavis@nicholllaw.com


FIELDTURF USA: Paw, Inc.'s Suit Over Turf Fields Sent to N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned The Paw, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FieldTurf USA, Inc.;
FieldTurf, Inc.; and FieldTurf Tarkett SAS, Defendant (originally,
D. Minn., Case No. 0:17-cv-00274) was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey as Case No. 3:17-cv-
04030 per MDL Panel for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings. The case is assigned to Judge Michael A. Shipp.

The case challenges Defendants' alleged fraudulent and misleading
marketing, sales, and warranty practices relating to their
defective Synthetic Turf Fields sold under the brand names
"FieldTurf," "DuraSpine," and "Prestige" (collectively "Synthetic
Turf Fields").

The Defendants allegedly represented that their supposedly
technologically superior monofilament "Evolution" fiber fields
outlasted traditional tape filament fields and had unmatched
durability.  However, Synthetic Turf Fields were defective and
showed signs of cracking, splitting, and disintegrating far
earlier than what their sales pitches and representations had
promised, says the complaint.

Fieldturf USA engages in manufacturing and installation of infield
artificial turf systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Arthur Mahony Murray, Esq.
     MURRAY LAW FIRM
     650 Poydras Street, Ste 2150
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: (504) 525-5100
     Fax: (505) 584-5249

        - and -

     Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
     1100 IDS Center
     80 South 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 341-0400
     E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com

        - and -

     Bryce Daniel Riddle, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
     1100 IDS Center
     80 South 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 341-0400
     Fax: (612) 341-0844

        - and -

     Charles S. Zimmerman, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
     1100 IDS Center
     80 South 8th St
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 341-0400

        - and -

     Jessica Wittmer Hayes, Esq.
     MURRAY LAW FIRM
     650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: (504) 525-8100
     Fax: (504) 584-5249

        - and -

     Stephen B. Murray, Sr., Esq.
     MURRAY LAW FIRM
     650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: (504) 525-8100

Defendant(s) is represented by:

     Cicely R. Miltich, Esq.
     FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
     90 S 7th St. Ste 2200
     Mpls, MN 55402-3901

        - and -

     Craig S. Coleman, Esq.
     FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
     90 S 7th St Ste 2200
     Mpls, MN 55402-3901
     Phone: (612) 766-6981
     Fax: (612) 766-1600

        - and -

     Nicholas J. Nelson, Esq.
     FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
     90 S 7th St Ste 2200
     Mpls, MN 55402-3901
     Phone: (612) 766-7000
     Fax: (612) 766-1600


FOOD LLC: Faces "Guarnero-Ruiz" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
--------------------------------------=----------------------
SERGIO GUARNERO-RUIZ, FLORENCIO ROMERO, and OSCAR BARRON, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
against 36-03 FOOD, LLC d/b/a CREA TE, THEODORE KARAGIANNIS,
ALEJANDRO GALICIA, and FERNANDO CASTELAN-GONZALEZ, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-03178 (E.D.N.Y., May 25, 2017), alleges that
Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to (i) pay Plaintiffs
their lawfully earned minimum wages in direct contravention of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, (ii) pay
Plaintiffs their lawfully earned overtime compensation in direct
contravention of the FLSA and New York Labor Law, and (iii) pay
Plaintiffs their lawfully earned "spread of hours" premium in
direct contravention of the New York Labor Law.  The Defendants
also misappropriated Plaintiffs' tips in direct contravention of
the New York Labor Law, says the complaint.

Defendant operates a restaurant.

Plaintiffs were employed as a non-exempt food delivery worker,
dishwasher, food preparer/kitchen helper, stock person, and
porter.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin Cilenti, Esq.
     Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
     CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
     708 Third A venue - 6th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 209-3933
     Fax: (212) 209-7102
     E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: KPH Healthcare Alleges Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a/k/a KINNEY DRUGS, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, v. FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; NOVARTIS AG; SANDOZ,
INC.; TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TARO PHARMACEUTICALS
USA, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.; and SUN PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02552-CMR (E.D.
Penn., June 6, 2017), accuses Defendants of conspiring to violate
the Sherman Act by engaging in an overarching anticompetitive
scheme to eliminate competition in the market for generic
fluocinonide and to artificially inflate the prices through
unlawful agreements.

The case relates to In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing
Antitrust Litigation and In Re: Fluocinonide Cases.[BN]

The Defendants are pharmaceutical companies.

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

        - and -

     Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
     ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
     20 Rahling Circle
     Little Rock, AR 72223
     Phone: 501 821 5575
     Fax: 501 821 4474
     E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us


GATESTONE & CO: Faces "Traina" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gatestone and Co.
International, Inc. The case is styled as Amy Traina and Alan
Ascencio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Gatestone & Co. International, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03359 (E.D.N.Y., June 5, 2017).

Gatestone & Co. is a collection company that contacts consumers
regarding debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GATESTONE & CO: Faces "Aguilar" Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gatestone and Co.
International, Inc. The case is captioned as Hugo Aguilar,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Gatestone & Co. International, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-01138-JAH-NLS (S.D. Cal., June 6, 2017). The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge John A. Houston.

Gatestone & Co. is a collection company that contacts consumers
regarding debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          409 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101B
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222 7429
          Facsimile: (866) 431 3292
          E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Fenner" Suit Over Duramax Engine Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREI FENNER and JOSHUA HERMAN, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; ROBERT
BOSCH GMBH, a corporation organized under the laws of Germany; and
ROBERT BOSCH LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-11661-GCS-APP (E.D. Mich., May 25,
2017), alleges that Defendant failed to deliver its promise that
its Silverado and Sierra HD Vehicles are fitted with Duramax
engines turned "heavy diesel fuel into a fine mist," delivering
"low emissions" that were a "whopping reduction" compared to the
prior model and at the same time produced a vehicle with "great
power."

Allegedly, in contrast to GM's promises, emissions testing has
revealed that the Sierra and Silverado models emit levels of NOx
many times higher than (i) their gasoline counterparts, (ii) what
a reasonable consumer would expect, (iii) the Environmental
Protection Agency's maximum standards, and (iv) the levels set for
the vehicles to obtain a certificate of compliance that allows
them to be sold in the United States.

Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells
GM automobiles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     Jessica Thompson, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-7292
     Fax: (206) 623-0594
     E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
     SEEGER WEISS LLP
     77 Water Street, New York,
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 584-0700
     Fax: (212) 584-0799
     E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

        - and -

     Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
     HILLIARD MUNOZ GONZALES LLP
     719 S Shoreline Blvd., # 500
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Phone: (361) 882-1612
     E-mail: bobh@hmglawfirm.com

        - and -

     James E. Cecchi Esq.
     CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI
     OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
     5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
     Phone: (973) 994-1700
     Fax: (973) 994-1744
     E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com


GREAT HEALTHWORKS: Bid to Dismiss "Harrison" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ANNETTE HARRISON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GREAT HEALTHWORKS,
INC., a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant,
Case No. 17cv705 JM (JLB) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.

On March 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in
San Diego Superior Court against GHW alleging two causes of
action: (i) violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA"), and (ii) violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act ("CIPA").  The thrust of the complaint is that GHW
used an auto-dialer to call Plaintiff on her cell phone, without
her consent, for the purpose of selling her health supplements
(the TCPA violation) and recorded those calls, again without her
consent (the CIPA violation).  For the alleged TCPA violation, the
Plaintiff seeks a statutory penalty of $500 to $1,500 per call on
behalf of herself and a putative nationwide class.  For the CIPA
violation, she seeks a statutory penalty of $5,000 for each
recorded call on behalf of herself and a putative California-wide
class.

GHW removed the case to the Court on April 6, 2017, and filed the
instant motion approximately three weeks later.

GHW offers only one argument for dismissing this first cause of
action: that the calls to the Plaintiff served an emergency
purpose because they related to her health and safety. As GHW well
knows, however, the Court cannot simply accept that assertion as
true at this stage in the proceedings.  Consequently, the Curt
denied GHW's motion to dismiss the first cause of action.

For CIPA cause of action of action, GHW argues that the
Plaintiff's action is time barred.  The Plaintiff's complaint does
not show on its face that her claim would be barred absent
tolling.  In short, the complaint gives fair notice of the claim
being asserted and the grounds upon which it rests, and provides
enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.  The Court therefore declined to dismiss the CIPA claim as
time barred.

For these reasons, the Court denied GHW's motion to dismiss.  GHW
has 14 days from the date of this order to answer the complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/LqCtZE from Leagle.com.

Annette Harrison, Plaintiff, represented by James T. Hannink --
Jim.Hannink@SDLaw.com -- Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP.

Annette Harrison, Plaintiff, represented by Zachariah Paul Dostart
-- ZDostart@SDLaw.com -- Dostart Hannink Coveney LLP.

Great Healthworks, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lisa S. Yun --
lyun@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Mark G. Rackers -- mrackers@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton, LLP & Shannon Z. Petersen --
spetersen@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton, LLP.


GROCER DIRECT: "Baum" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JILLISA BAUM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. GROCER
DIRECT, L.L.C. and TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC., the Defendants, Case
No. MON-L1385-17, was removed June 5, 2017 from the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Monmouth County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (Trenton). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-04026-FLW-DEA to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Freda L. Wolfson.

Grocer Direct is a grocery store in Nutley, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lewis G. Adler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER
          26 Newton Avenue
          Woodbury, NJ 08096
          Telephone: (856) 845 1968
          E-mail: lewisadler@verizon.net

Attorneys for Transworld Systems Inc.:

          Ross Steven Enders, Esq.
          SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL LLC
          2303 Oxfordshire Road
          Furlong, PA 18925
          Telephone: (215) 794 7207
          Facsimile: (215) 794 5079
          E-mail: renders@sessions-law.biz


HOME CARE: Court Certifies FLSA, Rule 23 Classes in "Dillow" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Timothy S. Black granted the Plaintiff's combined motion
to conditionally certify a collective action class and to certify
a Rule 23 class in the lawsuit captioned RHONDA DILLOW v. HOME
CARE NETWORK, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-00612-TSB (S.D. Ohio).

Rhonda Dillow brings the civil action alleging wage and hour
violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act.  The Defendants include Home Care
Network, Inc. as well as Kimberly King, COO of Home Care Network,
Inc., and Betty Martin, President of Home Care Network, Inc.

The Court conditionally certifies the collective action class
pursuant to the FLSA defined as:

     All domestic-service employees who (1) worked for Defendants
     at any time from January 1, 2015 until April 30, 2016 and
     (2) worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks.

The Court also certifies this class for the Plaintiff's Rule 23
class action:

     All domestic-service employees who (1) worked for Defendants
     at any time from January 1, 2015 until April 30, 2016 and
     (2) worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks.

Judge Black appoints Rhonda Dillow as the representative for both
of the classes and appoints Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC and
Michael D. Lore,P.C. as Class Counsel for the classes.  Judge
Black also approved the Plaintiff's proposed notice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0xunq7lP


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Vinci" Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyundai Motor
America. The case is entitled as Houston Vinci and Jaehan Ku, on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. Hyundai Motor America, and Does 1 through 100, the Defendants,
Case No. 8:17-cv-00997-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal., June 8, 2017). The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge David O. Carter.

Hyundai Motor manufactures and retails automobiles. The Company
offers compacts, sedans, hybrids, crossovers, passenger cars,
spare parts, and tools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barbara A Rohr, Esq.
          FARUQI AND FARUQI LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256 2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256 2885
          E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com


IHEARTMEDIA INC: Judge Tosses Pre-1972 Royalties Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Donahue, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois federal
judge on June 5 tossed out a class action aimed at forcing radio
giant iHeartMedia Inc. to start paying royalties for pre-1972
sound recordings, ruling that any copyright protection afforded by
the state's common law is extinguished when a song is published.

The decision is the latest in years-long nationwide litigation
over whether radio stations and online streaming services must
start paying millions in new royalties for the old songs, which
are excluded from the federal copyright system and are instead
covered by a patchwork of state common law.

In dismissing the case, U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp Jr. said
it was "eminently clear" that Illinois' common law would only
protect unpublished songs; once a song was sold or broadcast, "no
common law copyright protection is available for those
recordings."

"There is no dispute that the [plaintiffs] voluntarily sold their
recordings," the judge said.  "When they did so, [they] lost their
common law right to control the public performance of those
recordings in Illinois (and pretty much everywhere else)."

The June 5 ruling also effectively dismissed a second case filed
by the same plaintiffs against Sirius XM Radio Inc. and Pandora
Media Inc. based on identical claims.  The judge simply cited the
"reasons" for the ruling in the iHeartRadio case and dismissed
that suit, too.

The proposed class actions were filed in 2015 by Arthur and
Barbara Sheridan over a catalog of classic pre-1972 tracks -- a
case that followed similar lawsuits filed by record labels and
other song owners in New York, California and Florida against
Sirius XM Radio Inc., Pandora Media Inc., CBS Corp. and others.

Things have not been looking good for those song owners of late:
After members of The Turtles won a major early victory in
California, New York's highest court ruled in December that that
state's law required no royalties to be paid.  The same issue is
teed up for final resolution before the California Supreme Court
and the Florida Supreme Court.

Pre-1972s are legally murky because when Congress created a
separate copyright for sound recordings in 1971, it chose not to
make the changes retroactive.  The older recordings are protected
in many states by quasi-copyright systems, but streaming services
and radio stations didn't think those laws required performance
royalties.

Ahead of the June 5 ruling, the Sheridans complained that paying
them nothing for use of their songs was a "draconian" outcome, but
Tharp characterized it more as maintaining status quo.

"From the birth of sound until the mid-1990's, there has been
scant evidence that anyone considered it to be an obvious
injustice not to require broadcasters, or others who play recorded
music publicly, to pay royalties," the judge wrote.  "The argument
that this long-extant system exacts 'draconian' -- i.e.,
fundamentally unfair -- costs is not compelling."

Attorneys for both sides did not return requests for comment on
June 5.

The Sheridans are represented by Steve W. Berman, Elizabeth A.
Fegan, John M. Destefano -- johnd@hbsslaw.com -- and Robert B.
Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

iHeart Media and Pandora are represented by James K. Lynch --
jim.lynch@lw.com -- Andrew M. Gass and Matthew M. Walch --
matthew.walch@lw.com -- of Latham & Watkins LLP.

Sirius XM is represented by Daniel Petrocelli --
dpetrocelli@omm.com -- Cassandra Seto -- cseto@omm.com
-- Jeremy Tran -- jeremytran@omm.com -- Patrick McNally --
pmcnally@omm.com -- Lauren Rakow -- lrakow@omm.com -- and Sonya
Brown of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

The cases are Sheridan v. iHeartMedia Inc., case number 1:15-cv-
09229; and Sheridan et al v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. et al, case
number 1:15-cv-09236, both in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois [GN]


ISLAND COMMONS: Faces W.H.M. Suit in New York Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Island Commons
Venture, LLC. The case is titled as W.H.M. PLUMBING & HEATING
CONTRACTORS, INC. AND W.H.M. PLUMBING & HEATING CONTRACTORS, INC
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED AS TRUST FUND BENEFICIARIES, the Plaintiff, v.
ISLAND COMMONS VENTURE, LLC, ISLAND COMMONS VENTURE, ISLAND
COMMONS JOINT VENTURE, MICHAEL J. DOUGHERRTY, MICHAEL KELLY,
ANDREW I. CROSSED, ALLEN HANDELMAN, JOHN DOES 1-25, ABC COMPANIES
1-25, JANE DOE 1-10, the Defendant, Case No. 603846/2017 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., June 5, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon.
Elizabeth H. Emerson.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          June Connolly, Esq.
          6 Enterprise Dr, Ste I
          East Setauket, NY 11733
          Telephone: (631) 473 8190

The Defendant is represented by:

          FENLEY, LLP
          145 Orinoco Drive, No. 609
          Brightwaters, NY 11718
          Telephone: (631) 834 8372


J. CREW GROUP: New Jersey Court Dismisses"Kamal" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge William J. Martini of the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey dismissed the case captioned AHMED
KAMAL, Plaintiff, v. J. CREW GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Civ.
No. 2:15-0190 (WJM) (D. N.J.), as the Court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff filed his single-count Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act ("FACTA") Complaint on Jan. 10, 2015, and his
First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on March 25, 2015.  He seeks
statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation along with
attorneys' fees and punitive damages.  On Aug. 6, 2015, the Court
denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding that the Plaintiff adequately
stated a claim for willful violation of FACTA's credit-card number
truncation provision.

The Court granted J. Crew's motion to stay the case in December
2015 pending the Supreme Court's decision regarding constitutional
standing in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins.   On May 16, 2016, in Spokeo,
the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff does not automatically
satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a
person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to
sue to vindicate that right.

The Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint on Nov. 17, 2016.
The Plaintiff alleges that on three occasions the Defendants
printed the first six and last four digits of his credit card
number on transaction receipts.  He purports to bring this action
on behalf of all persons or entities to whom Defendants provided
an electronically printed receipt at the point of sale or
transaction which receipt displayed more than the last five digits
of the customer's credit card number.

The Defendants again moved to dismiss for lack of standing.  On
Jan. 20, 2017, as the motion was pending, the Third Circuit
decided In re Horizon Healthcare Servs. Data Breach Litig., which
applied Spokeo in the context of an alleged data breach that led
to the disclosure of the plaintiff's personal information.  At the
parties' request, the Court allowed for a short supplementary
briefing schedule.  Meanwhile, J. Crew moved without opposition to
consolidate this case with Parker v. J. Crew Group, Inc., et al.,
a case originally filed in Illinois state court and then removed
to the Northern District of Illinois.  On Feb. 21, 2017, the
Northern District of Illinois transferred the case to the District
of New Jersey.  This case and Parker involve virtually identical
facts.  Magistrate Judge Mark Falk granted the unopposed motion to
consolidate on May 1, 2017.  On May 5, 2017, after a telephone
conference with the parties, Judge Falk temporarily stayed Parker
pending the Court's decision on J. Crew's motion to dismiss
Kamal's SAC.

As Spokeo explained and Horizon acknowledged, the congressional
power to elevate intangible harms into concrete injuries is not
without limits.  Those limits are established by Article III of
the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.  Judge
Martini finds that J. Crew's technical violation of FACTA lies
beyond these limits.  The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
and the case must be dismissed.  Therefore, Judge Martini granted
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's SAC and
dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's SAC.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/X3RwWI from Leagle.com.

Ahmed Kamal, Plaintiff, represented by Marvin Lawrence Frank --
mfrank@frankllp.com -- Frank LLP.

Ahmed Kamal, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Y. Lee, Lee LLC &
Robert A. Solomon, Fricke & Solomon P.C..

J. Crew Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew O. Bunn --
andrew.bunn@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper, LLP.

J. Crew Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew O. Bunn, DLA Piper,
LLP.

J. Crew Intermediate LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew O.
Bunn, DLA Piper, LLP.

J. Crew International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew O.
Bunn, DLA Piper, LLP.

J. Crew Operating Corp., Defendant, represented by Andrew O. Bunn,
DLA Piper, LLP.

J. Crew Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew O. Bunn,
DLA Piper, LLP.

Chinos Acquisition Corporation, Defendant, represented by Andrew
O. Bunn, DLA Piper, LLP.

Chinos Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew O. Bunn,
DLA Piper, LLP.


JMA ENERGY: "Speed" Suit Remanded to Oklahoma State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
In the captioned DAVID LANDON SPEED, Plaintiff, v. JMA ENERGY
COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. CIV-17-006-RAW (E.D. Okla.),
Judge Ronald A. White of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma granted the Plaintiff's amended
motion to remand.

The Plaintiff filed a class action petition against JMA in the
District Court of Hughes County on Nov. 18, 2016, bringing claims
based on JMA's alleged willful and ongoing violations of Oklahoma
law related to payment of oil and gas production proceeds to well
owners.

JMA filed a notice of removal on Jan. 4, 2017.  The Removal was
based on the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), codified at 28
U.S.C. Sections 1332(d) and 1453.  Before the Court is the
Plaintiff's amended motion to remand.

The Court granted the Plaintiff's amended motion to remand.
Although federal jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1332 (d)(2), the Court exercises its discretion to decline
jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the "interests of justice"
exception in 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(3).  Accordingly, this
action is remanded to the District Court of Hughes County, State
of Oklahoma.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/eDoOcl from Leagle.com.

David Landon Speed, Plaintiff, represented by Reagan E. Bradford,
The Lanier Law Firm.

David Landon Speed, Plaintiff, represented by W. Mark Lanier, The
Lanier Law Firm, pro hac vice.

JMA Energy Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark D.
Christiansen -- mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft
& Kenneth H. Blakley, Edinger Leonard & Blakley, PLLL.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces "Bowling" Suit Over Benecol Spread Ad
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUZANNA BOWLING, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and McNEIL
NUTRITIONALS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03982 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 25, 2017), arises out of Defendants' alleged false and
misleading labeling of Benecol Regular and Light Spreads, each of
which uniformly claims that the product (i) contains "No Trans
Fats" and "No Trans Fatty Acids," and (ii) is generally recognized
as safe for human consumption. However, Benecol Spreads contain
trans-fat through the use of partially hydrogenated oils. Thus,
the labels on Benecol Spreads are false and misleading.

Johnson & Johnson is an international medical device,
pharmaceutical, and consumer goods manufacturer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
     Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
     Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
     Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
     Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (646) 837-7150
     Fax: (212) 989-9163
     E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
             jmarchese@bursor.com
             ndeckant@bursor.com
             fklorczyk@bursor.com


JP MORGAN: Quinn Emanuel Ordered to Turn Over Forex Case Docs
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Gorta, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge on June 5 ordered Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP and
Bernstein Liebhard LLP to turn over allegedly inaccurate
communications with parties they were trying to induce into opting
out of a settlement in a $2 billion foreign exchange class action.

U.S. District Judge Lorna G Schofield ordered Quinn Emanuel to
provide memoranda and emails that it had sent to a group of
investors, some of which were passed on by Bernstein Liebhard to
its own clients, that, according to class counsel Scott & Scott
LLP, contained false and misleading information about the
settlement with nine financial giants accused of antitrust
violations in the forex market.  Quinn Emanuel argued in
opposition to a motion to compel that the class had no right to
the identities of the "large and sophisticated class members" or
the "independent and privileged advice they received."

Judge Schofield said she was not certain the communications were
privileged since they were not providing legal advice.

"Notwithstanding that, I'm not certain class counsel has the right
to any and all information regarding these entities," the judge
said.

Richard I. Werder Jr. -- rickwerder@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn
Emanuel told Judge Schofield that Quinn Emanuel "had no problem"
providing the memoranda to the court and, with redactions, "we
could probably get our head around providing it to class counsel."

Judge Schofield ordered the law firms to provide the court with
the memoranda and any cover emails and to give redacted versions
concealing the identity of the recipients to class counsel.  She
also ordered that any follow-up emails be given to her to review
whether they should be turned over to class counsel.

"Understood, Your Honor," Mr. Werder said.

Class counsel Christopher M. Burke -- cburke@scott-scott.com -- of
Scott & Scott LLP told Judge Schofield that the redacted
communications would suffice for now.

"Let's make sure the factual record is complete . . . [I]t's the
right step to take," Mr. Burke said.  "We don't need the
identities at this point."

"It sounds like your dispute is resolved for the moment," Judge
Schofield said.

Mr. Burke also told the judge that he expected to file a motion
for preliminary approval of a settlement with five other
defendants, leaving two defendants outstanding. He did not specify
in court which parties he had reached a settlement with and
refused to utter a word after the proceedings.

The institutions that have settled allegations of participating a
broad scheme to rig the $6 trillion foreign exchange market
include JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Barclays PLC, HSBC Holdings
PLC, The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., BNP
Paribas SA, UBS AG and Bank of America Corp.

The seven remaining defendants, including the five unnamed
institutions that have reached a settlement, are Morgan Stanley,
Credit Suisse AG and Deutsche Bank AG, Japan's Bank of Tokyo-
Mitsubishi, Canada's RBC Capital Markets LLC, France's Societe
Generale SA and Britain's Standard Chartered PLC.

The banks are accused of fixing prices by agreeing to widen the
difference between the prices at which they buy and sell currency,
manipulating benchmark rates and exchanging confidential customer
information in an effort to trigger client stop-loss and limit
orders, according to court records.

Counsel for the parties declined to comment on June 5.

The plaintiffs are represented by David R. Scott --
david.scott@scott-scott.com -- Christopher M. Burke, Joseph P.
Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- Donald A. Broggi --
dbroggi@scott-scott.com -- Peter A. Barile III -- pbarile@scott-
scott.com -- Sylvia M. Sokol -- ssokol@scott-scott.com -- and
Thomas K. Boardman of Scott & Scott LLP, and Michael D. Hausfeld -
- mhausfeld@hausfeld.com -- Reena Armillay Gambhir --
rgambhir@hausfeld.com -- Timothy S. Kearns -- tkearns@hausfeld.com
-- Nathaniel C. Giddings -- ngiddings@hausfeld.com -- Michael
Lehman and Christopher Lebsock of Hausfeld LLP.

Quinn Emanuel is represented by Richard I. Werder Jr. and Daniel
L. Brockett -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.

Bernstein Liebhard is represented by Stanley Bernstein --
Bernstein@bernlieb.com -- of Bernstein Liebhard LLP.

The case is In re: Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust
Litigation, case number 1:13-cv-07789, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York. [GN]


JUNO USA: Faces "Razzak" Suit in Southern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Juno USA, LP. The
case is entitled as Mohammed Razzak, Mohammad Siddique, and
Mohammad Islam, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Juno USA, LP, Vulcan Cars LLC, Talmon
Marco, and GT Forge, Inc., d/b/a Gett, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-04373 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2017).

Juno USA, LP develops and provides a mobile application that
connects drivers with people who need a ride.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Philip Michael Hines, Esq.
          HELD & HINES, LLP
          2004 Ralph Avenue
          Brooklyn, NY 11234
          Telephone: (718) 531 9700
          Facsimile: (718) 444 5768
          E-mail: phines@heldhines.com


KATE SPADE: D&Os Face "Jauregui" Suit over Coach Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nancy J. Karch. The
case is captioned as ALFREDO JAUREGUI, On Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nancy J. Karch,
Lawrence S. Benjamin, Raul J. Fernandez, Carsten Fischer
Kenneth B. Gilman, Kenneth P. Kopelman, CRAIG A LEAVITT, DEBORAH
LLOYD, DOUGLAS MACK, Jan Singer, Doreen A. Toben, Coach, Inc., and
CHELSEA MERGER SUB INC., the Defendants, Case No 1:17-cv-04204
(S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The defendants are directors of Kate Spade & Company.

On May 26, 2017, Coach, Inc. (NYSE:COH) (SEHK:6388), a New York
design house of modern luxury accessories and lifestyle brands,
announced that its wholly owned direct subsidiary, Chelsea Merger
Sub Inc., has commenced a tender offer for all of the outstanding
shares of common stock, par value $1.00 per share, of Kate Spade &
Company (NYSE: KATE), a Delaware corporation, at a price of $18.50
per share, net to the seller in cash, without interest thereon and
less any applicable withholding taxes, upon the terms and
conditions set forth in the tender offer to purchase dated today,
a copy of which has been filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The tender offer is subject to customary conditions to closing,
including a condition that the number of shares validly tendered
(and not properly withdrawn) prior to the expiration of the offer,
together with the shares then owned by Coach and its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, represents at least one share more than 50% of all
shares then outstanding.

The tender offer will expire at 11:59 p.m. EDT on June 23, 2017,
unless extended.

Broadridge Corporate Issuer Solutions, Inc., is the Information
Agent, depositary and paying agent for the tender offer. Requests
for documents and questions may be directed to the Information
Agent at 888-808-3038.


KCG HOLDINGS: Faces "Evangelista" Lawsuit Over Virtu Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
TONY EVANGELISTA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KCG HOLDINGS, INC., DEBRA
CHRAPATY, DANIEL COLEMAN, PETER R. FISHER, CHARLES HALDEMAN, RENE
M. KERN, JAMES T. MILDE, JOHN C. MORRIS, ALASTAIR RAMPELL, DANIEL
F. SCHMITT, LAURIE M. SHAHON, COLIN SMITH, HEATHER E. TOOKES, and
ADRIAN WELLER, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03959 (S.D.N.Y., May
25, 2017), alleges that KCG filed a preliminary proxy statement
that is materially misleading in violation of federal securities
laws.

Virtu Financial, Inc., through its wholly owned subsidiary,
Orchestra Merger Sub, Inc., is acquiring all of the outstanding
shares of KCG in an all-cash transaction in which KCG stockholders
will receive $20.00 per share. The Proposed Transaction has a
total transaction value of approximately $1.4 billion and is
expected to close in the third quarter of 2017.

The Proxy is allegedly materially deficient and misleading
because, inter alia, it fails to disclose material information
regarding the Company's financial projections, GAAP reconciliation
of the non-GAAP financial measures contained in the Company's
projections, which were prepared by Company management and relied
upon by Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, the Company's financial advisor;
the financial analysis performed by Goldman to support its opinion
on the fairness of the Proposed Transaction; and the background of
the Proposed Transaction.

Defendant is an independent securities firm offering investors a
range of services designed to address trading needs across asset
classes, product types and time zones.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Ershowsky, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 363-7500
     Fax: (212) 363-7171
     Email: mershowsky@zlk.com


LANNETT CO: KPH Files Lawsuit Over Levothyroxine Pricing
--------------------------------------------------------
KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a/k/a/ KINNEY DRUGS, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, v. LANNETT COMPANY, INC., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
SANDOZ, INC., and NOVARTIS AG, Defendants, Case 2:17-cv-02554-CMR
(E.D. Pa., June 6, 2017), accuses Defendants of violating the
Sherman Act by engaging in overarching scheme to eliminate
competition in the market for generic Levothyroxine and to
artificially inflate prices through unlawful agreements.

The case is related to In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing
Antitrust (16-LV-27240) Litigation and In Re: Levothyroxine Cases
(16-LV-27241).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
     ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
     20 Rahling Circle
     Little Rock, AR 72223
     Phone: 501 821 5575
     Fax: 501 821 4474
     E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us


LAUFER & ASSOCIATE: Faces "Flore" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laufer and
Associates, PLLC. The case is captioned as Marcelin Flore,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Laufer & Associates, PLLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-04384 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2017).

Laufer and Associates PLLC is a firm serving New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City PLaza, Ste 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


LEASE FINANCE: Ahmed Suit Moved to Northern District of Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ahmed Bakery, Inc., doing business
as: Babylon's Market and Bakery and Ahmed Hamzah, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Lease Finance Group, LLC, and Northern Leasing Systems, Inc., the
Defendants, , Case No. 2017cv289236, was removed on June 7, 2017
from the Superior Court of Fulton County, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-02078-AT to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg.

Lease Finance distributes and leases point of sale equipment in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444 0773
          E-mail: eadamwebb@hotmail.com
                  flemond@webbllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          G. Marshall Kent , Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Henry, Esq.
          SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD, LLP -GA
          1180 West Peachtree St., NW, Suite 2300
          Regions Plaza
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 962 1000
          E-mail: marshall.kent@smithmoorelaw.com
                  steven.henry@smithmoorelaw.com


LOCK HAVEN: Female Athletes File Discrimination Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
Lock Haven University has been hit with a class action by eight
female athletes claiming the school treats men's and women's
sports teams unequally and does not provide enough opportunities
for women to join teams.

The women's team members allege in their Title IX lawsuit, filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, that Lock Haven violates Title IX by only seeking to
demote the only Division I women's team -- field hockey -- and
leaving the men's only Division I team -- wrestling -- to continue
without any threat of demotion or demands to comply with to keep
it from being demoted.

In addition to the team changes, the athletes claim Lock Haven has
been discriminating against women's teams for decades and has
refused do anything about it.

"Despite its continuing failure to provide equal athletic
participation opportunities to its female student body or
otherwise to comply with Title IX's athletic participation
requirements, LHU recently initiated a series of discriminatory
actions that will exacerbate its existing sex discrimination," the
complaint said.

A spokesperson for Lock Haven declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Lawyers from Steinbacher, Goodall & Yurchak and the Women's Law
Project represented the plaintiffs.

"As Lock Haven's different treatment of its women's teams so
clearly shows, Lock Haven treats its female athletes like second-
class citizens.  The law does not permit that," said attorney
Terry Fromson of the Women's Law Project in a statement on
June 5.

She continued, "The swim team's elimination violates well-
established law that prohibits a school from eliminating a woman's
team when it fails to comply with Title IX's participation
requirements.  Likewise, Lock Haven's threatened demotion of the
single women's Division I team while leaving the only men's
Division I team in place violates Title IX's requirement of
equality in level of competition."

According to the complaint, 56 percent of Lock Haven's 3,522 full-
time undergraduate students in the 2016-17 academic year were
female.

"Although the 2016-17 academic year is not complete and not all
data is final, available LHU data demonstrates the persistence of
an athletic opportunity gap for female students whether measured
by LHU's roster management plan, or online rosters," the complaint
said.

The plaintiffs also claimed that Lock Haven retained a firm to
conduct a Title IX compliance audit, which found that the school
failed to meet the statute's participation requirements under the
statute. [GN]


LONGHUA ZHU: "Oseguera" Suit Alleges Cal. Labor Laws Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alfonso Oseguera and Joaquin Ibarra, individually and acting on
behalf of a class of similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, vs.
Longhua Zhu, and Fusan Corporation; and DOES 1-20; Defendants,
Case No. 4:17-cv-03252-KAW (N.D. Cal., June 6, 2017), alleges
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime provision,
violation of California Minimum Wage Act, violation of California
overtime provision, violation of California rest break
requirements, violation of California meal break requirements,
failure to reimburse for all necessary expenditures or losses
incurred, failure to pay all wages owed upon termination or
resignation, failure to provide accurate wage statements,
violation of Unfair Competition Law, and violation of California
Labor Code Private Attorney General Act.[BN]

Fusan Corp. engages in the wholesale and retail sale of food
products from Madagascar, such as cocoa, coffee, vanilla & spices.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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



MARKETPLACE 41: Faces "Duran" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marketplace 41, Inc.
The case is styled as Francisco Oropeza Duran, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Marketplace
41, Inc., doing business as: Bistro Marketplace;
Market Place 125 Inc., doing business as: Bistro Marketplace;
Scott Shin; and Tony Choi, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04388
(S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2017).

Bistro Marketplace is a quick stop restaurant with a sandwich
counter plus a salad bar buffet selling diverse fare by the
pound.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MDL 2665: Court Denies Bid to Redact March 21 Opinion
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: McCORMICK & COMPANY, INC., PEPPER
PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. This Document
Relates To: ALL CONSUMER CASES, MDL No. 2665, Misc. No. 15-1825
(ESH) (D. D.C.), Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia denied McCormick's
motion to redact the Memorandum Opinion dated March 21, 2017, and
unsealed the opinion without redactions.

The Class Plaintiffs have made antitrust, consumer protection, and
unjust enrichment claims against the Defendants related to alleged
fill reductions in pepper containers.  After dismissing the
Plaintiffs' antitrust claim, the Court granted their motion for
reconsideration and allowed them to file their Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.  The Court filed its opinion
on the motion for reconsideration under seal and invited the
parties to propose redactions to the opinion, because it referred
to paragraphs in the complaint that were based on material that
the Defendants had produced in discovery and designated as
confidential pursuant to a protective order.

McCormick has moved for redactions of three types of information
that the Court cited from the Plaintiffs' complaint: (i)
quotations from and descriptions of internal McCormick documents
that discuss the challenged fill reductions; (ii) descriptions of
the process by which McCormick contacted retailers about the fill
reductions and responses from some retailers; and (3) the
Plaintiffs' statements of their theory that competition about fill
levels would have driven prices down.  According to McCormick,
publicizing this information would create a misleading picture of
its conduct that could harm its reputation.  The Plaintiffs oppose
the redactions based on the public interest in having access to
the Court's full opinion.

Because the Court finds that the public interest in access to the
opinion outweighs the potential risk of embarrassment to
McCormick, Court denied McCormick's motion and unsealed the
opinion without redactions.  McCormick's motion at ECF No. 131 for
leave to file under seal its exhibit of proposed redactions is
granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2017 memorandum opinion
is available at https://is.gd/brg3m8 from Leagle.com.

Rhonda Dupler, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew N. Friedman --
friedman@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Rhonda Dupler, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth A. Fegan --
th@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP & Jeffrey I.
Carton, Denlea & Carton LLP.

Holly Marsh, Plaintiff, represented by Michael T. Fraser --
mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net -- Fraser Law Firm, P.C. & Elizabeth
A. Fegan, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP.

Ryan Scott Bunting, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth A. Fegan,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP.

Brandon Grady, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth A. Fegan,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP.

Tyler Underwood, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth A. Fegan,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP.

Debbie Esparza, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Cialkowski --
david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, LLP & Elizabeth
A. Fegan, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP.

Saba Ganjineh, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth A. Fegan,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP.

Watkins Incorporated, Plaintiff, represented by Geoffrey P. Jarpe
-- geoffrey.jarpe@maslon.com -- MASLON LLP.

Brenda Theis, Plaintiff, represented by David C. Nelson, Nelson &
Nelson, Attorneys at Law, P.C. & Elizabeth A. Fegan, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro, LLP.

McCormick & Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H.
Bamberger -- david.bamberger@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP &
Edward S. Scheideman, DLA Piper LLP.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew G. Klevorn
-- andrew.klevorn@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP.

Publix Super Markets, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H.
Bamberger, DLA Piper LLP.

Nielsen Company (U.S.) LLC, Interested Party, represented by
Robert J. Bittman -- rbittman@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods
LLP & Robert J. Slobig -- rslobig@torshen.com -- Torshen, Slobig &
Axel, Ltd., pro hac vice.


MDLIVE INC: App User Voluntarily Dismisses Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale and Steve Trader, writing for Law360, report that
MDLive on June 5 touted a Utah woman's voluntary dismissal of her
putative class action after the Florida-based telehealth provider
pointed out that its user contract disclosed what she alleged was
a secret practice of capturing screenshots of patients' sensitive
personal data and transmitting them to a third party.

After MDLive sought dismissal on May 2, plaintiff Joan Richards
informed the Southern District of Florida that she intended to
file an amended complaint, rather than a response to the motion,
with the intention of providing "additional facts clarifying the
nature of her injuries and claims."  Ms. Richards received an
extension until June 9, but instead she filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal at the deadline.

MDLive Inc., which offers consultations with board-certified
physicians and therapists through a mobile app, argued in its
motion to dismiss that its terms-of-service contract specifically
alerts users like Ms. Richards that it shares limited information
with third-party contractors -- who are under confidentiality
obligations -- in order to assist the Sunrise, Florida-based
company in developing and improving the program.

"Privacy and patient confidentiality are at the heart of
everything we do, and MDLive will continue to rigorously review
and evolve our technology and processes to safeguard member
information and build trust in the telehealth industry," MDLive
CEO Scott Decker said in a statement on June 5.  "We are thrilled
this lawsuit was appropriately dismissed as we continue pursuing
MDLive's goal of enabling 24/7/365 access to affordable virtual
healthcare for consumers, employers, health plans and health
systems across the U.S."

In her latest filing, Ms. Richards specified that her dismissal
was to be without prejudice, but U.S. District Judge William P.
Dimitrouleas entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice.

Ms. Richards alleged in her April 18 complaint that MDLive fails
to adequately restrict access to patients' medical information and
instead grants unnecessary and broad permissions to its employees,
agents and third parties to access it.

The suit alleged MDLive's app is programmed to capture an average
of 60 screenshots during the first 15 minutes that the app is open
-- the same amount of time the company says it takes new users to
register an account, enter their medical history information and
connect with a doctor, according to the complaint.

The app prompts users to enter sensitive and confidential
information such as details about allergies, past medical
procedures and "Behavioral Health History," which includes asking
about conditions such as obsessive compulsive disorder, bipolar
disorder, schizophrenia, depression and substance abuse, the
complaint said.

Ms. Richards alleged that MDLive's app sends the screenshots to
TestFairy, a third-party tech company based in Tel Aviv, Israel,
that works to "insert the necessary hooks to gather information"
about app users' experiences in attempts to improve the product
and possibly detect bugs without having to take the step of
obtaining feedback from beta testers before releasing the app
publicly.

TestFairy, however, is not a health care provider and MDLive
patients are not made aware that MDLive will send their medical
information to TestFairy in near real time, Ms. Richards said.

The suit included counts for breach of contract, intrusion upon
seclusion, fraud, unjust enrichment, and, because Ms. Richards
resides in Utah, violations of the Utah Truth in Advertising Law
and Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act.

In order to have standing to sue, Ms. Richards had to allege she
suffered an injury in fact that was concrete and particular, and
not speculative, MDLive said in its motion to dismiss.  But aside
from alleging that some of her personal data was shared with a
contractor -- which it said was expressly allowed under the
contract she agreed to -- she offered no facts to support that her
information was sent to anyone other than the intended recipient
or that it was used in an injurious way.

Even if the court had found Ms.Richards had standing, though, none
of those individual claims would have held up, MDLive contended.

No breach of contract existed because the terms-of-use contract
did not contain the promise she alleged was broken, the company
argued.

"Quite the opposite, the terms of use contract contradicts
Richards's allegations by explicitly telling users that their
personal information may be disclosed to 'contractors, service
providers and other third parties,'" MDLive said.

Because the terms of use contract alerted users to its practice,
the fraud and intrusion upon seclusion claims also failed, the
company argued.  The contract also stipulated that the terms of
service are governed by Florida law, but even if Utah laws
applied, those state statutes require a showing of deception,
which did not exist here, MDLive contended.

Ms. Richards counsel did not respond to a request for comment on
June 5.

Ms. Richards is represented by Dillon Brozyna --
dbrozyna@edelson.com -- of Edelson PC.

MDLive is represented by David A. Coulson -- coulsond@gtlaw.com
-- Jared R. Kessler -- kesslerj@gtlaw.com -- and Ian C. Ballon --
Ballon@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig LLP.

The case is Richards v. MDLive Inc., case number 0:17-cv-60760, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
[GN]


MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Carall" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercantile
Adjustment Bureau, LLC. The case is captioned as Jennifer Carall
and Eva Ulloa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03499 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2017).

Mercantile Adjustment Bureau is a full service, nationally
licensed collections and accounts receivable management firm.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Kraus" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercantile
Adjustment Bureau, LLC. The case is captioned as David Kraus, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-03431 (E.D.N.Y., June 7, 2017).

Mercantile Adjustment is a full service, nationally licensed
collections and accounts receivable management firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


METHODIST HEALTHCARE: "K.B" Suit Moved to District of Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled K.B., by and through her natural
parent, Jennifer Qassis; D.G., by and through his natural parent,
Dayna Webster; Lillian Knox-Bender; and J.S., by and through his
natural parent, Jessica Williams, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs. v. Methodist Healthcare
- Memphis Hospitals d/b/a Methodist Hospital and Le Bonheur
Children's Hospital, the Defendant, Case No. CH-13-00487-1, was
removed on June 8, 2017 from the Chancery Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee (Memphis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:17-cv-02391 to the proceeding.

Methodist Hospital provides patient care in Union County and
beyond since 1946.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

          Buckner Wellford, Esq.
          BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ
          First Tennessee Bank Building
          165 Madison Ave., Ste. 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526 2000
          Facsimile: (901) 577 4204
          E-mail: bwellford@bakerdonelson.com


MICHIGAN: Dismissal of Suits vs. Corrections Dept. Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOHN DOES 11-18 and JANE DOE 1, on Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, GOVERNOR, DANIEL H.
HEYNS, and DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants-
Appellees. JOHN DOES 1-10, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, GOVERNOR, DANIEL H. HEYNS, and DIRECTOR OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants-Appellees, Nos. 332182,
332183 (Mich. App.), the Court of Appeals of Michigan affirmed the
Court of Claims' dismissal of the actions under MCR 2.116(C)(7).

This litigation is back before the Court for a second time after
the Michigan Supreme Court vacated the Court's decision in John
Does 1-7 v Dep't of Corrections ("Does I").  The Plaintiffs are
seven unidentified males who became imprisoned while under the age
of 18 in the Department of Corrections facilities.  They sued
under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act ("ELCRA") claiming that
they had been subjected to sexual violence and harassment by adult
male prisoners and female prison guards.

John Does 1 through 7 appealed the circuit court's decision to the
Court in Does I.  While Does I only involved John Does 1-7, the
Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add John Does 8 through 16
during the pendency of the appellate process.

The Court then released its decision in Does I in August 2015; it
reversed and remanded to the circuit court.  Does I held that John
Does 1 through 7 had failed to comply with the disclosure
requirements of the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") and,
thus, their complaint should have been dismissed.

After Does I, the Plaintiffs moved to file a third amended
complaint, adding John Does 17 and 18 and Jane Doe 1.  Consistent
with Does I, the circuit court dismissed without prejudice the
claims of John Does 1 through 10 because these Plaintiffs had not
complied with the notice requirements of the PLRA and amendment of
the complaint could not cure the defect.  The circuit court
otherwise granted the motion to file the third amended complaint
and allowed the CPL claim of John Does 11 through 18 and Jane Doe
1 to proceed.

Thereafter, John Does 1 through 10 filed a new class action
complaint, raising their original ELCRA claim for purposes of
appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, as well as asserting claims
under the Child Protection Law ("CPL") and Social Welfare Act
("SWA"), the latter of which imposes civil liability for failure
to report child abuse or neglect.  Around the same time, John Does
1 through 7 filed an application for leave to appeal Does I in the
Supreme Court.  Shortly thereafter, all the Defendants moved for
summary disposition in the circuit court as to all claims and all
the Plaintiffs in both cases.  The circuit court took the summary
disposition matters under advisement.

Then, while consideration of the summary disposition motions
remained pending in the circuit court, the Defendants in the
instant matter transferred part of the litigation to the Court of
Claims.  Specifically, in Docket No. 332182, the Defendants
transferred the CPL claim of John Does 11 through 18 and Jane Doe
1 from the third amended complaint; and, in Docket No. 332183,
they transferred the CPL and SWA claims of John Does 1 through 10
from the refiled class action complaint.

The Defendants then moved for summary disposition in both cases
before the Court of Claims.  In both cases, the Plaintiffs moved
to remand the matter back to circuit court on the basis that
jurisdiction under MCL 600.6421(1) of the Court of Claims Act was
improper because they had a right to a jury trial.

Ultimately, the Court of Claims disagreed with the Plaintiffs,
concluding that they had no right to a jury trial under the CPL or
SWA because the statutes were silent as to whether a jury trial
right existed.  The Court of Claims entered summary disposition
for the Defendants in both cases.

The Plaintiffs filed the instant appeals in both cases, which the
Court consolidated by order.  In Docket No. 332183, the Plaintiffs
John Does 1 through 10 appeal by right the Court of Claims' Feb.
1, 2016 opinion and order denying their motion to remand to the
circuit court and granting the Defendants summary disposition
under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (action barred by governmental immunity and
res judicata) on the Plaintiffs' claims under the CPL and SWA.  In
Docket No. 332182, the Plaintiffs John Does 12 through 18 and Jane
Doe 1 appeal by right the Court of Claims' separate Feb. 1, 2016
opinion and order denying their motion to remand this matter to
the circuit court and granting the same Defendants summary
disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (action barred by governmental
immunity) on the Plaintiffs' CPL claim.

In the interim, on March 30, 2016, the Supreme Court entered an
order affirming Does I with respect to the notice requirements of
the PLRA and vacating the portion of Does I pertaining to the
ELCRA, expressing no opinion as to the merits.

Because the SWA provides for a reporting duty akin to that under
the CPL, the Court similarly finds that the SWA does not create an
additional exception to the governmental tort liability act
("GTLA").  Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Defendants
are immune from suit under the GTLA and that the Court of Claims
properly dismissed the actions under MCR 2.116(C)(7).

A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2017 per curiam is
available at https://is.gd/dkOZar from Leagle.com.

Beth M. Rivers, for John Does 11-18, Plaintiff-Appellant.

Michael F. Murphy, for Department of Corrections, Defendant-
Appellee.

Christina M. Grossi, for Department of Corrections, Defendant-
Appellee.

Heather S. Meingast, for Department of Corrections, Defendant-
Appellee.

Mark E. Donnelly, for Department of Corrections, Defendant-
Appellee.


MODERNIZE INC: Faces "Hopkins" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA HOPKINS on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MODERNIZE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-40087
(D. Mass., June 6, 2017), alleges that in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Defendant initiated
telemarketing calls to a cellular telephone number Ms. Hopkins had
registered on the National Do Not Call Registry for the purpose of
advertising their goods and services, using an automated dialing
system.

Modernize is a company that refers individuals for home
improvement projects.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq.
     JEREMY COHEN CW LAW GROUP, P.C.
     188 Oaks Road Framingham, MA 01701
     E-mail: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com

        - and -

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


MRI INT'L: "Takiguchi" Class Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SHIGE TAKIGUCHI, FUMI NONAKA, MITSUAKI
TAKITA, TATSURO SAKAI, SHIZUKO ISHIMORI, YUKO NAKAMURA, MASAAKI
MORIYA, HATSUNE HATANO, and HIDENAO TAKAMA, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarity Situated, Plaintiff, v. MRI
INTERNATIONAL, INC., EDWIN J. FUJINAGA, JUNZO SUZUKI, PAUL MUSASHI
SUZUKI, LVT, INC., dba STERLING ESCROW, and DOES 1-500,
Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-01183-HDM-NJK (D. Nev.), Judge Howard
D. McKibben of the United States District Court for the District
of Nevada granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
of class action settlement with Defendant Sterling Escrow.

The Settlement Agreement is entered into on April 25, 2017, by and
between the parties.  Pursuant to the Settlement, within 15 days
after the Effective Date, Sterling Escrow will deliver a check in
the amount of $800,000 written out to "Robert W. Cohen Client
Trust Account."  The Net Settlement Fund will then promptly be
transferred to the Claims Administrator.  The Settlement Fund will
not be reduced by any other settlement between Sterling Escrow and
a Settlement Class Member nor by any request for exclusion from
the Settlement Class.

As additional consideration for the settlement, Sterling Escrow
and its principal, Peter Munoz, agree to accept a subpoena to
appear at trial through their counsel Robert Goldstein, Esq., and
will not challenge the validity of the service of that subpoena on
Mr. Goldstein.  The Sterling Escrow and Mr. Munoz further agree to
appear at trial and provide trial testimony as ordered by the
subpoena.

Judge McKibben finds that the proposed Settlement with Sterling
Escrow for $800,000 is sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate
such that it is preliminarily approved.  Notice of the Settlement
should be provided to the Settlement Class and a hearing should be
held as set forth.  In accordance with the schedule outlined, the
Class Counsel will seek entry of an Order and Final Judgment as to
the Settling Defendant.

Judge McKibben also (i) granted the Plaintiffs' request to defer
distribution of the Settlement Funds and propose a Plan of
Allocation until final resolution of the case or at a later time,
upon approval by the Court; (ii) approved the Notice of Pendency
and Proposed Settlement of Class Action; and (iii) appointed the
Japanese attorney group which represents the interests of certain
MRI victims in Japan as the Notice Administrator.

Consistent with the Settlement Agreement, the Notice Administrator
will (i) disseminate the Notice of Settlement to the Class with
the cover letter; (ii) cause the Notice of Settlement to be
published on the National Consumer Affairs of Japan's Web site;
(iii) disseminate the Initial Claim Form to the Class; (iv) make
relevant documents in English and Japanese accessible to the Class
on the MRI Higaibengodan's Web site; (v) receive and maintain
Requests for Exclusion; and (vi) receive and maintain Initial
Claim Forms. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the costs of
the Notice Administrator's costs will be paid out of the
Settlement Fund, subject to Court review and approval.

The Notice Administrator will cause the Settlement Notice to all
Class Members on July 24, 2017 and cause it to be published on the
National Consumer Affairs of Japan's Web site.  At least 30 days
prior to the Final Approval Hearing, the Claims Administrator will
file with the Court an Affidavit of Compliance with Notice
Requirements.  All costs incurred in disseminating Notice and
administering the Settlement will be paid from the Settlement
Fund.  The Class Counsel will seek Court approval for
reimbursement of the notice costs prior to the Final Approval
Hearing.

The Initial Claim Form attached to the Settlement Agreement
satisfies the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and is approved for dissemination to the Class in a substantially
similar format.  The Class Members will have until Oct. 20, 2017,
to return a completed Initial Claim Form.  Prior to distribution
of the Settlement Funds, the Court will review and approve a Final
Claim Form.

The Class Members will have 52 days from the date the Notice of
Settlement to request to be excluded from the Proposed Settlement.
Any Class Member who wishes to be excluded from the Settlement
Class must send a written Request for Exclusion to the Notice
Administrator before the close of the deadline.  The Members of
the Settlement Class must in each instance individually and
personally execute a Request for Exclusion.

The Class Counsel will file their motion for payment of attorneys'
fees and costs no later than 31 days from the date the Notice of
Settlement is mailed.

A final hearing on the Settlement Agreement will be held before
the Court at 3:30 p.m. on Nov. 17, 2017.  At the Final Approval
Hearing, the Court will consider (i) the fairness, reasonableness,
and adequacy of the partial Settlement Agreements and whether the
Settlement Agreements should be granted final approval by the
Court; (ii) entry of a Final Approval Order and Judgment including
the Settlement Release; and (iii) the Class Counsel's application
for payment of costs.  Any Class Member who did not elect to be
excluded from the Class may, but need not, submit comments or
objections to the addresses provided by the Claims Administrator
in the Notice.  Objections, along with any statements of intent to
appear, must be postmarked no later than 52 days from the Notice
date, and mailed to the addresses provided in the Notice.

Should the Court adjourn the date for the Final Approval Hearing,
such adjournment will not alter the deadlines for mailing of the
Notice, nor the deadlines for submissions of settlement
objections, claims, requests for exclusion, or notices of
intention to appear at the Final Approval Hearing unless those
dates are explicitly changed by subsequent Order.

For Settlement purposes, the Class Counsel will continue to
represent Class Members who do not timely object and do not have
an attorney enter an appearance on their behalf.

The schedule by which the events referenced will occur as follows:

     a. Event Date Notice of Class Action Settlement Mailed and
Posted on Internet - July 24, 2017

     b. Continued Hearing for Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement with LVT, Inc. - July 25, 2017
at 8:30 a.m.

     c. Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Filed by Class
Counsel - Aug. 24, 2017

     d. Opt-Out and Objection Deadline - Sept. 14, 2017

     e. Deadline for Initial Claim Form - Oct. 20, 2017

     f. Notice Administrator Affidavit of Compliance with Notice
Requirements - Oct. 18, 2017

     g. Motion for Final Approval - Oct. 27, 2017

     h. Responses or Opposition to the Motion Final Approval -
Nov. 3, 2017

     i. Provide List of Persons Who Have Made Requests for
Exclusions - Nov. 3, 2017

     j. Replies in Support of Motions for Final Approval - Nov.
10, 2017

     k. Attorneys' Fees and Costs Final Approval Hearing - Nov.
17, 2017 at 3:30 p.m.

All further proceedings as to Sterling Escrow is stayed and all
deadlines are vacated, except for any actions required to
effectuate or enforce the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/ewYsLV from Leagle.com.

Shige Takiguchi, Plaintiff, represented by James Edwin Gibbons --
jeg@manningllp.com -- Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP.

Shige Takiguchi, Plaintiff, represented by James R. Olson, Olson,
Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law Offices
of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of Robert W.
Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick -- sjrnull@nullmanningllp.com --
Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP.

Fumi Nonaka, Plaintiff, represented by James Edwin Gibbons,
Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson,
Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law
Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of Robert
W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass, Ellrod,
Ramirez, Trester LLP.

Kaoruko Koizumi, Plaintiff, represented by James Edwin Gibbons,
Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson,
Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law
Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of Robert
W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass, Ellrod,
Ramirez, Trester LLP.

Tatsuro Sakai, Plaintiff, represented by James Edwin Gibbons,
Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson,
Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law
Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of Robert
W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass, Ellrod,
Ramirez, Trester LLP.

Mitsuaki Takita, Plaintiff, represented by James Edwin Gibbons,
Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson,
Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law
Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of Robert
W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass, Ellrod,
Ramirez, Trester LLP.

Shizuuko Ishimori, Plaintiff, represented by James Edwin Gibbons,
Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson,
Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law
Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of Robert
W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass, Ellrod,
Ramirez, Trester LLP, pro hac vice.

Yoko Hatano, Plaintiff, represented by James Edwin Gibbons,
Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson,
Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law
Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of Robert
W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass, Ellrod,
Ramirez, Trester LLP, pro hac vice.

Yuko Nakamura, Plaintiff, represented by James Edwin Gibbons,
Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson,
Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law
Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of Robert
W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass, Ellrod,
Ramirez, Trester LLP, pro hac vice.

Hidehito Miura, Plaintiff, represented by James Edwin Gibbons,
Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson,
Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law
Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of Robert
W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass, Ellrod,
Ramirez, Trester LLP, pro hac vice.

MRI International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel L.
Hitzke, Hitzke & Associates & Erick M. Ferran.

Edwin J Fujinaga, Defendant, represented by Daniel L. Hitzke,
Hitzke & Associates & Erick M. Ferran.

Junzo Suzuki, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Silvestri --
jsilvestri@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald Carano Wilson, Nicolas
Morgan -- nicolasmorgan@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, pro
hac vice & Paul J. Georgeson -- pgeorgeson@mcdonaldcarano.com --
McDonald Carano Wilson LLP.

LVT, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert A. Goldstein.

Paul Musashi Suzuki, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A.
Silvestri, McDonald Carano Wilson, Nicolas Morgan, Paul Hastings
LLP, pro hac vice & Paul J. Georgeson, McDonald Carano Wilson LLP.

ICAG, INC., Defendant, represented by Jacob A. Reynolds --
jreynolds@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen, Mark A. Hutchison
-- mhutchison@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen, LLC & Robert
T. Stewart -- rstewart@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen, LLC.

First Hawaiian Bank, Defendant, represented by Christopher R.
Ramos -- cramos@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price (CA), LLP, pro hac
vice, Rex Garner -- rex.garner@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Ariel
E. Stern -- ariel.stern@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Lisa M.
Simonetti -- lsimonetti@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price, LLP.

Suzuki Enterprises, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, Defendant,
represented by Gregg D. Zucker -- gregg@foundationlaw.com --
Foundation Law Group & Robert A. Rabbat --
rrabbat@enensteinlaw.com -- Enenstein Ribakoff LaVina & Pham.

Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert, Interested Party, represented by
Paul D. Alston -- PAlston@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing,
Albert G. Marquis -- amarquis@maclaw.com -- Marquis & Aurbach,
Candice Renka -- crenka@maclaw.com -- Marquis & Aurbach & Nickolas
A. Kacprowski -- NKacprowski@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing.

Mary Luszczyk, Material Witness, represented by Mark S. Dzarnoski,
Gordan & Silver, Ltd.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Faces Concussion Class Action in Kansas
---------------------------------------------------------
Blair Kerkhoff, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that the
family of a former Pittsburg State football player who killed
himself is suing the NCAA and Mid-America Intercollegiate
Athletics Association.

The class action lawsuit, filed on June 2 in U.S. District Court
in Kansas City, Kan., alleges the NCAA knew about the debilitating
long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries, and
sub-concussive injuries that resulted from playing college
football, but "recklessly disregarded this information to protect
the very profitable business of 'amateur' college football."

Zack Langston, who played at Blue Valley Northwest, was 26 when he
took his life on Feb. 24, 2014.  He had suffered from behavior and
mood swings soon after his football career had ended.

His mother, Nikki, told The Star in February that Zack also had
memory loss, depression and paranoia.  He was visiting his former
girlfriend and mother of their 3-year-old son when he shot himself
in the chest.

Langston's estate and Danae Young, the mother of his child, are
the plaintiffs.

An autopsy revealed no brain damage.  But the Langstons connected
with Ann McKee of Boston University's Center for Study of
Traumatic Encephalopathy, where the brains of several former NFL
players had been examined.

Zack Langston's brain was shipped to the CTE Center and Nikki
Langston said it was found to have had the same levels of chronic
traumatic encephalopathy, a type of chronic brain damage, as
Junior Seau, the former NFL star linebacker who also died by
suicide with a gunshot wound to his chest.

The case alleges that the NCAA and MIAA have been aware for
decades "that severe head impacts can lead to long-term brain
injury (and) recklessly ignored these facts and failed to
implement reasonable concussion management protocols to protect
their student-athletes.

Officials at the MIAA and Pittsburg State have declined to
comment.

Langston played outside linebacker at Pittsburg State from 2007-10
and "suffered from over one hundred concussions," according to the
suit, which also alleges the school didn't give appropriate
medical treatment and told Langston to "shake it off" and return
to games or practices "if he was even attended to at all."

The suit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages
"without limitation damages for past, present and future medical
expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and interest,
lost future earnings and other damages."

The Associated Press reported last October that the NCAA is facing
43 class-action lawsuits related to the handling of concussions at
the Division I level.  The lawsuits were filed Chicago-based law
firm Edelson PC, which is also one of the law firms representing
Langston.

Last year, a federal judge granted preliminary approval to a $75
million settlement of a class-action concussion case against the
NCAA with the money used to set up a 50-year, $70 million medical
monitoring programing for college athletes and a new $5 million
program to research prevention, treatment and effects of
concussions. [GN]


NAT'L FOOTBALL: August 7 Deadline Set for Concussion Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Darren Heitner, writing for Forbes, reports that August 7, 2017
should have some notation on every former National Football League
player's calendar.  It is the final day for players to register
for the NFL concussion settlement program in order to potentially
receive benefits based on head trauma experienced during their
careers in the NFL that may have or could result in brain
injuries.

Current NFL players and those who retired on or after July 7, 2014
are excluded from the registration process.  All other former NFL
players should, at a minimum, look into whether they find it
advantageous to sign up to be included in the settlement class.
After August 7, it could be exceedingly difficult to collect under
the terms of the settlement, which became final and effective on
January 7, 2017 and is expected to cost the NFL more than $1
billion.

"The settlement is open for sixty-five years; however, if a player
develops symptoms in twenty years, for instance, and doesn't
register, he can't collect under the settlement unless he can show
good cause to the court," explains lawyer Adam Slater, who says
that he has  been retained by approximately two hundred former NFL
players.

"My understanding is that there are approximately between 10,000
to 15,000 individuals not registered," adds Mr. Slater.  "It would
be a travesty for all these guys to go unregistered and not have a
chance to recover."

A former NFL player can register by himself or register through
counsel.  The registration is not overly complicated; however, the
neuropsychological tests used to determine the amount of
compensation that a former NFL player will receive, if any, is not
as simple to understand.

"There are two different paths that a player can take -- (1) BAP
baseline assessment testing with private doctors approved by the
NFL; or (2) MAF testing with private doctors also approved by the
NFL," says Slater.  "We have a system where we're going to give
our players a preliminary assessment. Based on that assessment,
they're going to the MAF program."

There is apparently a big distinction between the two types of
assessment testing programs, according to lawyer John Baldante,
who concentrates his practice on brain and spinal cord injury
cases.

"The big difference between the two programs is because the BAP
program is funded directly by the NFL, there are certain fee
restrictions imposed upon the doctors so that if you do a
neuropsychological test through the BAP program, there's a very
detailed fee schedule with a maximum fee," explains Mr. Baldante.
"If you were to go to a neuropsychological under the independent
MAF program, you still have to have the same qualifications as a
BAP doctor, but you're allowed to charge your customary hourly
rate."

The NFL's assumption is that there will be many more players who
opt for the BAP program, because the cost of testing is paid for
by the NFL. Based on same, the NFL is requiring doctors to agree
to a smaller fee schedule.

The MAF program is paid by players and the cost is largely being
fronted by law firms representing those players.

"The cost of the MAF program varies based on the doctors and where
they're situated in the country," says Mr. Baldante.  "A doctor in
San Francisco or New York tends to charge a higher hourly rate
than a doctor in Atlanta or Tennessee for instance."

It is common sense that if lawyers are willing to front the money
on costs, they envision an outcome that yields a profit. These
lawyers are not taking on former NFL player clients out of the
kindness of their hearts. On occasion, the pursuit of players has
become so ruthless that the details have been exposed by those who
claim to have been harmed.

Mark Fainaru-Wada of ESPN reported in March that "a virtual
cottage industry of opportunist lawyers . . . has cropped up." The
judge assigned to the grouping of NFL concussion cases and
overseeing the settlement has been asked to punish certain
attorneys for using "false and misleading" tactics in an effort to
secure former NFL player clientele.

But some lawyers with real experience in extracting as much money
as possible in these types of medical-related class action suits
ending in settlement could be advantageous for former players who
are not clear on what puts them in the best situation to recover
as much money as possible.

"Part of what makes a good lawyer in these kinds of circumstances
is knowledge about the medicine . . . the nuances involved in the
medicine of these types of injuries, and how to protect your
client best," says Mr. Baldante.  "Don't underestimate the
logistics necessary in coordinating all of this on a national
scale."

Mr. Baldante also recognizes that there are many lawyers who have
been salivating since the announcement of the approximately $1
billion settlement and will go to vast lengths to secure clientele
for a piece of the pie.

"We know there are some lawyers out there who are trying to give
bargain basement rates to attract players," acknowledges
Mr. Baldante.  "There's a little bit of a danger to that, because
for many of these players their interest will be served by
undergoing expensive medical assessments and testing both with
neurologists.  Lawyers offering 'cut rates' have an economic
disincentive to take care of these players and work up their
injuries in the proper manner. Those players might simply be
dumped into the BAP program, because it's economically cheaper for
the lawyers to do that."

Thus, players are presented with important decisions to make in
the months of June and July.  First of all, do they register to
become part of the class that will seek payments under the
settlement? Second of all, do they choose to enroll on their own
or with the assistance of an attorney who will assist in
potentially providing sound advice with regard to medicals and
cover many of the costs, but also take a commission on monies
recovered?

"This is a unique situation in which there's a class action
settlement where players have different paths to approach
discovery," says Martin Rubenstein, another lawyer working with
former NFL players in recovering under the settlement. "We will
seek a fee based upon and commensurate with the work we do to get
the recovery.  Certain players, once they have gone through the
screening, we're going to recommend to them that they simply go
through the BAP.  It will be a lower fee than if we make a
recommendation that they go through MAF testing, which will
involve more work, time and expense."

Rubenstein says that a number of the players who have asked him to
represent them were referred by other law firms.  In those cases,
he has accepted the players initially at the fee rate that the
players had in place with those lawyers, which range from roughly
20% to 33% of recovery. That amount could be decreased, and
Rubenstein says that he would never increase the fee.

Ultimately, players have some tough decisions to make and time is
of the essence.

"Make sure you register. If not for you, then for your family,"
concludes Mr. Slater.  "Even if you don't think you're impaired
now, you may be in the future." [GN]


NAT'L HOCKEY: Wrongful Death Suit Tossed Amid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Don Babwin, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal judge on June 5 dismissed a wrongful death lawsuit filed
by former NHL player Derek Boogard's parents, who blamed the
league for their son's brain damage and addiction to prescription
painkillers.

Boogard, a feared enforcer during six seasons with the Minnesota
Wild and the New York Rangers, died of an accidental overdose of
pain medications and alcohol in 2011.  His parents later sued,
arguing the NHL knew or should have known Boogard -- who they said
received more than 1,000 prescriptions from team physicians,
dentists, trainers and staff -- wasn't complying with treatment.

In a 20-page opinion dismissing the case, U.S. District Judge Gary
Feinerman wrote that Boogaard's parents didn't prove the NHL was
negligent. He also noted they weren't appointed trustees of their
son's estate, a requirement to sue on its behalf.

But the judge was careful not to comment on the allegations
against the NHL, which is currently involved in a class-action
lawsuit involving more than 100 former players.  Judge Feinerman
wrote that his decision "should not be read to commend how the NHL
handled Boogard's particular circumstances -- or the circumstances
of other NHL players who over the years have suffered injuries
from on-ice play."

The attorney for Boogard's family, William Gibbs, did not
immediately return a call from The Associated Press for comment. A
spokesman for the NHL did not immediately respond to an email
seeking comment.

Boogard spent five seasons with the Wild and one with the Rangers,
scoring just three goals in 277 NHL games -- while getting into at
least 66 fights on his way to racking up 589 penalty minutes.  He
died while still under contract with the Rangers.

The 28-yeear-old was posthumously diagnosed with chronic traumatic
encephalopathy, or CTE, a degenerative brain ailment that can be
caused by repeated blows to the head.

The lawsuit alleged the NHL "cultivated a culture of gratuitous
violence" that caused Boogaard to get into fights, which resulted
in his CTE and addiction to opioids that ultimately caused his
death.

In the suit, originally filed in 2013 in Cook County Circuit Court
in Chicago, Len and Joanne Boogaard alleged the NHL "knew, or
should have known, that Derek Boogaard, a known drug addict, with
probably brain damage due to concussive brain traumas sustained in
NHL fights, was not complying with treatment (at a treatment
center)."

A similar lawsuit was brought by the family of former Chicago
Blackhawks player Steve Montador, who died in 2015.  The lawsuit's
arguments mirror those made by scores of former professional
football players against the NFL. [GN]


NORTHERN TRUST: Banks Seeks to Certify 3 Classes & 3 Subclasses
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned LINDIE L. BANKS and ERICA
LEBLANC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION and NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY,
Case No. 2:16-cv-09141-JFW-JC (C.D. Cal.), ask the Court to
certify three classes:

   (1) Investment Class:

       From 2006 to the present, all grantors, trustors,
       beneficiaries, remaindermen, co-trustees and/or successor
       trustees of Class Trusts, which are defined as all
       revocable or irrevocable personal or charitable trusts:
       (1) for which Defendants served or serve as trustee, (2)
       for which Defendants had investment discretion or
       recommendation responsibility over principal and/or
       income, and (3) which had trust assets invested in
       investments that were financially affiliated with
       Defendants.  Excluded from the Nationwide Class are
       Defendants and their employees, affiliates, parents,
       subsidiaries, and co-conspirators, whether or not named in
       this Complaint, and the United States government;

   (2) Tax Preparation Fee Class:

       From 2006 to the present, all grantors, trustors,
       beneficiaries, remaindermen, co-trustees and/or successor
       trustees of Class Trusts, which are defined as all
       revocable or irrevocable personal or charitable trusts:
       (1) for which Defendants served or serve as trustee, and
       where Defendants charged a "fiduciary" or "tax
       preparation" fee for one or more of the covered years, and
       (2) the paid preparer of the fiduciary return was Northern
       Trust.  Excluded from the Nationwide Class are Defendants
       and their employees, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries,
       and co-conspirators, whether or not named in this
       Complaint, and the United States government.  Also
       excluded are any trusts where the trustee was both unpaid,
       and did not prepare an fiduciary returns, but rather a
       return was performed entirely by a third-party accountant
       that was paid directly from the trust; and

   (3) Fixed-Fee Overcharge Class:

       From 2006 to the present, all grantors, trustors,
       beneficiaries, remaindermen, co-trustees and/or successor
       trustees of Class Trusts, which are defined as all
       revocable or irrevocable personal or charitable fixed-fee
       trusts: (1) for which Defendants served or serve as
       trustee, (2) for which the amount of the trustee's
       compensation is specified in the governing instrument for
       the trust, and (3) for which fees were charged in excess
       of the specified compensation by Defendants. Excluded from
       the Nationwide Class are Defendants and their employees,
       affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, and co-conspirators,
       whether or not named in this Complaint, and the United
       States government.

Plaintiff Banks also seeks certification of three subclasses (one
for each class) on her claim for financial elder abuse for members
of the Classes, who are 65 years old or older.

The Court will commence a hearing on July 3, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.  Pretrial Conference and Trial Date in the
lawsuit are currently set for January 12, 2018, and January 30,
2018, respectively.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Nrj2VDa8

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas J. Brandi, Esq.
          Brian J. Malloy, Esq.
          THE BRANDI LAW FIRM
          354 Pine Street, Third Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 989-1800
          Facsimile: (415) 989-1801
          E-mail: tjb@brandilaw.com
                  bjm@brandilaw.com

               - and -

          Derek G. Howard, Esq.
          Ashley Romero, Esq.
          DEREK G. HOWARD LAW FIRM, INC.
          42 Miller Avenue, Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 432-7192
          Facsimile: (415) 524-2419
          E-mail: derek@derekhowardlaw.com
                  ashley@dhowlaw.com


ONE PLANET: Johansen Seeks to Certify Do Not Call Registry Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled KEN JOHANSEN v. ONE PLANET
OPS, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00121-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), moves the
Court to certify a Plaintiff Class against the Defendant pursuant
to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The Plaintiff Class that Mr. Johansen seeks to represent is
defined as:

     All persons within the United States whose phone numbers
     were registered on the Do Not Call Registry, and who, within
     the four years before the filing of the initial Complaint,
     through the date of class certification, received more than
     one telemarketing call within any twelve-month period from
     or on behalf of One Planet.  This described class to be
     further limited to those persons whose phone numbers were
     included in the records produced by Lead House and whose
     numbers were identified in the expert report of Ms.
     Verkovshkaya as a number that was listed on the Registry at
     the time of the calls at issue.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=a3K976LX

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
          Joseph F. Murray, Esq.
          Geoffrey J. Moul, Esq.
          MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
          E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com
                  murray@mmmb.com
                  moul@mmmb.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
          99 High St., Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (508) 221-1510
          Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
                  anthony@broderick-law.com

               - and -

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


OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Certification of Classes Sought in "Vega" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Vega moves the Court to certify the classes described in the
complaint of the lawsuit captioned AMY VEGA, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. OPTIO SOLUTIONS, LLC
d/b/a QUALIA COLLECTION SERVICES, Case No. 2:17-cv-00796 (E.D.
Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.  More than one defendant has already attempted the
scheme contemplated in Campbell-Ewald.  See Severns v. Eastern
Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).  Judge Randa
denied the defendant's request to deposit funds on grounds that a
class certification motion was pending.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RY5SVPgQ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PEDRO'S BAR: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pedro's Bar and
Restaurant, Inc. The case is entitled as Bianca Rodriguez, on
behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly-situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Pedro's Bar & Restaurant, Inc., and
Porfirio Suero, Jr. in his individual and professional capacities,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03358 (E.D.N.Y., June 5, 2017).

Pedro's Bar offers Mexican food delivery.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


PENN CREDIT: "Nitti" Files Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT A. NITTI, Plaintiff, v. PENN CREDIT CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00422-HEH (E.D. Va., June 6, 2017), alleges on
behalf of consumers that Penn regularly sends to Virginia
residents collection letters seeking to attempt to collect time-
barred Virginia income tax debts.

According to the complaint, Penn is aware that there is a seven-
year statute of limitations for the collection of Virginia
individual income tax liabilities because it has received
complaints from other Virginia residents regarding Penn's attempt
to collect time-barred debts.

Penn Credit Corporation acts as a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     2728 Colonial Ave., Ste. 100
     Roanoke, VA 24015
     Phone: (540) 343-1173
     E-mail: gary@garymbowman.com


PRETIUM RESOURCES: NY Securities Suit Dismissed, Case Closed
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York dismissed the case captioned In
re PRETIUM RESOURCES INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, This Document
Relates To: All Actions, No. 13-CV-7552 (VSB), (S.D. N.Y.),
because the Plaintiffs failed to allege the requisite scienter
needed to plead a claim of securities fraud under the Exchange
Act.

Lead plaintiffs Gary Martin and Sandra Lee Reyes Troyer, and
Plaintiff Michael Yeo claim that the Defendants Pretium and three
individual Pretium officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission's corresponding rule, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.10b-5.  They are suing on behalf of a putative class
of persons who purchased common stock of Pretium between June 11,
2013 and Oct. 22, 2013, and retained such shares until after the
Class Period ended.  They allege that Pretium's stock price was
artificially inflated during that period as a result of material,
uncorrected misstatements, and that they were damaged as a result.

The three officers whom the Plaintiffs have sued are: (i) Robert
Quartermain, Pretium's President and CEO; (iii) Kenneth
McNaughton, Pretium's Vice President and Chief Exploration
Officer; and (iii) Peter de Visser, Pretium's CFO.

Before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for
failure to state a claim.  The Second Amended Complaint alleges
that the Defendants may have been negligent in failing to disclose
contrary information as to its predictions about the Brucejack
Project.  This, however, does not amount to recklessness, and the
Plaintiffs have therefore failed to plead the requisite scienter
under Section 10.  Finally, upon careful consideration, Judge
Broderick finds that a reasonable person would not deem the
Plaintiffs' purported inference of scienter to be at least as
compelling as any opposing inference one could draw from the facts
alleged. The remaining miscellaneous scienter allegations, taken
together, do not rise to the level of a compelling inference of
scienter.

Because the Plaintiffs failed to allege the requisite scienter
needed to plead a claim of securities fraud under the Exchange
Act, Judge Broderick granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the
pending motions, and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2017 memorandum and
opinion is available at https://is.gd/WDvaB6 from Leagle.com.

Pretium Inv. Group, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim
-- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A..

Pretium Inv. Group, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Michele S.
Carino -- mcarino@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Sara Esther Fuks,
Milberg LLP (NYC) & Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Michael Yeo, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Michael Yeo, Movant, represented by John Anthony Kehoe --
jkehoe@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jonathan K. Levine --
jkl@pritzkerlevine.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP & Michele S. Carino,
Pomerantz LLP.

Robert Allan Quartermain, Defendant, represented by Daniel
Jonathan Kramer -- dkramer@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP & William Baly Michael --
wmichael@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
LLP.

Kenneth C. McNaughton, Defendant, represented by Daniel Jonathan
Kramer, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & William
Baly Michael, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Pretium Resources Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Jonathan
Kramer, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & William
Baly Michael, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Peter Adrian Johan De Visser, Consolidated Defendant, represented
by Daniel Jonathan Kramer, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP & William Baly Michael, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton
& Garrison LLP.


PROFESSIONAL BUREAU OF COLLECTIONS: Faces "Kraus" Suit in D. Md.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Bureau
of Collections of Maryland, Inc. The case is styled as Blima
Kraus, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Professional Bureau of Collections of
Maryland, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03402 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 6, 2017).

PBCM provides account recovery and collections services for 1st
party and 3rd party collections, and servicing of performing
portfolios.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


RAYMOND JAMES: No Objections Filed Against Ponzi Case Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan J. Keays, writing for VTDigger, reports that a proposed
nearly $150 million settlement by an investment firm over its
alleged role in a "Ponzi-like" scheme to defraud investors of
millions in projects at Jay Peak and elsewhere in the Northeast
Kingdom has cleared a major hurdle.

The deadline was June 5 for anyone to file objections to the
settlement the financial services company Raymond James agreed to
with the court-appointed receiver overseeing the properties at the
center of the fraud case.

No objections were listed as having been filed by the federal
court by 5 p.m. on June 5.  The stage now appears set for District
Judge Darrin P. Gayles to formally approve the settlement.  In
May, the judge gave the agreement his initial approval, pending
any objections.

Had any objections been filed, the judge said he would have held a
hearing June 30 to air the arguments against the settlement.

Any person failing to file an objection by the June 5 deadline,
Gayles wrote in his earlier order, "shall be forever barred from
raising such objection in this action or any other action or
proceeding, subject to the discretion of this Court."

Interested parties in the settlement included investors as well as
contractors and business owners who were out money in the projects
spearheaded by Ariel Quiros, Jay Peak's owner, and Bill Stenger,
the resort's former CEO and president. State and federal
regulators leveled fraud charges against the two men last spring.

Regulators say the developers used investor money to buy Jay Peak,
in one of many transactions facilitated by Raymond James, a St.
Petersburg, Florida-based firm.

Settlement proceeds are targeted at paying contractors and
businesses back the millions they are owed for services performed
for the developers.  Also, investors who regulators say were the
victims of fraud stand to gain from the settlement, with money
going to help pay to finish incomplete projects, reduce debts on
assets and, in some cases, allow them to recoup lost investments.

Many of those investors, who were foreigners seeking permanent
U.S. residency through the federal EB-5 visa program, were left
with their immigration status in peril as a result of the alleged
fraud.

That's because job creation requirements tied to those investments
under the EB-5 program had not been reached.

A lead attorney in a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by
investors against several parties, including Quiros, Stenger and
Raymond James, said after the proposed settlement was announced in
May that he didn't expect his clients would object.

"We've discussed it with our clients," Harley Tropin, a Florida
attorney, said at that time.  "It's a great deal, and we think all
the investors will be benefited by it, they'll all be favor of
it."

That lawsuit, according court records, was filed on behalf of a
proposed class of all 836 people who together invested more than
$400 million in the series of projects headed by Quiros and
Stenger in northern Vermont as part of the EB-5 immigrant investor
program.

Curtis Carlson, a Florida attorney representing a group of 33
Chinese investors who decided against joining the proposed class-
action case, said on June 5 his clients would not be objecting to
the Raymond James settlement.

"I checked with all my clients, and my clients are all OK with the
settlement," Mr. Carlson said.  "Everybody is getting something
here."

Michael Goldberg, the court-appointed receiver, announced the
settlement with Raymond James and Associates Inc. at a news
conference at the Statehouse in April.

"We believe this resolution is fair and representative of our
commitment to redressing the victims' losses in this case,"
Jonathan Santelli, Raymond James executive vice president and
general counsel, said in a statement when the settlement was
announced.

The settlement, if ultimately approved, releases claims against
Raymond James, with the financial services firm admitting no
wrongdoing.

Mr. Goldberg could not be reached on June 5 for comment.

Mr. Goldberg had alleged in a lawsuit against Raymond James that
the firm "aided and abetted" Quiros in a "Ponzi-like" scheme in
which he misused $200 million in investor funds, including
"looting" more than $50 million.
The settlement provides about $80 million to EB-5 investors, with
the largest chunk going to those who put money into a failed
project to build a biomedical research facility in Newport.

That project, AnC Bio Vermont, was termed by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission "nearly a complete fraud."

If Judge Gayles signs off on the settlement, Raymond James will
pay the receiver $145.5 million.  Combined with $4.5 million
Raymond James paid in an earlier agreement with state regulators,
that brings the total settlement figure to $150 million.

Most investors in projects at Jay Peak will not get an immediate
financial benefit from the settlement, because six of those
developments, or phases, were built and are operating.

Investors in Jay Peak's Tram Haus Lodge, who held promissory
notes, will be paid in full with funds from the settlement.

Those investors who do not get immediate funds from the
settlement, however, do benefit from the elimination of debts
associated with projects they invested in.  With debts such as
money owed to businesses and contractors paid off, the investors
can sell the properties free and clear and benefit from the
proceeds. [GN]


RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Faces "Arroyo" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retrieval-Masters
Creditors Bureau Inc. The case is styled as Lisa Arroyo, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau Inc., doing
business as American Medical Collection Agency, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-03469 (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2017).

Retrieval Masters is collections Agency company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


ROBINSON NURSING: Understaffing Class Action Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
James M. Berklan, writing for McKnight's, reports that the
Arkansas Supreme Court has agreed with a circuit court that a
wrongful death complaint claiming understaffing by a nursing home
may proceed as a class-action lawsuit.

Attorneys for the Robinson Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in
North Little Rock, AR, declined comment on the decision.

The son of a former resident filed suit in 2015, claiming that
"chronic understaffing" led to his mother's death. The provider,
therefore, breached the admission and provider agreements,
violated the state's deceptive practices act, and "unjustly"
enriched itself, the complainant argued.

The circuit court granted the case class certification last year,
opening it to all residents and their estates dating back to
June 11, 2010.

The allegations against Robinson had yet to be ruled on by a court
as of press time. [GN]


ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: Faces "Thomas" Suit in Ill. Cir. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roundy's
Supermarkets, Inc. The case is titled as DOPORCYK THOMAS, the
Plaintiff, v. ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS, INC., ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS, LLC,
MARIANO'S, THE KROGER CO., and KRONOS, INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 2017-CH-08092 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 9, 2017).

Roundy's Supermarkets owns and operates retail grocery stores. It
serves customers throughout Wisconsin and in the greater Chicago
area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          205 N Michigan 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550


SAJAN INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on June 5 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin on behalf of holders of Sajan, Inc.
("Sajan") (Nasdaq:SAJA) common stock in connection with the
proposed acquisition of Sajan by Amplexor USA Inc. and Amplexor
Falcon, Inc. ("Amplexor") announced on April 26, 2017 (the
"Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Sajan, its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), and Amplexor, is captioned Berg v. Sajan,
Inc., Case No. 17-CV-379 (W.D. Wis.).

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

On April 25, 2017, Sajan entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Amplexor.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, shareholders of Sajan will receive $5.83 in cash
for each share of Sajan stock they own (the "Proposed
Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy
statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2017.  The Complaint
alleges that the Proxy Statement, which recommends that Sajan
stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits
material information necessary to enable shareholders to make an
informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction,
including material information with respect to Sajan's financial
projections, the analyses performed by Sajan's financial advisor,
and the background of the Proposed Transaction.  The Complaint
seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of
holders of Sajan common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 4, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

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


SOLOMON AND ASSOCIATES: "Knutson" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Knutson, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Solomon and Associates, LLC d.b.a. Solar
Media Team, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01131-WQH-BGS (S.D. Cal.,
June 6, 2017), accuses Defendants of negligently, knowingly,
and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular
telephone to offer a home solar system, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

    Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
    Kevin Lemieux, Esq.
    HYDE & SWIGART
    2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
    San Diego, CA 92108
    Tel: (619) 233-7770
    Fax: (619) 297-1022
    E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
            kevin@westcoastlitigation.com

        - and -

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     Gouya Ranekouhi, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Tel: (800) 400-6808
     Fax: (800) 520-5523


STATE FARM: Faces "Ochoa" Suit Over Dividends "Underpayment"
------------------------------------------------------------
RICK OCHOA, Individually and on Behalf of all Persons Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04274 (N.D. Ill., June 6, 2017),
asserts a breach of contract claim against State Farm.

According to the case, State Farm has failed to pay the full
amount of annual policy dividends contractually owed to Plaintiff
and its other participating policyholders. The underpayment of
participating policyholder dividends is the direct result of State
Farm's annual retention of surplus (i.e., its retained profits)
far in excess of a statutory limit that is incorporated as a
matter of Illinois law into State Farm's standardized policy
contracts. For an insurer of State Farm's size, withheld surplus
may not exceed its statutory reserves plus a 10% cushion for
unforeseen contingencies.  Because State Farm's retained surplus
grossly exceeds this limit, Plaintiff asserts a breach of contract
claim against State Farm.

STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY INC. provides life insurance
products and annuities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
     Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq.
     MILLER LAW LLC
     115 S LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 332-3400
     Fax: (312) 676-2676

        - and -

     Jason B. Adkins, Esq.
     ADKINS, KELSTON & ZAVEZ, P.C.
     90 Canal Street, 5th Floor
     Boston, MA 02114
     Phone: (617) 367-1040
     Fax: (617) 742-8280

        - and -

     Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
     Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
     BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
     2325 East Camelback Road, #300
     Phoenix, AZ 85016
     Phone: (602) 274-1100
     Fax: (602) 274-1199

        - and -

     Mark A. Chavez, Esq.
     CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
     42 Miller Avenue
     Mill Valley, CA 94941
     Phone: (415) 381-5599
     zFax: (415) 381-5572

        - and -

     Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
     FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
     429 Fourth Avenue
     Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Phone: (412) 281-8400
     Fax: (412) 281-1007


SUNSET EXPRESS: Faces "Gallezzo" Suit Under Mich. Labor Act.
------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL GALLEZZO and ROBERT WINSKAS, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SUNSET EXPRESS, LLC and
MIRALEM BESLAGIC, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00475 (W.D. Mich., May 25, 2017), alleges that Defendants
erroneously designated Named Plaintiffs and those similarly
situated as independent contractors and failed to pay full and
proper wages for all hours worked.

Specifically, Defendants failed to pay Named Plaintiffs and those
similarly situated proper minimum wages and required Named
Plaintiffs and those similarly situated to cover the costs of
Defendants' business, thereby further reducing the wages of Named
Plaintiffs and those similarly situated below the minimum wage.

Named Plaintiffs have initiated the instant action to redress
Defendants' violations of Michigan's Workforce Opportunity Wage
Act.

Defendant Sunset Express, LLC is a truckload carrier engaged in
the hauling and delivery of freight across the United States.
Named Plaintiff Samuel Gallezzo worked as a truck driver.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C. Christopher Newberg, Esq.
     RODENHOUSE KUIPERS, PC
     678 Front Ave., NW, Suite 176
     Grand Rapids, MI 49504
     Phone: (616) 451-4000
     Fax: (616) 451-4114
     Email: Chris@rodenhouselaw.com


TANGOE INC: Faces "Levine" Suit Over Marlin Management Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH LEVINE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. TANGOE, INC., JAMES D. FOY, GERALD D.
KOKOS, DAVID COIT, GARY GOLDING, RONALD KAISER, JACKIE R. KIMZEY,
RICHARD PONTIN, and NOAH WALLEY, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00873 (D. Conn., May 25, 2017), alleges that in order to
accomplish a Tender Offer in connection with a Plan of Merger
between Tangoe and Marlin Management Company, LLC, Defendants
filed a Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement that
fails to provide all material information.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Marlin commenced
the Tender Offer on May 12, 2017 to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of Tangoe's common stock at a purchase price of $6.50 per
share in cash. The Tender Offer was scheduled to expire at 10 AM
EST on June 13, 2017.

In particular, says the complaint, the Recommendation Statement
fails to disclose material information about the financial
projections prepared by the Company and relied upon by Stifel,
Nicolaus & Company, Inc., the Company's financial advisor, and the
potential conflicts of interest faced by Company executives.

Tangoe Inc. is a provider of information technology and Telecom
Expense Management (TEM) software and related services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Fax: (212) 983-9331
     Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
            jwilson@faruqilaw.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     773 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Phone: (203) 992-4523
     Fax: (212) 363-7171
     Email: shopkins@zlk.com


TELIGENT INC: Faces KPH Suit in Eastern District of Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teligent, Inc. The
case is titled as KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., also known as:
KINNEY DRUGS, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. TELIGENT, INC., PERRIGO
COMPANY, PLC, FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., TARO PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES, and TARO PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02549-CMR (E.D. Pa., June 6, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Cynthia M. Rufe.

Teligent, a specialty generic pharmaceutical company, develops,
formulates, manufactures, and markets generic topical, branded
generic medicine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          NASTLAW LLC
          1101 Market St Ste 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923 9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923 9302
          E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com


TEXTBOOK WAREHOUSE: Bais Yaakov Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
BAIS YAAKOV OF SPRING VALLEY, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. TEXTBOOK WAREHOUSE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-03974 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2017),
alleges that Defendant has caused to be sent out over five
thousand (5,000) unsolicited and solicited fax advertisements for
goods and/or services without proper opt-out notices to persons
throughout the United States within the applicable limitations
period for the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which is
four years.

The case alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, and the N.Y. General Business Law.

Defendant sells books to individual schools and school districts,
as well as purchases used textbooks and workbooks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


THERANOS INC: Bid to Dismiss Arizona Suit Partly Granted
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re Arizona THERANOS, INC., Litigation,
No. 2:16-cv-2138-HRH, Consolidated with No. 2:16-cv-2373-HRH, No.
2:16-cv-2660-HRH., 2:16-cv-2775-HRH, 2:16-cv-3599-HRH (D. Ariz.),
Judge H. Russell Holland of the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended
consolidated class action complaint.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants knew that the Theranos
blood tests were unreliable, not ready-for-market, and failed to
meet even basic industry standards, but that in 2012, it entered
into a partnership agreement with Walgreens, under which Walgreens
invested $140 million in Theranos and agreed to operate clinics,
which it called 'Wellness Centers,' at Walgreen Pharmacies in
Arizona and California.  Through the Wellness Centers, Theranos,
along with Walgreens, sold blood tests to individuals.  The
Plaintiffs allege that Walgreens entered into this agreement with
Theranos even though Walgreens was aware of numerous serious red
flags about the tests that put it on notice about the
unreliability of the tests.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants intentionally concealed
vital information from consumers, their doctors, and the public at
large, about the tests' unreliability and about the deficient
nature of the Theranos testing facilities and equipment.  They
allege that the Defendants also made pervasive misrepresentations
falsely stating and asserting that Theranos tests met the highest
standards of reliability, were industry-leading in quality, and
had been developed under and validated under, and were compliant
with, federal guidelines.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants aggressively promoted
Theranos tests as being ready-for-market, and encouraged consumers
and their doctors to use and rely on them in making important
health and treatment decisions.  But, they allege that in reality,
the Defendants knew Theranos tests were dangerously unreliable,
had not been validated as advertised, and did not meet federal
guidelines as advertised.  The Plaintiffs allege that in a hurry
to get the tests to market and thereby assist the Defendants in
developing their still-in-development products and services, the
Defendants prematurely marketed and sold the blood tests to
consumers who were, in essence, subject to beta testing and
product development research without their knowledge and consent.
They allege that they were misinformed about the essential purpose
of the blood tests and thus they did not provide, and could not
have provided, consent for such procedures and intrusion.  They
allege that offering blood tests to the general public enabled the
Defendants to collect blood samples from human subjects without
sacrificing the time and money necessary to recruit volunteers for
formal clinical trials.  The Plaintiffs further allege that this
helped the Defendants evade regulatory scrutiny.

The Plaintiffs allege that in 2016, after the Center for Medicare
and Medicaid Services cited Theranos's Newark, California lab for
numerous deficiencies, Theranos voided the test results from its
proprietary Edison blood testing devices, which consisted of tens
of thousands of test results.  They further allege that numerous
additional test results have now been voided or belatedly
corrected by Theranos.  They allege that as a result of
revelations regarding problems with Theranos's technology and
laboratory standards, Theranos test results have lost all
credibility within the medical community.  Defendants Elizabeth
Holmes and Ramesh Balwani have been banned from owning or
operating a blood-testing business for at least two years and
Theranos's license to operate a blood lab in California has been
revoked.  Theranos is now working on developing a "miniLab" which
is apparently a device that could run diagnostic tests on small
amounts of blood.

In their first amended complaint, the Plaintiffs assert 17 causes
of action and seek damages and injunctive relief.  Pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6), the
Defendants move to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' causes of
action.

Judge Russell Holland granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motions to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs' (i) fraud by affirmative misrepresentation claims
in the First and Second Causes of Action, (ii) battery and medical
battery claims in the Third and Sixteenth Causes of Action, (iii)
negligence claim in the Fourth Cause of Action, (iv) negligent
misrepresentation claim in the Fifth Cause of Action, (v) breach
of contract claim in the Sixth Cause of Action, (vi) unjust
enrichment claim based on affirmative misrepresentations in the
Seventh Cause of Action, (vii) aiding and abetting claim based on
affirmative misrepresentations in the Eighth Cause of Action,
(viii) conspiracy claims in the Ninth and Eleventh Causes of
Action, (ix) RICO claim which is based on allegations of mail
fraud in the Tenth Cause of Action, (x) California statutory
claims in the Twelfth through Fifteenth Causes of Action, (xi)
claims against Theranos or Walgreens which are based on a joint
venture or agency theory of liability, and (xii) requests for
injunctive relief are dismissed.  In addition, A.R.'s Human
Subjects Act claim in the Seventeenth Cause of Action is
dismissed.

The Plaintiffs' battery and medical battery claims in their Third
and Sixteenth Causes of Action, their conspiracy claims in the
Ninth and Eleventh Causes of Action, the Arizona Plaintiffs'
California statutory claims in the Twelfth through Fifteenth
Causes of Action, any claims against Theranos or Walgreens which
are based on a joint venture or agency theory of liability, A.R.'s
Human Subjects Act claim in the Seventeenth Cause of Action, and
the Plaintiffs' requests for injunctive relief are dismissed with
prejudice.

The Plaintiffs are given leave to amend their (i) fraud by
affirmative misrepresentation claims in the First and Second
Causes of Action, (ii) negligence claim in the Fourth Cause of
Action, (iii) negligent misrepresentation claim in the Fifth Cause
of Action, (iv) breach of contract claim in the Sixth Cause of
Action, (v) unjust enrichment claim which is based on allegations
of affirmative misrepresentations in the Seventh Cause of Action,
(vi) aiding and abetting claim which is based on affirmative
misrepresentations in the Eighth Cause of Action, and (vii) RICO
claim in the Tenth Cause of Action either in whole or in part.  In
addition, A.R. is given leave to amend his California statutory
claims in the Twelfth through Fifteenth Causes of Action.

Should the Plaintiffs elect to file a second amended complaint,
their second amended consolidated class action complaint will be
filed on July 13, 2017.  Should they elect to file a second
amended complaint, the Plaintiffs are reminded that it is not
necessary to replead claims dismissed with prejudice and without
leave to amend to preserve them for appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/kNRiBu from Leagle.com.

R.C., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Gretchen Freeman Cappio --
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP.

R.C., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Lynn Lincoln Sarko --
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice,
Mark D. Samson -- msamson@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
LLP, Ron Kilgard -- rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
LLP, T. David Copley -- dcopley@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback LLP, Geoffrey A. Munroe -- gam@classlawgroup.com --
Girard Gibbs LLP, Melissa A. Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP & Steven A. Lopez -- sal@classlawgroup.com -- Girard
Gibbs LLP.

B.P., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Mark D. Samson, Keller
Rohrback LLP, Michael Walter Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, Roger N. Heller, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
LLP, T. David Copley, Keller Rohrback LLP, Geoffrey A. Munroe,
Girard Gibbs LLP, Melissa A. Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP & Steven A. Lopez, Girard Gibbs LLP.

D.L., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Mark D. Samson, Keller
Rohrback LLP, Michael Walter Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, Roger N. Heller, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
LLP, T. David Copley, Keller Rohrback LLP, Geoffrey A. Munroe,
Girard Gibbs LLP, Melissa A. Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP & Steven A. Lopez, Girard Gibbs LLP.

M.P., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Melissa A. Gardner, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP & T. David Copley, Keller
Rohrback LLP.

R.G., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Melissa A. Gardner, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP & T. David Copley, Keller
Rohrback LLP.

L.M., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Melissa A. Gardner, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP & T. David Copley, Keller
Rohrback LLP.

S.J., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Melissa A. Gardner, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP & T. David Copley, Keller
Rohrback LLP.

A.R., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Melissa A. Gardner, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP & T. David Copley, Keller
Rohrback LLP.

S.L., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Hart Lawrence Robinovitch -
- hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed PLLP, Laurence
D. King -- lking@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP,
Linda M. Fong -- lfong@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
LLP, Melissa A. Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP &
T. David Copley, Keller Rohrback LLP.

Theranos Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Christopher
Thomas Casamassima -- chris.casamassima@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Katie Moran --
katie.moran@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
LLP, Kory A. Langhofer -- kory@statecraftlaw.com -- Statecraft
PLLC, Matthew Benedetto -- matthew.benedetto@wilmerhale.com --
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP & Michael Mugmon --
chael.mugmon@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
LLP.

Walgreens Boots Alliance Incorporated, Defendant, represented by
Adam S. Tolin -- adam.tolin@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP,
Bambo Obaro -- bambo.obaro@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP,
Brianna Lynn Long -- bllong@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer LLP, David
R. Singh -- david.singh@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP,
Diane P. Sullivan -- diane.sullivan@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP & Patricia Lee Refo -- prefo@swlaw.com -- Snell &
Wilmer LLP.

Elizabeth Holmes, Defendant, represented by Allison Suzanne
Davidson -- adavidson@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Jacqueline B. Kort
-- jkort@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, John Charles Dwyer --
dwyerjc@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Patrick Edward Gibbs --
pgibbs@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Stephen C. Neal --
nealsc@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Kathleen H. Goodhart --
kgoodhart@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Sean Eskovitz --
seskovitz@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- Wilkinson Walsh & Eskovitz LLP.

Ramesh Balwani, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Byer --
benbyer@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Stephen M. Rummage -
- steverummage@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Sean
Eskovitz, Wilkinson Walsh & Eskovitz LLP.

Walgreen Arizona Drug Company, Defendant, represented by Adam S.
Tolin, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Bambo Obaro, Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, Brianna Lynn Long, Snell & Wilmer LLP, David R. Singh,
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Diane P. Sullivan, Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP & Patricia Lee Refo, Snell & Wilmer LLP.


TONAWANDA COKE: Soil Study Still Underway Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
WGRZ reports that researchers are currently conducting studies to
determine the potential impact of pollution near the Tonawanda
Coke plant, which was convicted four years ago of violating
federal environmental laws.

Jackie James-Creedon of Citizen Science Community Resources was in
Tonawanda on June 5, asking members of the public to help them by
submitting soil samples from their yards and properties. Citizen
Science Community Resources, along with the University at Buffalo
and SUNY Fredonia, are looking to gather 300 volunteers as a part
of their research.

They are testing for a variety of chemicals as a part of the
research, which was mandated by a federal judge in the sentencing
process following Tonawanda Coke's conviction in 2013.

"We're concerned that potentially, the pollution from Tonawanda
Coke has migrated off-site and into people's backyards, and into
their soil," Ms. James-Creedon said.  "If there is contamination
at high levels, we're especially concerned about the children."

As this research continues, multiple lawsuits against the company
are still active, including a pending class-action lawsuit seeking
damages for the loss of property values and quality of life.  That
suit, which could potentially be affected by the results of the
soil study, is not new.  However, last month, a class-action
notice went out to residents in the City of Tonawanda, Town of
Tonawanda and the Village of Kenmore as the trial approaches. [GN]


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Alamia" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc. The case is captioned as Connie Alamia, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Transworld Systems Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03497
(E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2017).

Transworld Systems provides accounts receivable, debt recovery,
and past due accounts services for businesses, medical companies,
and dental companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Background Check Service Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Nichols, writing for The Register, reports that Uber will
pay $32.5 million to settle a California class-action lawsuit
alleging it was charging customers a fee on their rides for a
background check service it was not providing.

The ride broker told the California Northern District Court that
it had struck a new settlement deal in the case over its "Safe
Rides Fee."

Under the deal, Uber will pay $32.5m into a rebate pool for
passengers and will stop using the term "Safe Rides Fee" to
describe the surcharge it passes on to customers for the cost of
running background checks on drivers.

The deal settles a 2014 class action suit brought against Uber
alleging violations of California truth in advertising and unfair
competition laws.

Uber had been accused of misrepresenting to customers the quality
of the background checks it had been claiming were the reason for
a $1.14 (average) Safe Rides Fee it tacked onto each ride.  The
complaint accused Uber of pocketing those fees and then failing to
deliver on the advertised claims of "industry-leading" background
checks that made riders feel a little more confident that drivers
would not pose a threat to them.

The settlement is actually the second to be struck by Uber in the
case.  A previous deal, calling for a $28.5m payout, had been
rejected, forcing Uber to come back with a bigger payout purse.

"The final issue the Court raised was that Plaintiffs had not
shown that the $28.5m settlement amount fell within the range of
possible approval," Uber said of the deal.

"In the Amended Settlement, the fund has increased to $32.5
million, even though the class size has decreased by almost 10 per
cent."

Should the settlement be approved, passengers who paid the fees
will have 105 days (from the approval date) to file a claim to get
a payout from the pool.  The clock will also start on a 140-day
window to file any objections to the claim and call for a
"fairness hearing" on the settlement.

From there, presumably, those who filed would get a cut of the
settlement package, after, of course, the attorneys took out their
piece.

The case is one of many that Uber currently faces, and given the
stakes in cases like the Waymo theft battle, there won't be much
of an impact on Uber either way.  Still, it would present one less
headache for a company that could sorely use that sort of relief
right about now. [GN]


UNITED COLLECTION: Class Certification Sought in "Machnik" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Audrey Machnik moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled AUDREY MACHNIK, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. UNITED
COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-00795 (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.  More than one defendant has already attempted the
scheme contemplated in Campbell-Ewald.  See Severns v. Eastern
Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).  Judge Randa
denied the defendant's request to deposit funds on grounds that a
class certification motion was pending.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rpLuzA1D

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED STATES: DOJ Faces "Schneider" Suit in E.D. Mo.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States
Department of Justice. The case is captioned as Marlene Schneider,
All Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. United States
Department of Justice, U.S. Bank, National Association, Alton
Banking & Trust Company, Millsap & Singer, LLC, William R. Haine,
Ronald C. Mottaz, and Alan Napp, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-
01630-DDN (E.D. Mo., June 8, 2017). The case is assigned to the
Hon. Magistrate Judge David D. Noce.

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ), also known as the
Justice Department, is a federal executive department of the U.S.
government, responsible for the enforcement of the law and
administration of justice in the United States, equivalent to the
justice or interior ministries of other countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


UNITED STATES: Tax Preparers Get Favorable Ruling in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Cohn, writing for Accounting Today, reports that a federal
district court has ruled in favor of tax preparers who filed a
class-action lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over its
right to charge fees for Preparer Tax Identification Numbers, and
the IRS may need to refund hundreds of millions of dollars in fees
collected each year.  In response the IRS has temporarily
suspended the system.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on June
2 that although the IRS has the authority to require the use of
PTINs, it does not have the authority to charge user fees. The
case revolves around a set of regulations that the IRS and the
Treasury Department issued in 2010 for registering tax preparers
with PTINs.  "In sum, the Court finds that although the IRS may
require the use of PTINs, it may not charge fees for issuing
PTINs," wrote U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth.

The same court, under Judge James Boasberg, ruled in 2013 in the
case of Loving v. IRS that the IRS's regulations requiring testing
and continuing education of tax preparers overstepped the IRS's
statutory authority, but it left in place the PTIN requirements
for registering tax preparers. The ruling was upheld in 2014 on
appeal.

In September 2014, a pair of CPAs, Adam Steele and Brittany
Montrois, filed suit against the IRS over the PTIN fees.  They
sued on behalf of more than 700,000 individual practitioners who
are forced to pay for a PTIN every year.  The lawsuit sought an
injunction barring collection of the fee and recovery of the more
than $150 million in fees the IRS had collected since 2010, now
estimated to have risen to as high as $245 million.  The lawsuit
received class-action certification last year.

"I think justice has been served," said Allen Buckley, an Atlanta
attorney who represented the plaintiffs.  "The judge had the
courage to do the right thing despite the fact that the federal
government has serious financial problems. If appealed, I feel
good about the odds of the opinion holding up on appeal."

An IRS spokesperson declined to comment on the ruling, saying, "We
generally don't comment on litigation."  He also had no further
comment on whether the IRS plans to appeal the ruling. Later on
June 5, the IRS issued a statement saying it was shutting down the
PTIN system for now.

"On June 1, 2017, the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia upheld the Internal Revenue Service's
authority to require the use of a Preparer Tax Identification
Number (PTIN), but enjoined the IRS from charging a user fee for
the issuance and renewal of PTINs," said the IRS.  "As a result of
this order, PTIN registration and renewal is currently suspended.
The IRS, working with the Department of Justice, is considering
how to proceed. As additional information becomes available, it
will be posted on our Tax Pros page."

The lead attorney in the case of Loving v. IRS, Dan Alban of the
Institute for Justice, believes it is likely the IRS will appeal.
"This is an opinion of the U.S. District Court, and they can
appeal the decision," he said.  "The opinion seems very sound, so
I think the IRS ultimately is going to have to disgorge seven
years' worth of unlawful fees that it charged tax preparers. For
the first five years that was either $64.25 per year, or $63 if
you were renewing, and for the past two years it's been $50 per
year.  And in each of those years, there's been over 700,000
preparers registered with a PTIN.  So you do the math, it's at
least $35 million per year in illegally collected fees, and the
IRS is going to be forced to refund that money to preparers,
assuming the opinion is upheld on appeal."

Tax preparers will still need to register for PTINs, though they
won't have to pay the user fee, under the court decision.  "The
plaintiffs claimed that the IRS did not have any right to charge
any fee and that the fee was excessive," said Mr. Alban.  "The
court didn't rule on the excessive fee claim because it found the
IRS has no right to charge a user fee because the IRS wasn't
providing any benefit to preparers.  After the Loving case, anyone
has a right to prepare a tax return.  You still have to obtain a
PTIN, and the court upheld the requirement, but it found that the
only benefit of preparers getting a PTIN number was to the IRS so
the IRS could track preparers, and there was no benefit to
preparers from getting a PTIN, so it could not charge a user fee."

After the court ruled against the IRS in the Loving case, saying
it did not have the statutory authority from Congress to regulate
the IRS, the IRS introduced a voluntary program for education and
testing of preparers known as the Annual Filing Season program.
However, the budget proposal issued by the Trump administration
last month included a provision giving the IRS "statutory
authority to increase its oversight of paid tax return preparers."
Mr. Alban doubts it will be included in the final budget that is
ultimately passed by Congress.

"This is a bad statutory provision that's been advocated by
Treasury for many years," he said.  "It was in the Obama
administration budgets for many years, and now it's showing up in
a Trump administration budget, which is somewhat surprising that
the Republicans and President Trump in particular would want to
get behind giving the IRS more power over tax preparers, and that
someone who campaigned on draining the swamp and dismantling the
regulatory state would have as part of his budget a provision that
would give additional power to the IRS, of all agencies.  But that
shows how entrenched bureaucrats can get in D.C. These are
provisions that are being added by the Department of Treasury and
the IRS, and I doubt very much that anyone in the White House is
even aware these provisions are in the budget.  This is part of a
shopping list or a wish list from the Treasury and the IRS about
all of the things they would love to be able to do, and all of the
additional power they'd love to be able to get.  We're trying to
let everyone know that this is going on, let the White House know
that this is in their budget, let House and Senate Republicans
know that this is in the budget, and that they should oppose it if
they care about anything related to the IRS being given more power
by Congress." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Travel Ban Litigation Reaches Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Sam Bray, writing for The Washington Post, reports that the
"travel ban" litigation has finally reached the Supreme Court.  In
its cert petition, the government presents three questions for the
court to consider.  The first is about justiciability, about
whether the courts can hear the suit.  The second is about the
merits, about whether the executive order violates the
Establishment Clause.  The third question is about the remedy:
"Whether the global injunction, which rests on alleged injury to a
single individual plaintiff, is impermissibly overbroad."

With this third question, the government has brought to the
court's attention an important issue: the proper scope of
injunctions against the national government.  Generally speaking,
there are two possible answers.  One is that an injunction should
be directed toward the relationship of the plaintiff and
defendant: The national government should be enjoined from
applying the challenged order to the plaintiff.  The other is that
the injunction can control the defendant's conduct toward
everyone, including non-parties.

The question is increasingly important, and it is of bipartisan
concern.  At the end of the Obama administration, there were
national injunctions against the government; now, early in the
Trump administration, there are national injunctions against the
government.  It might seem like national injunctions are the New
Normal.  They are new, but they are not normal.

National injunctions are being widely discussed among law
professors, but they have not been the subject of much treatment
in the popular press (with exceptions).  One reason is the
technicality of the issues. Another reason is that it may seem --
to those who oppose President Trump and to those who support him -
- that this is no time for legal niceties. But the rule of law
means it's always time for legal niceties.

The argument for a national injunction is clear, attractive and
wrong.  It is the idea that different people should not be treated
differently merely because of who happened to bring a lawsuit.
The immigration law applied to someone in Virginia should be the
same as the immigration law applied to someone in Louisiana.  If a
court decides "This presidential order is unconstitutional," and
its reasons run beyond the plaintiffs, then the remedy the court
gives should also run beyond the plaintiffs.

Clear and attractive, yes, but why wrong? The argument rests on a
lot more than just one reason.  I'll run through some of the
reasons here, but for a thorough discussion you'll want to go to
the new crop of law review articles on this question. (There is
Michael Morley's article that drew attention to the question in
2016; Zayn Siddique's forthcoming article in the Columbia Law
Review; my own forthcoming article in the Harvard Law Review; and
Getzel Berger's forthcoming note in the NYU Law Review.)

First, the Constitution gives the federal courts "the judicial
Power" -- that is a power to decide "cases" for particular
litigants, not a power to decide general questions and issue
remedies for people not before the court (Lewis v. Casey).

Second, the long run of judicial practice matters, especially for
procedure and jurisdiction. And for the first 170 years of the
federal courts there was apparently an unbroken practice of not
giving national injunctions. (Yup, the national injunction "began
/ In nineteen sixty-three.") Indeed, the absence of anything like
these injunctions in traditional equity means they lie outside the
equitable jurisdiction of the federal courts (Grupo Mexicano).

Third, national injunctions are flatly inconsistent with our
judicial structure.  We have about a dozen federal courts of
appeals, with part of the idea being that legal decisions can be
different in different cases brought in different parts of the
country. One reason for that structure is that it promotes good
decisionmaking by the Supreme Court.  But, for various technical
reasons, national injunctions accelerate the pace of
decisionmaking and reduce the number of different judicial
perspectives.  That is especially so with the recent spate of
national injunctions against the Obama and Trump administrations,
because these have been preliminary injunctions.  Preliminary
national injunctions force the Supreme Court to decide major
constitutional questions faster, with a narrower range of judicial
opinions, and without the benefit of a trial and fully developed
record.

Fourth, when a single court can give a national injunction, it
strongly encourages forum-shopping.  When people wanted to sue the
Obama administration and get a national injunction, they went to
Texas; when people want to sue the Trump administration and get a
national injunction, one place they don't go is Texas.  All you
have to do is find one friendly jurisdiction and you can get a
decision that controls everywhere.

Finally, there is a legal device for allowing a case to be brought
on behalf of lots and lots of people -- the class action. It has
requirements meant to ensure fairness to everyone in the class.
Whether those requirements are the right ones is debatable.  But
what is clear is that when a court gives a national injunction, it
is giving the kind of remedy appropriate for a national class
action -- while going around all the other requirements for a
class action. (It's notable that the Supreme Court case most often
cited as supporting a national injunction, Califano v. Yamasaki,
was a class action; it does not support the use of national
injunctions in non-class cases.)

Despite these fundamental problems with the national injunction,
the lower courts have not been paying attention.  Instead, when
they issue national injunctions, they tack on a page or two of
discussion at the end of the opinion.  The discussion is cursory,
the arguments weak.  In fact, the courts never even let the reader
know the subject is controversial. The arguments against the
national injunction -- including the five I just sketched -- are
not even mentioned, much less rebutted.

A case in point is the decision from the en banc Fourth Circuit.
After a lengthy analysis of the merits, the court finally got
around to explaining why it was giving a national injunction.  The
court's own earlier precedents were rather strongly against
national injunctions, but you would never know from the opinion.

To justify a national injunction, the Fourth Circuit gave three
reasons.  Plaintiffs are dispersed.  Uniformity is important. And
it would be unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause for
the order to be enforced against other people -- a narrower
injunction "would not cure the constitutional deficiency."

None of these is strong.  But the real problem is that the Fourth
Circuit never squared the idea of a national injunction with the
charter of authority for the federal courts -- Article III of the
Constitution.  Nor did it ever address the glaring inconsistency
between the national injunction and the equitable jurisdiction of
the federal courts.  Nor did it ever discuss the major policy
problems that would engulf the federal courts if national
injunctions were to become the norm.

The proper scope of an injunction against the national government
is an important question, and increasingly hard to ignore. [GN]


UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Lakkard Moves for Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Lakkard moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit captioned BARBARA LAKKARD,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
UNIVERSAL FIDELITY, LP, Case No. 2:17-cv-00797 (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff contends, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.  More than one defendant has already attempted the
scheme contemplated in Campbell-Ewald.  See Severns v. Eastern
Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).  Judge Randa
denied the defendant's request to deposit funds on grounds that a
class certification motion was pending.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff tells the Court.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


US PIZZA: Court Certifies Class of Servers in "Latcham" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Brian S. Miller granted in part and denied in
part the motion for conditional certification filed in the lawsuit
captioned JANA LATCHAM and CORNELIA KUEHL, Each Individually and
on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. U.S. PIZZA COMPANY,
INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-00582-BSM (E.D. Ark.).

The Plaintiffs bring the lawsuit on behalf of all former and
current tipped employees of U.S. Pizza Company, Inc., to recover
wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.  Pizza operates 10 restaurants
in Arkansas.  The Plaintiffs claim that servers at all of these
restaurants were required to, among other things, unlawfully split
their tips with customarily non-tipped employees.

Conditional certification is granted because the Plaintiffs have
shown that a similarly situated group likely exists, Judge Miller
said.  Judge Miller added that other servers would likely wish to
opt in to the collective action if given the opportunity.

Judge Miller wrote in his order that the class definition will be
narrowed to include only servers because the vast majority, if not
all, of the assertions the Plaintiffs made in the complaint and in
the affidavits filed in support of conditional certification are
directed only at servers.  Accordingly, Judge Miller narrowed the
class to:

     "all servers employed at U.S. Pizza Company, Inc. at any
     time after August 12, 2013."

The Court also noted that requiring U.S. Pizza to provide contact
information within seven days of the entry of the order would be
overly burdensome.  Instead, the Court gives U.S. Pizza 14 days
from the entry of the order to provide the contact information the
Plaintiffs request.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=g9X5CEsd


VOESTALPINE: Class Action Mulled Over Black Dust Material
---------------------------------------------------------
KIII reports that attorneys looking to file a class action lawsuit
against the Voestalpine plant was scheduled to host a public
meeting.

The lawsuit will be filed on behalf of residents affected by black
dust-like material believed to be from the iron manufacturer.

Representatives from Voestalpine Texas says the company will pay
to clean up properties damaged by the mysterious material.

You have until June 30th to notify the company if you would like
to be included.

The June 6 meeting was set to be held at the Gregory-Portland
Junior High School auditorium starting at 6:30. [GN]


WAL-MART STORES: Certification of Class Sought in "Smith" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled MYRICA SMITH, as proxy for
the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. WAL-MART
STORES, INC.; WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.; and DOES 1-100 inclusive,
Case No. 3:16-cv-02832-TEH (N.D. Cal.), moves the Court for an
order granting class certification.

Ms. Smith also asks for an order appointing her as class
representative, appointing Mayall Hurley P.C. as class counsel,
and ordering the Parties to meet and confer to develop a proposed
Notice, including procedures for sending the same, to be sent to
the Class Members that reflects the Court's decision
representative.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
          William J. Gorham, III, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq.
          Vladimir J. Kozina, 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
                  vjkozina@mayallaw.com


WALTER INVESTMENT: R. Worley Named Lead Plaintiff in "Elkin"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned COURTNEY ELKIN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WALTER INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT CORP., DENMAR J. DIXON, GEORGE M. AWAD, ANTHONY N.
RENZI and GARY L. TILLET Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-2025
(E.D. Pa.), Judge Anita B. Brody of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania named Richard
Worley the lead plaintiff and approved as lead counsel the
selection of Lee Albert of the firm Glancy, Prongay and Murray,
LLP.

The Plaintiffs bought publicly available shares of Walter's stock
between May 3, 2016 and March 13, 2017.  Plaintiff Elkin, on
behalf of herself and those similarly situated, brings the
securities fraud suit against Walter and several of its officers.
They allege that around this time, Walter made a series of
misstatements in its required financial disclosures to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  Specifically, they claim that
Walter made material misrepresentations in its annual Form 10-K
report for fiscal year 2015, as well as in several Form 10-Q
quarterly reports for that same fiscal year.  They allege that
Walter failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal
controls over financial reporting and that this resulted in false
or misleading reports, and that the Plaintiffs traded upon this
inaccurate information.  Walter revealed the failures of its
internal controls in its Form 10-K for fiscal year 2016, issued on
March 14, 2017.  It disclosed weaknesses in its Ditech Financial
default servicing unit, and that it was under investigation by the
HUD Inspector General and the Department of Justice relating to
its underwriting of certain loans.  On this news, Walter's share
price fell nearly 38%, to $1.65 per share.

This suit is subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act ("PSLRA") as private federal securities action brought as a
plaintiff class action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  The PSLRA sets forth specific procedural requirements
that must be adhered to upon the filing of a complaint.  Within 20
days of filing the action, the plaintiff must cause to be
published, in a widely circulated national business-oriented
publication or wire service, notice to members of the purported
class regarding the pendency of the action, the claims asserted
therein, and the purported class period.  Within 60 days of the
date on which the notice is published, any member of the purported
class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the
purported class.

Three members of the purported class timely moved for appointment
as lead plaintiff, but only one motion remains pending.  On May
15, 2017, Worley filed for appointment as lead plaintiff, and for
approval of his selection of Counsel Albert of GPM as lead counsel
for the class.  Upon the unopposed motion of Worley, Judge Brody
named Worley the lead plaintiff and approved Counsel Albert of GPM
as lead counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2017 memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/xwbyfU from Leagle.com.

Courtney Elkin, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob A. Goldberg --
jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm.

Courtney Elkin, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Matthew Rosen -
- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm.

Walter Investment Management Corp., Defendant, represented by
Jonathan L. Cochran -- jcochran@hangley.com -- Hangley Aronchick
Segal Pudlin & Schiller & William T. Hangley --
whangley@hangley.com -- Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin.

Denmar J. Dixon, Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Cochran --
jcochran@hangley.com -- Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller
& William T. Hangley -- whangley@hangley.com -- Hangley Aronchick
Segal Pudlin.

George M. Awad, Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Cochran --
jcochran@hangley.com -- Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller
& William T. Hangley -- whangley@hangley.com -- Hangley Aronchick
Segal Pudlin.

Anthony N. Renzi, Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Cochran --
jcochran@hangley.com -- Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller
& William T. Hangley -- whangley@hangley.com -- Hangley Aronchick
Segal Pudlin.

Gary L. Tillett, Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Cochran --
jcochran@hangley.com -- Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller
& William T. Hangley -- whangley@hangley.com -- Hangley Aronchick
Segal Pudlin.

Michael E. Vacek, Jr.., Movant, represented by Michael D. Donovan,
Donovan Litigation Group, LLC.

Danny Trout, Movant, represented by Jacob A. Goldberg, The Rosen
Law Firm.

Ross Arneberg, Movant, represented by Jacob A. Goldberg, The Rosen
Law Firm.

Richard Worley, Movant, represented by Lee Albert --
lalbert@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Robert V.
Prongay -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.


WORKS & LENTZ: Faces "Wall" Suit in Northern District of Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Works & Lentz, Inc.
The case is styled as Cory M. Wall, an individual and Kelli Wall,
an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs. v. Works & Lentz, Inc., doing business
as: Works & Lentz of Tulsa, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00318-JED-mjx (N.D. Okla., June 5,
2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John E Dowdell.

Works & Lentz provides legal services. The Company specializes in
the areas of commercial laws, general practice, real estate
transaction, and landlord tenant.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert William Murphy, Esq.
          1212 Se 2nd Ave
          Ft Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 763 8660
          Facsimile: (954) 763 8607
          E-mail: rphyu@aol.com

               - and -

          Victor R Wandres, Esq.
          PARAMOUNT LAW
          4835 S Peoria Ave Ste 1
          Tulsa, OK 74105
          Telephone: (918) 200 9272
          Facsimile: (918) 895 9774
          E-mail: victor@paramount-law.net


ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Schwartz" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zwicker &
Associates, P.C. The case is titled as Joel Schwartz, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. Zwicker & Associates, P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
03337 (E.D.N.Y., June 5, 2017).

Zwicker & Associates is a law firm whose primary business function
is debt collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          Maxim Maximov, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


* Site Predicts Uptick in Litigation Funding Growth in Australia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Coade, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that a new
online portal has been launched by an Australian firm to show the
major factors affecting commercial litigation funding and
highlight where the greatest threats of a class action lie.

A dedicated class actions website has been developed by Gilbert +
Tobin, with the firm describing it as a resource for Australian
companies concerned about their "growing exposure to class
actions".

One of the predictions the national firm makes is an uptick in
litigation funding growth and more shareholder claims in the near
term.

Australia was unanimously identified as an attractive jurisdiction
in which to fund litigation, according to a survey of litigation
funders by Gilbert + Tobin.

"Factors such as the availability of increasingly sophisticated
data analytics enabling funders, plaintiff law firms and
institutional investors to automatically identify shareholder
claims will also help fuel this growth," Gilbert + Tobin said.

Over the medium to long term however, the firm highlighted market
constraints and increased competition and regulation as a future
"challenge".

The site has user-friendly features, presenting an analysis of
current class action trends from legal experts with infographics.

The portal's six categories canvasses general market trends,
profiling of litigation funders, risk strategy for companies and
predictions about the future. It also includes a directory of
Gilbert + Tobin's litigation group.

Gilbert + Tobin litigation partner Crispian Lynch said that the
resource provided useful data to back up anecdotes.

"This site gives companies a snapshot of the key facts and figures
needed to understand the growing threat of shareholder class
actions, the drivers behind it and how to mitigate and manage
exposure to the risks," Mr Lynch said.

By way of example, he explained that his team graphed median
settlement amounts against the time between filing and settlement
to show companies that typically take longer to settle a
shareholder class action pay more.

"By analysing historical class action settlements, we have
calculated what percentage of total amounts claimed are on average
paid to settle class actions," Mr Lynch said.

Gilbert + Tobin's litigation team also expects the trend for an
"overwhelming" preference in favour of pre-trial settlement to
continue.

Users of the site can navigate the portal online or download all
content in PDF format. [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  * * *