CAR_Public/170703.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


               Monday, July 3, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 129



                            Headlines

AARON'S INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
AIR CHECK: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Certify "Foday" Class
ALPINE ACCESS: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Morse" Suit
AMMARI OF LOUISIANA: Farrow Moves for Conditional Certification
AMRIK ORIENTAL: Violates Wage Payment Laws, "Solares" Suit Claims

AUSTRALIA: Some Manus Island Detainees May Reject Settlement
AVINGER INC: Securities Class Action Pending in California
B. FRANK JOY: Bid to Dismiss "Alvarez-Soto" Partly Granted
BEALL'S OUTLET: "Raymondo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
BILBOA REST: "Riveras" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA

BIMBO FOODS: Misclassifies Distributors, Puello et al. Claim
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sept. 22 Case Management Conference
BOOZ ALLEN: Faces Securities Class Action in Virginia
BRAD PISTOTNIK: Kansas App. Affirms Judgment in "Consolver"
BRIGHTCURRENT INC: Pinon Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code

CABELA'S INC: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Merger with Bass Pro Group
CALPERS: Policyholders Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action
CAMDEN, NJ: Faces "Holland" Suit Over Detention Program
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Faces "Giantonio" Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Faces "Monroe" Suit in E.D. Michigan

CELLULAR CITY: "Morales" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Law
CENTURYLINK: Faces Three Class Actions Over Alleged Billing Fraud
CENTURYLINK INC: Faces Class Action Over Sales Incentive Scheme
CHARLES SCHWAB: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
CHICAGO: Faces "Campbell" Suit in Northern District of Illinois

CHICAGO BRIDGE: Faces "Giantonio" Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces "Gordon" Suit Over Data Security Breach
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: "Blanco" Suit Sues over Consumer Report
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: "Canale" Suit Stayed Pending FTC Investigation
CONAGRA: Seeks Reversal of GMO Cooking Oil Class Action

DEJA VU SERVICES: Settlement in Exotic Dancers' Suit Has Final OK
DICOM MIDWEST: Failed to Pay Earned Wages, "Grady" Suit Says
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Affirms Rulings in "Child Find" Suit
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: WMATA Wins Summary Judgment in "Dawson"
DIVINE QUALITY: Faces "Capote" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation

DNC SERVICES: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Action
DICK SMITH: Faces Shareholder Class Action Following Collapse
DISCOVERY METALS: Piper Alderman Files Shareholder Class Action
DOM'S LAWNMAKER: Gonzalez Sues over Wage and Hour Violations
EGUMBALL INC: Violates TCPA, Abante Rooter Class Suit Alleges

EJR LOGISTICS: "LICEA" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
ELGIN MENTAL: Faces "Nadzhafaliyev" Suit in N.D. Illinois
EVANS CONSTRUCTION: "Alexander" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
FCA US: Court Lieff Cabraser Lead Atty in Products Liability Suit
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: 8th Cir. Reverses Antitrust Suit Dismissal

FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: Wins Summary Judgment in "Ellis"
FIELDTURF USA: Medford Sues over Artificial Turf Fields
FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Aug. 14 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline
FMS FINANCIAL: Faces "Hopson" Suit in District of New Jersey
FORD MOTOR: Settles Faulty Transmission Class Action

FTS USA: 6th Cir. Reverses Calculation of Damages in "Moore"
GC SERVICES: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Smith"
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Vazquez" Suit over Corvette Z06 Defects
GEORGIA: Faces "Dingler" Suit in Northern District of Georgia
GREYHOUND LINES: Faces National Federation Suit in N.D. Cal.

J CHOO USA: Wagner Appeals Ruling in "Wood" Suit to 11th Circuit
JUNO: Drivers File Class Action Over False Ride-Hail App Claims
K-MAC ENTERPRISES: Faces "Ash" Suit Under FLSA, Ark. Labor Law
KALEO PHARMA: Law Firm Seeks Individuals for EVZIO Class Action
KALOBIOS PHARMA: Ex-CEO Wins Dismissal of Securities Suit

KING.COM: Court Allows Candy Crush Class Action to Proceed
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Court Denies Change of Venue in "Martinez"
KONA GRILL: Cedeno Moves to Certify Class of Sous Chefs, Others
KUEHNE NAGEL: "Scott" Suit Moved to C.D. California
LOS ANGELES, CA: 9th Cir. Reverses 30-Day Impound Ruling

MACQUARIE GROUP: Sued Over Cleveland Mining Stock Price Inflation
MASSAPEQUA DINER: Accused by "Lamar" Class Suit of Violating FLSA
MAZOR ROBOTICS: Faces "Bergeron" Suit Over ISA Investigation
MEARS TRANSPORTATION: Luxury Chauffeurs Join Wage Class Action
MIDLAND FUNDING: Status Hearing in "Janetos" Suit Set for Aug. 16

MUTUAL SECURITIES: Milliner Seeks Certification of Clients Class
NA PIZZA: Faces "Gibbons" Suit Alleging Inadequate Compensation
NEXVET BIOPHARMA: WeissLaw LLP Files Securities Class Action
NEW YORK, USA: Sued by Turano on Behalf of Medicaid Recipients
NICOLET RESTAURANT: Supreme Court Refuses to Review Class Action

PACIFIC COAST: "Serrano" Suit Moved to C.D. California
PATCO ELECTRICAL: Class of Apprentice Certified in "Roberts" Suit
PFIZER: Motion to Remand Lipitor Class Action to State Court OK'd
PRECOR INC: Class Action Over Treadmill Sensors Can Proceed
PREMIER DERMATOLOGY: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Texts

PUTNAM INVESTMENT: Court Dismisses Remaining Claims in ERISA Suit
REO CONTRACTORS: Faces "Caldwell" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
RHEEM MANUFACTURING: NJ Court Narrows "Argabright" Suit
SEARS BRAND: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
SEVEN NINETY CO: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Aguirre Claims

SLATER AND GORDON: Vows to Fight Babscay Securities Class Action
SPOTLESS GRPOUP: IMF Bentham to Stop Funding Class Action
SOLID WOOD: "Boone" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation Under FLSA
STERLING JEWELERS: "Masten" Suit Moved to C.D. California
SUREID INC: Faces "Flaig" Lawsuit Alleging WARN Act Violation

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
TEMPLE ISRAEL: "Orellana" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
TIM HORTONS: Franchisees Commence $500MM Class Action
TURN KEY: "Ortiz" Suit Sues over Wage and Hour Violation
TURNER CONTRACTING: "Outley" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage Under FLSA

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Disputes Class Action Over Pricing Model
VIVINT SOLAR: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 2 Claims in "Stadnick"
VWR CORPORATION: Lawrence Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Avantor
WORLDVENTURES HOLDINGS: "Yiru" Suit Moved to C.D. California
ZF CHASSIS: Faces "Smith" Suit in Northern Dist. of Illinois

* Justice Dept. Leans Towards Employers on Class Action Waiver
* Plaintiffs' Firms Earn Nearly $1BB from 2016 Securities Cases
* Trump Administration Protects Arbitration Clauses


                            *********


AARON'S INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") on June 19
disclosed that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge
and Parish of East Baton Rouge against Aaron's, Inc., ("Aaron's"
or the "Company") (NYSE: AAN) and certain of its senior
executives.  The action, which is captioned Employees' Retirement
System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge
v. Aaron's, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-02270-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on behalf of investors in Aaron's common stock during the
time period of February 6, 2015 to October 29, 2015, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Aaron's misled
investors with regard to its subsidiary, Progressive Finance
Holdings, LLC ("Progressive").  The Complaint also alleges that
the Company concealed from investors that the Company was
experiencing software issues that impacted Progressive's
underwriting algorithm.  In truth, Progressive had lost critical
data in February 2015, which impacted the Company's ability to
make loans and collect payments.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days from June 19,
2017.  Accordingly, the deadline for filing a motion for
appointment as Lead Plaintiff is August 18, 2017.  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 a member of the proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at
avi@blbglaw.com.  Information about BLB&G can be found online at
www.blbglaw.com. [GN]


AIR CHECK: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Certify "Foday" Class
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois denied Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the case captioned ALEX FODAY, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. AIR CHECK, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15 C
10205 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs allegedly worked for Defendant Air Check, Inc. (ACI) as
airport workers at O'Hare International Airport. Plaintiffs
contend that they were required to perform work after punching-in
before their scheduled shifts.  As a result, Plaintiffs were
allegedly not paid for every second of actual work and were
potentially deprived of some overtime owed to them.

Plaintiffs include in their complaint claims alleging the failure
to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section (Count I), claims alleging violations of
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), 820 ILCS 105/1 (Counts II),
and claims alleging violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act (IWPCA), 820 ILCS 115/1 (Count III).

Plaintiffs move to certify a class for their IMWL and IWPCA claims
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (Rule 23).
Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of "All individuals who were or
are currently employed by the Defendants, their subsidiaries,
affiliates, predecessors and/or successors, as airport workers or
other similarly titled positions at any time during the relevant
statute of limitations whose actual punch-in and punch-out times
were rounded to their detriment."

In a Memorandum Opinion dated June 21, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/e6N3ox from Leagle.com, the Court found that
Plaintiffs have failed to show that any of the factors in Rule
23(a) are met and Plaintiffs have failed to show that any
alternative in Rule 23(b) is met.

Fred Berrios, et al. are represented by Glen Joseph Dunn, Jr.,
Esq. -- gdunn@gjdlaw.com -- and -- Angel Petrov Bakov, Esq. --
abakov@gjdlaw.com -- GLEN DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD -- Jeffrey Grant
Brown, Esq. -- jeff@jgbrownlaw.com -- JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C.

Air Check, Inc., et al. are represented by David J. Tecson, Esq. -
- dtecson@chuhak.com -- Francisco E. Connell, Esq. --
fconnell@chuhak.com -- and -- Ryan A. Haas, Esq. --
rhaas@chuhak.com -- CHUHAK & TECSON, P.C.


ALPINE ACCESS: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Morse" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter entered a memorandum-
decision and order in the lawsuit styled CAROL MORSE, BECKY
NELLOS, and SANDY MOROWITZ, o/b/o themselves, and others similarly
situated v. ALPINE ACCESS, INC., and SYKES ENTERPRISES, INC., Case
No. 5:17-cv-00235-BKS-ATB (N.D.N.Y.):

   * denying, without prejudice, the Plaintiffs' motion for
     conditional certification of a collective action under the
     Fair Labor Standards Act; and

   * ordering that the Defendants' cross-motion to dismiss or
     stay Plaintiffs' FLSA claims may be terminated as moot.

The Plaintiffs have sought conditional certification of a
collective action under the FLSA of a class consisting of
approximately 30,000 current and former hourly "at-home customer
service representatives" employed by the Defendants in 40 states.
The Defendants responded with a cross-motion to dismiss or stay
plaintiffs' FLSA claims because of the pendency of a similar,
earlier-filed FLSA action against the same defendants in the
District of Colorado.

The Court believes that a relatively brief period of limited
discovery, focused on certification issues, will provide the
Defendants with a reasonable opportunity to test the allegations
of the Plaintiffs.  Moreover, in light of the fact that at least
14 additional opt-in plaintiffs have consented to join the action,
the Plaintiffs may be able to marshal additional and sufficient
evidence supporting conditional certification, Judge Baxter said.

The Court stated that it will promptly schedule a status
conference with the parties to address the duration and scope of
the period of limited discovery.

A copy of the Memorandum-Decision and Order is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WGpIG7bz

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew J. Voss, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          80 S 8th St., Suite 1300
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2136
          Telephone: (612) 630-1000
          Facsimile: (612) 630-9626
          E-mail: avoss@littler.com


AMMARI OF LOUISIANA: Farrow Moves for Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Rieneke R. Farrow, Matthew Hunter, Judah Nero, Mia
Johnson1, Shameka Brown, Wilshon Givens, Dishea Brown, Tevin
Butler and Alphonse Honore move the Court for conditional
certification of the matter entitled RIENEKE E. FARROW, on behalf
of herself and all those similarly situated v. AMMARI OF
LOUISIANA, LTD. d/b/a CREOLE CUISINE RESTAURANTCONCEPTS, Case No.
2:15-cv-07148-ILRL-DEK (E.D. La.), as a collective action pursuant
to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs also seek approval of a written notice to putative
collective action members and to order the Defendants to post
copies of the Notice of Lawsuit in prominent locations within the
Defendants' restaurants.  The Plaintiffs further seek an order
prohibiting retaliation against the Named Plaintiffs and opt-in
plaintiffs.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7d3JufEL

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jessica M. Vasquez, Esq.
          VASQUEZ LAW OFFICE
          400 Poydras Street, Suite 900
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 571-9582
          Facsimile: (504) 684-1449
          E-mail: jvasquez@vasquezlawoffice.com


AMRIK ORIENTAL: Violates Wage Payment Laws, "Solares" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO SOLARES and NELSON MONTERROSO, and all similarly situated
present and former employees of the defendants herein, pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25 and 29 U.S.C section 216(b), the Plaintiffs,
v. AMRIK ORIENTAL RUGS, INC., d/b/a Amrik Rug Gallery and/or Rug &
Decor and/or Renaissance Rug Gallery, AMRIK HENDIAZAD (a/k/a Amrik
Angdtazad), HOUSHANG ABBASSI, ABC Company No. 1-2 And JOHN/JANE
DOES No. 1-10, jointly, severally, and individually, the
Defendants, Case No. MERL-L-1295-17 (N.J. Super. Ct., June 12,
2017), seeks temporarily restraining and permanently enjoining
Defendants from violating the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

The Plaintiffs began working at the Store in about March 2016.
While employed by Defendants, Plaintiffs performed general
services at and to the benefit of the Store, such as moving and
storing rugs, cleaning, responding to customers, and the like. In
the performance of their Store duties, Plaintiffs worked more than
40 hours/week. The Defendants failed and willfully and
intentionally refused to pay Plaintiffs according to the overtime
requirements of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. The Defendants
also failed to pay Plaintiffs at the legally required minimum
wage.

Amrik Oriental Rugs is doing business in home furnishing
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roger Martindell, Esq.
          245 Nassau Street
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 921 3355
          Facsimile: (609) 921 9345
          E-mail: Martindell.law@gmail.com


AUSTRALIA: Some Manus Island Detainees May Reject Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Sky News reports that some Manus Island detainees believe the
compensation they will receive under a $70 million settlement with
the Australian government is too low and may reject it.

Sudanese asylum seeker Abdul Aziz Muhamat says tensions in the
immigration detention centre are high amid uncertainty about how
much compensation each detainee will receive and where they will
end up when it closes.

Some are considering rejecting the settlement on the basis that it
amounts to an average of $36,000, although that is not how
individual damages will be determined.

"According to them they are saying it's not going to be enough,"
Mr Muhamat told AAP.

"People are saying 'we've actually been in this place for four
years and we have got physical damage and mental damage and this
small amount of money won't do anything to help us'."

Speaking from Port Moresby where he is receiving medical
treatment, Mr Muhamat said some Manus detainees will be resettled
under Australia's deal with the United States but many will be
left behind.

He said those hoping to end up in the US may accept the settlement
once they know their individual compensation amounts, believing it
will be harder to sue the Australian government in any new legal
action once in America.

"There's other people saying 'no we're not going to sign the
settlement because the amount is so small'," Mr Muhamat said.

The Australian government and operators of the Manus Island
Regional Processing Centre settled the class action by 1905
current and former detainees for $70 million, most of which will
be for false imprisonment and tied to the length of time spent in
detention.

Law firm Slater and Gordon has received hundreds of registrations
and enquiries from group members since the June 21 settlement
announcement.

Fewer than six per cent have responded negatively to the
settlement or expressed a desire to not be part of the class
action, Slater and Gordon principal lawyer Andrew Baker told AAP.

"Importantly, this settlement was designed to not be forced upon
any group member who does not wish to participate," he said in a
statement.

"Group members have the right to object to the proposed
settlement, and are not required to participate in it, and they
can also ask the court for more time to opt out of the class
action, which would preserve their legal rights if that
application is granted."

Mr Muhamat said the firm has provided the group members with
information about how individual settlements will be determined
and told them they do not have to decide immediately.

Mr Muhamat, who is undecided about accepting the compensation,
hoped to get enough to help him get proper medical treatment and
build his future.

"There is nothing on the planet that they can make you forget what
you have seen and what you have experienced during the last four
years."

Despite the federal government saying none of the 839 men on Manus
will be settled in Australia, Mr Muhamat does not believe they
will be abandoned when the centre closes in October. [GN]


AVINGER INC: Securities Class Action Pending in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP alerts investors in Avinger, Inc.
(NASDAQ: AVGR) to the securities class action pending in Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of AVGR
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
on or about January 30, 2015 and suffered losses contact Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.  For more information visit
https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/AVGR or contact Reed Kathrein, who
is leading the firm's investigation, by calling 510-725-3000 or
emailing AVGR@hbsslaw.com.

On or about January 30, 2015, Defendants priced the Company's
initial public offering ("IPO") for the issuance of 5 million
shares at $13.00 per share.

The lawsuit alleges that the IPO Registration Statement and
Prospectus materially and falsely and/or failed to disclose that
(1) Avinger lacked adequate sales and marketing personnel to
increase sales of its lumivascular platform products and to
commercialize Pantheris, (2) Avinger already experienced problems
with the robustness of its lumivascular platform devices
(including Pantheris), (3) physicians and hospitals were requiring
more extensive and comprehensive training concerning the Company's
products as compared to competing products, (4) Avinger would not
be able to rapidly ramp  sales of its lumivascular platform, and
(5) as a result, Avinger experienced lower than expected sales and
revenues.

On July 12, 2016, during an earnings conference call management
attributed disappointing financial results to Avinger's continued
problems with the robustness and safety profile of its Pantheris
device.  This news drove the price of Avinger shares down $4.54,
or nearly 40%, to close at $6.89 on July 13, 2016.

"Among other things, we're focused on is whether before the IPO
Avinger terminated the personnel necessary to the Company's
success without sufficiently informing investors," said Hagens
Berman partner Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Avinger should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.  Under the new
SEC whistleblower program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC.  For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email AVGR@hbsslaw.com. [GN]

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a national investor-
rights law firm headquartered in Seattle, Washington with offices
in 10 cities.  The Firm represents investors, whistleblowers,
workers and consumers in complex litigation.


B. FRANK JOY: Bid to Dismiss "Alvarez-Soto" Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MANUEL ALVAREZ-SOTO, DARRYL REID and CHARLES
THOMAS, On Behalf a/Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. B. FRANK JOY, LLC, T. KENNETH JOY and KEVIN JOY,
Defendants, Civil Action No. TDC-15-1120 (D. Md.), Judge Theodore
D. Chuang of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, and granted the Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs, former and current employees of Defendant B. Frank
Joy ("BFJ"), have filed this civil lawsuit on behalf of a class of
current and former BFJ employees who have worked as construction
workers, laborers, equipment operators, forepersons, flaggers, and
truck drivers.  They allege that the Defendants have violated
their rights under federal and state law by failing to pay both
straight time and overtime wages, refusing to allow them and other
employees to take sick leave, and discriminating against
Plaintiffs and other African American and Latino employees.

The Second Amended Complaint asserts violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"); the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL");
the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"); the
District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act ("DCMWA"); the District of
Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law ("DCWPCL"); the District
of Columbia Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act, as amended (the "D.C.
Sick Leave Act"); and District of Columbia and Maryland common
law.  BFJ and the Individual Defendants, T. Kenneth Joy and Kevin
Joy, have filed separate Motions to Dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The general allegation that BFJ discharged or demoted employees
who complained does not provide enough factual context to nudge
their claim from conceivable to plausible.  Accordingly, BFJ's
Motion is granted as to the FLSA retaliation claims
of Alvarez-Soto and Reid.

To the extent that Counts V and VI assert claims under the DCWPCL
and MWPCL under a theory of unlawful deductions, the Plaintiffs
have not offered sufficient facts to support those claims.  The
Second Amended Complaint does not allege any facts that describe
the deductions in question or support the conclusion that they
were unlawful.  Accordingly, to the extent that the Plaintiffs
seek to assert unlawful deduction claims under the DCWPCL and
MWPCL in Counts V and VI, those claims are dismissed.  The unpaid
wages claims alleged in Counts V and VI under those statutes,
which BFJ does not challenge, remain intact.

BFJ asserts that the Second Amended Complaint does not state a
plausible claim for relief under the D.C. Sick Leave Act because
it does not allege that the Plaintiffs were eligible for sick
leave or that they complied with the notice requirements.  BFJ
cites no authority for the proposition that the Plaintiffs are
required to plead explicitly that they complied with the notice
requirements, nor is the Court aware of any.  Accordingly, BFJ's
Motion is denied as to Count VII.

The Plaintiffs also allege that BFJ was unjustly enriched because
it increased the profitability of its government contracts tied to
prevailing market wages by paying workers less than the
contracted-amount for wages and keeping the difference for the
company.  Although they do not specifically reference the Davis-
Bacon Act ("DBA"), the Plaintiffs' reference to government
contracts tied to prevailing market wages is undoubtedly an
indirect reference to the DBA that illustrates that the unjust
enrichment claim is based on the failure to pay wage rates in
accordance with that statute.

Accordingly, to the extent the Plaintiffs' common law unjust
enrichment claims arise from the failure to pay DBA prevailing
wage rates, they are also preempted by the DBA.  BFJ's Motion is
therefore granted as to the state common law claims.

In addition, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs provide
sufficient facts relating to two claims under Section 1981.
Accordingly, the Court denied BFJ's Motion to Dismiss the Section
1981 claim to the extent to allege a failure to hire or promote
Alvarez-Soto to the driver position and alleges discriminatory
discipline against Thomas.  The remaining allegations of race
discrimination under Section 1981 are dismissed.

Because the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that the
Individual Defendants were "employers" under the broader FLSA
definition, the Court concluded that the allegations are likewise
insufficient to state a claim that the Individual Defendants were
"employers" who violated the MWPCL.  Accordingly, the Court
granted the Motion as to the MWPCL claim against the Individual
Defendants.

The Court noted that the D.C. Sick Leave Act's recognition that
the "legal entity" employer may act "through an agent or any other
person" illustrates that such persons, even in supervisory or
managerial roles, are not personally subject to liability as an
"employer."  Thus, the Plaintiffs cannot state a claim against the
Individual Defendants under the D.C. Sick Leave Act.  The
Individual Defendants' Motion is granted as to that claim.

Because the state common law claims are preempted by federal law,
they are dismissed as to both BFJ and the Individual Defendants.

The allegation that the Individual Defendants knew or should have
known of ongoing discrimination falls short of that standard.
Individuals within a company cannot be liable under Section 1981
unless they intentionally cause an employer to infringe the rights
secured by section 1981.  The Individual Defendants' Motion is
granted as to the Section 1981 discrimination claim.

Finally, the claims against all the Defendants under state common
law, and the claims against the Individual Defendants under the
D.C. Sick Leave Act, cannot be cured through amendment and are
dismissed with prejudice.  Because leave to amend has been
granted, the Court denied the request to strike class claims as
premature.

The Plaintiffs may file a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint
within 14 days.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2017 memorandum opinion
is available at https://is.gd/ayJH2E from Leagle.com.

Manuel Alvarez-Soto, Plaintiff, represented by Christine A. Dixon
-- info@cdixongloballaw.com -- C Dixon Global Law PLLC.

Manuel Alvarez-Soto, Plaintiff, represented by Larry A. Strauss,
Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson, and Gary, PLLC, pro hac vice &
Willie E. Gary, Gary Williams Parenti and Watson PLLC, pro hac
vice.

Charles Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Christine A. Dixon, C
Dixon Global Law PLLC, Larry A. Strauss, Gary, Williams, Parenti,
Watson, and Gary, PLLC, pro hac vice & Willie E. Gary, Gary
Williams Parenti and Watson PLLC, pro hac vice.

Darryl Reid, Plaintiff, represented by Christine A. Dixon, C Dixon
Global Law PLLC, Larry A. Strauss, Gary, Williams, Parenti,
Watson, and Gary, PLLC, pro hac vice & Willie E. Gary, Gary
Williams Parenti and Watson PLLC, pro hac vice.

B. Frank Joy, LLC, Defendant, represented by Maurice Baskin --
mbaskin@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Steven E. Kaplan -
- skaplan@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & William F. Allen -
- ballen@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..

T. Kenneth Joy, Defendant, represented by Maurice Baskin, Littler
Mendelson, P.C. & Steven E. Kaplan, Littler Mendelson PC.

Kevin Joy, Defendant, represented by Maurice Baskin, Littler
Mendelson, P.C.


BEALL'S OUTLET: "Raymondo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARYBETH RAYMONDO, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BEALL's OUTLET
STORES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01406-VMC-AEP (M.D.
Fla., June 12, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Ms. Raymondo began working for Defendant as a Store Manager in
October 2014, and she worked in this capacity until March 29,
2017. Ms. Raymondo and similarly situated employees worked hours
un excess of 40 hours within a work week for Defendant, and they
were entitled to compensated for these overtime hours at a rate
equal to one and one-half times their individual regular hourly
rates. However, Defendant allegedly failed to pay them for all
overtime hours that they worked, in violation of the FLSA.

The Defendant operates a retail store in Winter Haven, in Polk
County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donna V. Smith, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 386 0995
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com
                  rcooke@wfclaw.com


BILBOA REST: "Riveras" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR FERNANDO RIVERAS, and BENJAMIN DOMINGUEZ, on Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
BILBOA REST. CORP. d/b/a/ FRANCISCO'S CENTRO VASCO, FRANCISCO
QUINTANS, JAVIER QUINTANS, FRANKLIN JIMINEZ, and ALBERTO PEREZ,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04430 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2017),
seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, and
liquidated damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated current and former Restaurant Employees who
elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA, to remedy
violations of the wage and hour provisions of the FLSA by
Defendants that have deprived Plaintiffs and all similarly
situated employees of their lawfully earned wages. The Plaintiffs
were employed by Defendants as servers, servers assistants, back
waiters, bussers, runners, bartenders, bar backs and other tipped
employees.

The Defendants own and operate a seafood restaurant in the Chelsea
section of Manhattan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William Cafaro, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone (212) 583 7400


BIMBO FOODS: Misclassifies Distributors, Puello et al. Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS M. PUELLO, JOHANNY PUELLO, and KIM PEEK, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
BIMBO FOODS BAKERIES DISTRIBUTION, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
7:17-cv-04481-KMK (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2017), seeks to recover
damages including reimbursement of all charges, deductions, and
expenses, liquidated damages and interest, and statutory damages,
in an amount to be proven at trial.

According to the complaint, BFBD uses hundreds of individuals
within New York and New Jersey to distribute baked goods. The
Distributors pick up the baked goods from one of BFBD's depots and
deliver the baked goods to various stores on their routes.  Many
of the distributors, including Plaintiffs, are classified as
"independent operators," and paid on IRS Form 1099 as independent
contractors.

As a result of being paid as independent contractors, the
Distributors do not receive any of the benefits of employment such
as fringe benefits -- health insurance and paid time off --
expense reimbursement -- indeed, the Distributors are required to
buy or use their own truck, among other things, to deliver
Defendant's products -- company-provided equipment, and employee
protections under federal and state laws.  As a result, BDFD has
saved millions of dollars.

The Complaint contends the Distributors are essentially forced
into a pay-to-work scenario, where they must spend thousands upon
thousands of dollars to work for Defendant.  The Distributors must
buy their own trucks, pay their own insurance, purchase a $3,000
handheld computer from BFBD for each route, and pay to purchase a
delivery route from Defendant.

Defendant's business consists of manufacturing, distributing, and
selling baked goods under an array of well-known brands including
but not limited to Thomas', Sara Lee, Arnold, Entenmann's, Bimbo,
Freihofer's, and Boboli.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          Orin Kurtz, Esq.
          Jacob E. Lewin, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          Tower 56
          126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 905 0509
          Facsimile: (212) 905 0508
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
                  okurtz@gardylaw.com


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sept. 22 Case Management Conference
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MONITA SHARMA and ERIC ANDERSON, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, Case No. 3:13-cv-02274-MMC (KAW) (N.D. Cal.) Senior
District Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division,
granted the parties' stipulation and order to continue the
June 30, 2017 case management conference and stay pending
settlement to Sept. 22, 2017.

The case and all case management and related deadlines are
continued to be stayed pending final approval of the Settlement to
this action and the Catalano Action and the settlement approval
process before Judge Forres.  The parties will jointly submit a
case management statement no later than Sept. 22, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/p3duJm from Leagle.com.

Monita Sharma, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart C. Talley --
stuart@kctlegal.com -- Kershaw Cook & Talley PC.

Monita Sharma, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Morris Rose, Law
Office of Robert Starr, Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Edward A. Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP,
Ian James Barlow, Kershaw, Cook & Talley PC, Stephen Massong
Harris -- stephen@smh-legal.com -- Law Offices of Stephen M.
Harris, P.C. & William A. Kershaw -- bill@kctlegal.com -- Kershaw
Cook & Talley PC.

Eric Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart C. Talley, Kershaw
Cook & Talley PC, Adam Morris Rose, Law Office of Robert Starr,
Amy E. Keller, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Edward A. Wallace,
Wexler Wallace LLP, Ian James Barlow, Kershaw, Cook & Talley PC,
Stephen Massong Harris, Law Offices of Stephen M. Harris, P.C. &
William A. Kershaw, Kershaw Cook & Talley PC.

BMW of North America LLC, Defendant, represented by Troy Masami
Yoshino -- troy.yoshino@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US)
LLP, Aengus Hartley Carr -- aengus.carr@squirepb.com -- Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Eric J. Knapp -- eric.knapp@squirepb.com --
Squire Patton Boggs LLP & Jenny Grantz --
jenny.grantz@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.


BOOZ ALLEN: Faces Securities Class Action in Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 19 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation ("Booz
Allen" or the "Company") (NYSE:BAH) and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern
District of Virginia, is on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Booz Allen's
securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Booz Allen securities
between May 19, 2016 and June 15, 2017, both dates inclusive, you
have until August 18, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and number of shares purchased.

Booz Allen is an American management consulting firm.  The Company
purports to provide management and technology consulting,
engineering, analytics, digital, mission operations, and cyber
solutions to governments, corporations, and not-for-profit
organizations in the United States and internationally.  At all
relevant times, Booz Allen has derived substantially all of its
revenues from services provided to the U.S. government.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) Booz Allen engaged in
improper accounting practices in its contracts with the U.S.
government; (ii) consequently, the Company's revenues derived from
services provided to the U.S. government were inflated and
unsustainable; (iii) discovery of the foregoing conduct would
subject the Company to heightened regulatory scrutiny, potential
criminal sanctions, and jeopardize its business relationship with
the U.S. government; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Booz
Allen's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On June 15, 2017, post-market, Booz Allen disclosed that on June
7, 2017, the Company's subsidiary Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. "was
informed that the U.S. Department of Justice is conducting a civil
and criminal investigation relating to certain elements of [its]
cost accounting and indirect cost charging practices with the U.S.
government."

On this news, Booz Allen's share price fell $7.43, or 18.89%, to
close at $31.90 on June 16, 2017.

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


BRAD PISTOTNIK: Kansas App. Affirms Judgment in "Consolver"
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MAHNAZ CONSOLVER, Appellant, v. BRAD
PISTOTNIK, Appellee, No. 115,197 (Ks. App.), the Court of Appeals
of Kansas affirmed the district court's decision granting
Pistotnik's motion for judgment on the pleadings and entering
judgment against Consolver.

Consolver sued Pistotnik in Sedgwick County District Court for
violating the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA), K.S.A. 50-623
et seq., and for breaching a contract she entered with his law
firm to represent her.  The district court entered judgment for
Pistotnik, finding the statute of limitations had run on the KCPA
claims and that he personally was not a party to the contract and,
therefore, could not be liable for the alleged breach.  On
Consolver's appeal, the Court finds the district court's ultimate
conclusions to be correct and affirm the judgment in Pistotnik's
favor.

In April 2011, Consolver hired Pistotnik's law firm to represent
her in recovering for injuries she received in a motor vehicle
collision earlier that year.  She fired the firm and Pistotnik at
the end of June 2012 in the midst of that litigation and settled
her personal injury case with the help of another lawyer about a
year later.  Consolver and Pistotnik had been mired in a fee
dispute arising out of their attorney-client relationship and that
suit.

In the meantime, Consolver filed this suit as a class action
against Pistotnik and his law firm on July 9, 2015.  She filed an
amended petition three weeks later and in October dismissed the
law firm as a party, leaving Pistotnik personally as the sole
Defendant.  No class has ever been certified.  In November,
Pistotnik filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
interposing a statute of limitations defense to the KCPA claims
and lack of personal liability on the contract.  Consolver brought
no other claims in her action.  She duly responded to Pistotnik's
motion.

In December, the district court issued a written decision granting
Pistotnik's motion and entering judgment against Consolver.
Consolver has appealed.

Kansas law recognizes that a corporate agent typically will not be
held personally liable for breach of a contract he or she has
signed on behalf of the corporation.  Consolver's petition did not
allege factual circumstances that would support a deviation from
the general rule.  In other words, she did not claim some basis
for looking behind the corporate form to hold Pistotnik personally
liable for violating the agreement.  Accordingly, the district
court properly applied the usual law of corporate liability.
Pistotnik, therefore, had no personal liability for any alleged
breach of the contract between Consolver and the law firm.  And
Consolver had voluntarily dismissed the law firm as a defendant
before the motion was filed.

The Court therefore held that the district court ruled correctly
in dismissing the breach of contract claim, and accordingly
affirmed that ruling.

Consolver's KCPA claims are governed by the 3-year statute of
limitations in K.S.A. 60-512(2).  Claims of the sort Consolver
asserts under the KCPA become actionable -- triggering the
limitations period -- when the consumer suffers legal harm or, in
the words of the Act, is "aggrieved."

With those principles in mind, the Court reviews the district
court's ruling on Consolver's KCPA claims.  It held that the
district court properly granted the motion for judgment on the
pleadings as to those claims Consolver based on the law firm's
purportedly deceptive advertising.  For purposes of the KCPA,
Consolver became aggrieved as a result when she selected
Pistotnik's law firm out of the universe of available law firms to
represent her.  That's true even though she paid no fees to the
law firm at that time.  Rather, taking the allegations as true,
Consolver was gulled out of a fair opportunity to select a
different lawyer -- a harm the KCPA presumably would recognize as
actionable, thereby allowing the consumer to recover a statutory
civil penalty and attorney fees at a minimum.

As the Court said, the district court properly considered the
employment contract in ruling on the motion.  The contract was
signed on April 1, 2011.  Consolver did not file this action until
July 9, 2015.  The action, therefore, was commenced beyond the 3-
year statute of limitations as to those claims, and the district
court properly dismissed them.

For these reasons, the Court held that the district court
ultimately ruled correctly in entering judgment against Consolver
and in favor of Pistotnik on her claims for breach of the
employment contract and for violation of the KCPA.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2017 memorandum opinion
is available at https://is.gd/Xaautk from Leagle.com.

Stephen L. Brave, of Brave Law Firm, LLC, of Wichita, for
appellant.

N. Russell Hazlewood -- russ@graybillhazlewood.com -- and Nathan
R. Elliott -- nathan@graybillhazlewood.com -- of Graybill &
Hazlewood, LLC, of Wichita, for appellee.


BRIGHTCURRENT INC: Pinon Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSIE PINON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), the
Plaintiff, v. BRIGHTCURRENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG17863796
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
penalties, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees under California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
knew or should have known that Plaintiff and class members were
entitled to receive at least minimum wages for compensation and
that, in violation of the California Labor Code, they were not
receiving at least minimum wages for work done off-the-clock.

BrightCurrent helps people to shift to solar energy with an
education approach that focuses on in-store kiosks, canvassing,
and event management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
          THE BAINER LAW FIRM
          1901 Harrison St., Suite 1100
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 922 1802
          Facsimile: (510) 844 s7701
          E-mail: mbainer@bainerfawfirm.com


CABELA'S INC: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Merger with Bass Pro Group
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER A. BROWN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CABELA'S INCORPORATED, JAMES
W. CABELA, THOMAS L. MILLNER, THEODORE M. ARMSTRONG, JOHN H.
EDMONDSON, DENNIS HIGHBY, MICHAEL R. MCCARTHY, DONNA M. MILROD,
BETH M. PRITCHARD, JAMES F. WRIGHT, and PETER S. SWINBURN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00711-UNA (D. Del., June 9, 2017),
accuses the Board of authorizing the filing of a materially
incomplete and misleading Definitive Proxy Statement in connection
with the proposed merger between Cabela's, Bass Pro Group, LLC,
and Prairie Merger Sub, Inc.

In particular, the Proxy allegedly contains materially incomplete
and misleading information concerning: (i) Cabela's financial
projections; and (ii) the valuation analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisor, Guggenheim Securities, LLC, in
support of its fairness opinion.

Pursuant to the transaction, the Company's stockholders stand to
receive $61.50 in cash for each share of Cabela's common stock
they own.

CABELA'S INC. is a leading specialty retailer and the world's
largest direct marketer of hunting, fishing, camping and related
outdoor merchandise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 482-3182
     Email: mvangorder@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
     Fax: (212) 202-7880
     E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


CALPERS: Policyholders Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge sided with more than 130,000
class members, all CalPERS Long Term Care policyholders, in their
class action against CalPERS for unjust premium increases,
permitting their claims to proceed to trial.

The class action stems from CalPERS' decision in 2013 to raise
premiums for its Long-Term Care insurance on more than 130,000
policyholders across California.  Many of those policyholders have
been in the CalPERS program for decades, and are now retired, on
fixed incomes.  Despite CalPERS' promise that rates were to remain
level and generally could not be increased, CalPERS chose to raise
rates by as much as 85%.

The class members contend the increase was unjustified, due to
CalPERS' failures in establishing the program and because the
increases were not permitted by the contract.  The plaintiffs
asserted five causes of action against CalPERS: breach of
fiduciary duty; breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing; rescission; and declaratory and
injunctive relief. The court previously certified the breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of contract claims for class treatment.
CalPERS filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to eliminate
the case in its entirety, but the Hon. Ann I. Jones denied the
motion, specifically denying summary adjudication for the second
cause of action for breach of contract, the third cause of action
for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
the fifth cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief.

"CalPERS' unjustified 85% premium increase was unconscionable,
violated the terms of the policy and destroyed any semblance of
protection members were promised when they purchased these long-
term care policies.  We are now encouraged that justice may
finally be realized," said attorney Michael J. Bidart of Shernoff
Bidart Echeverria LLP.  "CalPERS should be made to honor the
promises it made to its faithful members."

With respect to the breach of contract claim, CalPERS argued the
policy language gave it the right to raise premiums for any
reason, and that the plaintiffs had to file their action years
earlier when CalPERS initiated its first rate increase in 2003.
But plaintiffs contended that the policy did not permit the 85%
rate increases that targeted only certain members based on whether
they purchased inflation protection or lifetime benefits, and the
contract expressly prohibited rate increases "as a result" of the
inflation protection benefit.  Plaintiffs also contended that they
were not required to file suit until CalPERS raised the rates by
85% in 2013, and CalPERS had previously not advised plaintiffs
that members receiving specific benefits were being targeted.
Ultimately, Judge Jones sided with the plaintiffs on this issue.

"Shockingly, after paying premiums for many years for future long-
term care protection, very good, hardworking people were left
hanging out to dry as a result of these astronomical rate
increases," said attorney Gregory L. Bentley of Bentley & More
LLP.  "CalPERS targeted their own members with promises of
protection they did not keep.  It is not right, and is
unacceptable."

The case is Elma Sanchez, Holly Wedding, Richard M. Lodyga and
Eileen Lodyga et al. v. CalPERS et al., Los Angeles Superior
Court, Case No. BC517444.

The attorneys on the case are Michael J. Bidart of Shernoff Bidart
Echeverria LLP; Gretchen M. Nelson from Nelson & Fraenkel LLP,
Gregory L. Bentley of Bentley & More LLP; and Stuart C. Talley
from Kershaw, Cook & Talley, PC. [GN]

For more information, and for updates on the case, please go to
http://www.calpersclassactionlawsuit.com/.


CAMDEN, NJ: Faces "Holland" Suit Over Detention Program
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kelly Rosen. The
case is captioned as BRITTAN B. HOLLAND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and LEXINGTON NATIONAL
INSURANCE CORPORATION, the Plaintiffs, v. KELLY ROSEN, Pretrial
Services Team Leader; MARY E COLALILLO, Camden County Prosecutor;
CHRISTOPHER PORRINO, Attorney General of New Jersey, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04317-RMB-KMW (D.N.J., June 14,
2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Renee Marie Bumb.

The suit seeks compensation for the injuries Plaintiffs suffered
as a result of Defendants' unconstitutional conduct.

According to the complaint, Mr. Holland stands accused but
unconvicted of a crime. Under bedrock principles of American law,
he is presumed innocent. And like all innocent people, he is
presumptively entitled to liberty from any pre-trial restraint.

Holland was arrested after an alleged bar fight and charged with
assault. He has a job, a supportive family, a residence in the
community, and part-time custody of his son. Given his ties to the
community and lack of a criminal record, he would have been
eligible for release on bail before New Jersey's enactment of the
Civil Justice Reform Act (CJRA), and he could have paid a
nonexcessive amount of bail to secure his future appearance,
likely with the help of a surety company like Plaintiff Lexington
National. He then would have enjoyed his full pre-trial liberty,
just like any other presumptively innocent member of society.

Instead, under the CJRA, the court never had the option to set
bail, let alone to give Holland the opportunity to post it.
Instead, relying on a new "risk assessment tool," the court
concluded that Holland's appearance could be secured by a set of
restrictive non-monetary conditions, including home detention, an
electronic monitor that he must wear around his ankle constantly
and that tracks his movement 24 hours a day, and a requirement
that he report to the pretrial services office every two weeks--
even if it disrupts his job.

As a result, Holland's liberty is sharply curtailed, the Complaint
says. Among other things, he cannot shop for food or basic
necessities and cannot take his son to baseball practice, an
important aspect of his custodial responsibilities and his efforts
to bond with his child.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul D. Clement, Esq.
          Michael F. Williams, Esq.
          Christopher G. Michel, Esq.
          Andrew C. Lawrence, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 Fifteenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879 5000
          E-mail: michael.williams@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Justin T. Quinn, Esq.
          ROBINSON MILLER LLC
          One Newark Center
          19th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 690 5400
          E-mail: jquinn@rwmlegal.com


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Faces "Giantonio" Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN J. GIANTONIO, on behalf of the Chicago Bridge & Iron Savings
Plan, The Shaw Group Inc. 401(k) Plan, himself, and a class
consisting of similarly situated participants of the Plans v.
CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY, INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, PLAN
ADMINISTRATOR, STEPHEN H. DIMLICH, JR., WESTLEY S. STOCKTON,
SHEILA FELDMAN, JOHN DOES 1-20, and RICHARD ROES 1-20, Case No.
1:17-cv-04251-UA (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.

According to the complaint, effective January 1, 2016, the Plan
was amended and restated to merge the Plan with The Shaw Group
Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Shaw Plan" and together with the Shaw Plan
the "Plans").  The action is also brought derivatively on behalf
of the Shaw Plan and its assets.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants, who are fiduciaries of the Plans, failed to protect
the interests of the Plans' Participants in violation of the
Defendants' legal obligations under the ERISA.

CB&I provides a range of services to customers in the energy
infrastructure market across the world.  The Company managed and
administered the Plans and the assets of the Plans and acted as a
fiduciary with respect to the Plans, or appointed a committee to
do so.  Defendant Plan Administrator is the administrator for the
Plans.

Stephen H. Dimlich, Jr., is CB&I's Senior Vice President,
Corporate Human Resources.  Westley S. Stockton is CB&I's Vice
President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer.
Sheila Feldman is CB&I's Executive Vice President, Chief Human
Resources Officer.  The Doe and Roe Defendants are the unknown
Plan Administrators, members of the Committee, or any other
committee(s) which administered the Plans, and all members
thereof.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Klein, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: mklein@ssbny.com


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Faces "Monroe" Suit in E.D. Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cellco Partnership.
The case is styled as Eric Monroe, the Plaintiff, v. Cellco
Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-11892-GAD-EAS (E.D. Mich., June 14, 2017). The case is assigned
to the Hon. District Judge Gershwin A. Drain.

Cellco Partnership provides wireless, residential, and business
telecommunications products and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tad T. Roumayah, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
          One Town Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355 0300
          Facsimile: (248) 746 4001
          E-mail: troumayah@sommerspc.com


CELLULAR CITY: "Morales" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN MORALES, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CELLULAR CITY OF
MASSAPEQUA, INC.; AMAN SINGH; and/or any other related entities,
the Defendants, Case No. 605602/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 13,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime wages,
and unpaid commissions pursuant to the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

According to the complaint, beginning in May 2011 and continuing
through the present, Defendants have maintained a policy and
practice of failing to pay all wages and commissions owed to
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees in violation of
NYLL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, New York 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550


CENTURYLINK: Faces Three Class Actions Over Alleged Billing Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that citing thousands of
complaints on social media, three class actions accuse
telecommunications company CenturyLink of fraud, double-dealing
and using phony and inflated fees to cheat millions of consumers
of as much as $12 billion.

A nationwide federal class action filed June 18 in Los Angeles
claims CenturyLink promises customers phone, data and cable TV
service at one price but bills them much more and threatens them
with high cancellation fees if they try to quit.

"It is estimated that the damages to consumers could range between
$600 million and $12 billion, based on CenturyLink's 5.9 million
subscribers," according to named plaintiffs Craig McLeod of
Alabama and Steven McCauley of Kansas.

A similar federal class action was filed on June 19 in Portland,
Oregon, and a state class action was filed June 14 in Maricopa
County Court, Phoenix.

Arriving as the Monroe, La.-based CenturyLink is in the middle of
its $34 billion acquisition of multinational competitor Level 3
Communications, more such lawsuits can be expected, said
Ben Meiselas, with Geragos & Geragos, one of Messrs. McLeod and
McCauley's attorneys.

"There are consumers in every state that have reached out to us,"
Mr. Meiselas said.  "We'll be filing in all states where consumers
are victims."

The Los Angeles complaint states that "a digital revolt against
CenturyLink's fraud has been fomented by subscribers on social
media and consumer watchdog websites."  The 19-page lawsuit claims
thousands of complaints from CenturyLink customers have been
posted on Facebook, Reddit, Twitter and consumer websites.

"This is one of the most outraged and passionate groups of
consumers I've ever been involved with," Mr. Meiselas said.

In Phoenix, former customer service employee Heidi Heiser claims
CenturyLink fired her after she complained that the company was
cheating customers of "many millions of dollars" for services they
had not authorized.  Ms. Heiser's lawsuit says there are
"frightening parallels between the Wells Fargo Bank scandal and
what she saw happening at Century Link."

And on June 19 in Portland, Oregon customer Heather Gonsoir
claimed that CenturyLink, "as part of its billing pattern and
practice . . . systematically and intentionally overcharged tens
of thousands of Oregon customers."

Ms. Gonsoir is represented by Michael Fuller with Olsen Daines;
Geragos is co-counsel.

Both federal complaints give credit to Heiser's whistleblower
action in Arizona.

CenturyLink spokesman Mark Molzen, said in an email that
"opportunistic follow-on claims are not unexpected" after a suit
like Heiser's.

"The fact that a law firm is trying to leverage a wrongful
termination suit into a putative class action lawsuit does not
change our original position," Mr. Molzen said.

"The allegations made by our former employee are completely
inconsistent with our company policies, culture and Unifying
Principles, which include honesty and integrity," he continued.
"We take these allegations seriously and are diligently
investigating this matter."

The plaintiffs say they didn't see the honesty and integrity.

Mr. McLeod, 65, says he was promised upgraded internet speed for
$2 more per month.  Instead, his monthly bill doubled to $80, and
he was hit with undisclosed "wiring charges" for having a
technician swap out his modem.

When he complained about excessive and unexpected charges on his
bill, "CenturyLink told him it was his 'fault' for not catching
its fraudulent charges," the complaint states.

Mr. McCauley, from a small town in Kansas, was paying CenturyLink
$48 a month for internet service and was told he could be put on a
new plan at $27.99. He was shocked, he says in the lawsuit, when a
bill for $80 arrived.

When he complained, he was told that the company had no $27.99
plan but he could be put on a contract for $43 a month. When he
asked to drop his service, he was told he would have to pay a $200
termination fee.

"Mr. McCauley remains trapped in an exorbitant contract he never
agreed to enter," his complaint states.

Meanwhile in Oregon, Ms. Gonsoir discovered her monthly fee for
bundled services was more than twice what the salespeople at her
door had promised. She was told she would have to pay a previously
undisclosed $240 cancellation fee to quit.

"Plaintiff later discovered she wasn't alone. As it turned out,
several of plaintiff's neighbors were also ripped off by
CenturyLink, Inc.'s unlawful billing tactics," she says.

Ms. Gonsoir says she has since learned that CenturyLink's "pattern
and practice of misleading customers about the costs of its
services are well-known within the industry, and among utility
regulators."

Ms. Gonsoir cites an article in The Oregonian newspaper showing a
54 percent increase in complaints to regulators in 2015 alone.

She seeks damages and punitive damages, for violations of Oregon's
Unlawful Trade Practices Act. The national plaintiffs seek damages
for fraud, unfair competition and unjust enrichment.

Mr. Meiselas said he believes these and future class actions
against CenturyLink eventually will be consolidated in some
manner. [GN]


CENTURYLINK INC: Faces Class Action Over Sales Incentive Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Polly Mosendz and Scott Moritz, writing for Bloomberg News, report
that CenturyLink Inc. sued by a former employee for allegedly
running a sales incentive scheme and firing her for drawing
attention to it, is now the subject of a class-action complaint
seeking damages as high as $12 billion.

The complaint, which comes as the Monroe, La., telecommunications
company is in the midst of a $34 billion merger with Level 3
Communications Inc., seeks to establish a class of consumers
harmed by an alleged high-pressure sales culture.  The self-
proclaimed whistleblower, Heidi Heiser, says such a culture left
customers paying millions of dollars for accounts they didn't
request.

The new lawsuit, filed in the central district of California late
on June 18, cites Ms. Heiser's suit, as well as similar
accusations posted on social media and consumer review websites by
people identifying themselves as CenturyLink customers, and
accuses CenturyLink of fraud, unfair competition, and unjust
enrichment.

"Ms. Heiser's allegations of what she observed, and what
CenturyLink corporate culture encouraged, are consistent with the
experiences of hundreds of thousands and potentially millions of
consumers who have been defrauded by CenturyLink," the complaint
states.  "It is estimated that the damages to consumers could
range between $600 million and $12 billion, based on CenturyLink's
5.9 million subscribers."

"The fact that a law firm is trying to leverage a wrongful
termination suit into a putative class action lawsuit does not
change our original position," Mark Molzen, a CenturyLink
spokeman, said in a statement, adding that Ms. Heiser failed to
report her allegations to the company's 24-hour Integrity Line. He
said her claims "are completely inconsistent" with company policy
and culture and that "we take these allegations seriously and are
diligently investigating this matter."

Class actions are common after contentious allegations against
large companies.  The June 18 lawsuit was brought on behalf of the
consumers by the Geragos & Geragos law firm, led by celebrity
attorney Mark J. Geragos.  Ms.  Heiser didn't report her concerns
to the Federal Communications Commission or other authorities.

The named plaintiffs in the case are Craig McLeod and Steven L.
McCauley, both current customers of CenturyLink.  During a
conversation in early April with a sales agent on CenutryLink's
website, Mr. McLeod, 65, was offered a faster internet link for an
extra $2 a month with a two-year contract, and accepted, according
to the complaint. He alleges he incurred considerably higher fees
than quoted and was charged for a repair that never was made.

In an interview, Mr. McLeod, a semi-retired truck driver, said
that in the area of Alabama where he lives, CenturyLink is the
only hardwired internet provider available.

"I'm pretty much stuck with CenturyLink," he said.  "I am
seriously considering moving just because of them. The internet is
that important to me."

On June 16, CenturyLink's shares fell the most in six weeks on the
news of Ms. Heiser's suit, while the shares of merger partner
Level 3 also dropped sharply. The merger will put CenturyLink up
against powerhouses such as AT&T Inc. in bidding to provide
communications services to businesses.  CenturyLink, which
provides data services nationwide, including hosting, cloud, and
information technology services, booked $816 million in net income
on $17.5 billion in sales last year.

Ms. Heiser's complaint alleges that Ms. Heiser became increasingly
concerned about what she observed at CenturyLink after news of
Wells Fargo & Co.'s regulatory troubles broke in September.  In
that case, Wells Fargo employees, to earn incentives and meet
sales goals, opened deposit and credit card accounts without
customers' consent.  Without admitting wrongdoing, Wells Fargo
ended up firing more than 5,000 employees and agreeing to pay $185
million in fines, in addition to compensating customers for fees
related to the unauthorized accounts. [GN]


CHARLES SCHWAB: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that
on June 12, 2017, Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed
without prejudice a putative securities class action against
Charles Schwab & Co. ("Schwab") under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  Crago v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 2017 WL 2540577
(N.D. Cal. June 12, 2017).  Plaintiffs, Schwab customers who
placed trades through Schwab, alleged that Schwab's stated
commitment to securing best execution for its clients was false
and misleading in light of Schwab's bulk order routing through UBS
Securities LLC ("UBS"), as a result of which plaintiffs allegedly
suffered harm because they lost the opportunity for price
improvement.  The Court held that although plaintiffs had standing
to pursue their claims, they had insufficiently alleged falsity,
scienter, economic loss, loss causation and reliance, and granted
leave to replead.

Of particular note were the Court's contrasting analyses with
respect to standing and economic loss, both of which related to
the damages plaintiffs allegedly suffered, namely, lost price
improvement resulting from Schwab's failure to seek prices on
various exchanges and, instead, to route virtually all non-
directed trade orders to UBS.  Regarding standing, Schwab argued
that plaintiffs' allegations failed to establish "injury in fact"
because they had not identified specific trades for which Schwab's
practices caused plaintiffs to suffer identifiable losses.  The
Court rejected this argument, noting that plaintiffs had alleged
that Schwab entered into an agreement with UBS to route trades and
that Schwab routed a majority of the types of trades plaintiffs
engaged in through UBS.  Moreover, plaintiffs had specifically
alleged that Schwab's average price improvement was less than that
of competitors who did not accept payment for order flow, as
Schwab did from UBS.  Accordingly, the Court found that plaintiffs
"advanced sufficient allegations of concrete and particularized
harm" to give them the legal right to sue.  Id. at *4.

However, the Court concluded that plaintiffs failed to plead
economic loss with particularity.  Although plaintiffs' having
alleged that they experienced losses as a result of Schwab's
failure to seek the best execution price was sufficient to confer
Article III standing, the Court found that these allegations were
too generalized to suffice under the PSLRA.  Specifically, because
plaintiffs did "not indicate any trades on which they actually
experienced losses" and had "not identified any trades on which
they lost out on price improvement," they could not "state the
amount of price improvement of which they were deprived."  Id. at
*6-7.  Thus, plaintiffs had not pleaded actual loss with the
particularity required under the PSLRA.

This decision demonstrates that an alleged economic injury that
may be sufficient to confer standing nevertheless may not be
sufficient to plead a claim for securities fraud. [GN]

A full-text copy of the June 12, 2017, Order is available at
https://is.gd/hoD634 from Leagle.com.

Robert Crago, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Christopher McCall,
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP.

Robert Wolfson, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, David Jay Stone, Bragar Eagel &
Squire, P.C., Jeffrey H. Squire, Bragar Wexler & Eagel P.C.,
Joshua L. Crowell, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lawrence Paul
Eagel, Bragar Eagel and Squire, P.C. & Todd Harris Henderson,
Bragar Eagel and Squire, P.C..

Frank Pino, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, David Jay Stone, Bragar Eagel &
Squire, P.C., Jeffrey H. Squire, Bragar Wexler & Eagel P.C.,
Joshua L. Crowell, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lawrence Paul
Eagel, Bragar Eagel and Squire, P.C. & Todd Harris Henderson,
Bragar Eagel and Squire, P.C..

Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Gilbert Ross
Serota, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.

The Charles Schwab Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gilbert
Ross Serota, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.

Scott Posson, Movant, represented by Nicholas Ian Porritt, Levi
and Korsinsky & Adam Christopher McCall, Levi Korsinsky, LLP.


CHICAGO: Faces "Campbell" Suit in Northern District of Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City Of Chicago. The
case is titled as Immanuel Campbell, Rachel Jackson, Chante
Linwood, Deonte Beckwith, Markees Sharkey, Rubin Carter, Justice
for Families-Black Lives Matter Chicago, Blocks Together, Network
49, Brighton Park Neighborhood Council, 411 Movement for Pierre
Loury, Women's All Points Bulletin, and Black Lives Matter
Chicago, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiffs, v. City Of Chicago, in their individual
capacities; Migel Villanueva, Chicago Police Officer (No. 17423)
in their individual capacities; Josue Ortiz, Chicago Police
Officer (No. 15448) in their individual capacities; Dorothy Cade,
Chicago Police Officer (No. 7814) in their individual capacities;
Richard Bolin, Chicago Police Officer (No. 14590) in their
individual capacities; Waukeesha Morris, Chicago Police Officer
(No. 8255) in their individual capacities; Brett Polson, Chicago
Police Officer (No. 5612) in their individual capacities; Angel
Pena, Chicago Police Officer (No. 7135) in their individual
capacities; Jaeho Jung, Chicago Police Officer (No. 13387) in
their individual capacities; John Coriell, Chicago Police Officer
(No. 14274) in their individual capacities; Chad Boylan, Chicago
Police Officer (No. 8200) in their individual capacities; Thomas
McGuire, Chicago Police Officer (No. 1337) in their individual
capacities; Anthony Ostrowski, Chicago Police Officer (No. 15324)
in their individual capacities; Lawrence Gade, Jr., Chicago Police
Officer (No. 1841) in their individual capacities; John Lavorata,
Chicago Police Officer (No. 8464) in their individual capacities;
and Peter Jonas, Chicago Police Officer (No. 5069) in their
individual capacities, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04467
(N.D. Ill., June 14, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
John Z. Lee.

Chicago officially the City of Chicago, is the third-most populous
city in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexa Van Brunt, Esq.
          Bedi A Sheila, Esq.
          Locke E. Bowman, III, Esq.
          Vanessa Del Valle, Esq.
          375 East Chicago Avenue
          Roderick Macarthur Justice Center
          Northwestern University School Of Law
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 503 1336
          E-mail: a-vanbrunt@law.northwestern.edu
                  sheila.bedi@law.northwestern.edu
                  l-bowman@law.northwestern.edu
                  vanessa.delvalle@law.northwestern.edu

               - and -

          Craig Benson Futterman, Esq.
          Randolph N. Stone, Esq.
          MANDEL LEGAL AID CLINIC
          6020 South University Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60637
          Telephone: (312) 702 9611
          E-mail: futterman@uchicago.edu
                  RN-stone@uchicago.edu

               - and -

          Andrew Martin Stroth, Esq.
          ACTION INJURY LAW GROUP, LLC
          191 North Wacker Dr. Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 735 4045
          E-mail: astroth@actioninjurylawgroup.com

               - and -

          Carlton E. Odim, Esq.
          ODIM LAW OFFICES
          225 West Washington Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 578 9390
          E-mail: caruaodim@gmail.com


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Faces "Giantonio" Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN J. GIANTONIO, on behalf of the Chicago Bridge & Iron Savings
Plan, The Shaw Group Inc. 401(k) Plan, himself, and a class
consisting of similarly situated participants of the Plans v.
CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY, INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, PLAN
ADMINISTRATOR, STEPHEN H. DIMLICH, JR., WESTLEY S. STOCKTON,
SHEILA FELDMAN, JOHN DOES 1-20, and RICHARD ROES 1-20, Case No.
1:17-cv-04251-UA (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.

According to the complaint, effective January 1, 2016, the Plan
was amended and restated to merge the Plan with The Shaw Group
Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Shaw Plan" and together with the Shaw Plan
the "Plans").  The action is also brought derivatively on behalf
of the Shaw Plan and its assets.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants, who are fiduciaries of the Plans, failed to protect
the interests of the Plans' Participants in violation of the
Defendants' legal obligations under the ERISA.

CB&I provides a range of services to customers in the energy
infrastructure market across the world.  The Company managed and
administered the Plans and the assets of the Plans and acted as a
fiduciary with respect to the Plans, or appointed a committee to
do so.  Defendant Plan Administrator is the administrator for the
Plans.

Stephen H. Dimlich, Jr., is CB&I's Senior Vice President,
Corporate Human Resources.  Westley S. Stockton is CB&I's Vice
President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer.
Sheila Feldman is CB&I's Executive Vice President, Chief Human
Resources Officer.  The Doe and Roe Defendants are the unknown
Plan Administrators, members of the Committee, or any other
committee(s) which administered the Plans, and all members
thereof.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Klein, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: mklein@ssbny.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces "Gordon" Suit Over Data Security Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
TODD GORDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01415-CBS (D. Col., June 9, 2017), was
filed individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
whose personal and non-public information, including credit card
and debit card numbers, credit card and debit card expiration
dates, credit and debit card security information, and other
credit and debit card information was compromised in a massive
security breach of Defendant's computer servers beginning on March
24, 2017 and lasting until April 18, 2017.

Allegedly, Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to employ
adequate security measures or to properly protect sensitive
payment card information despite well-publicized data breaches at
large national retail and restaurant chains in recent years,
including Arby's, Wendy's, Noodles & Company, Target, Home Depot,
Sally Beauty, Harbor Freight Tools, P.F. Chang's, Dairy Queen, and
Kmart.

Chipotle operates a chain of approximately 2,249 fast-casual
Chipotle restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
     Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
     Jessica L. Titler, Esq.
     CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
     One Haverford Centre
     361 West Lancaster Avenue
     Haverford, PA 19041
     Phone: (610) 642-8500
     Email: bfj@chimicles.com
            awf@chimicles.com
            jlt@chimicles.com


COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: "Blanco" Suit Sues over Consumer Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
RENE BLANCO, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY
SOLUTIONS, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01391-EAK-JSS (Fla.
Cir. Ct. Hillsborough Cty., June 13, 2017), seeks statutory
damages, costs and attorneys' fees, equitable relief, and other
appropriate relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

According to the complaint, Defendant on August 1, 2016, procured
a consumer report on Plaintiff by using the services of a third-
party vendor.  The Defendant willfully violated this requirement
by failing to provide Plaintiff and the putative class with a copy
of a document consisting solely of a disclosure stating that
Defendant may obtain a consumer report on Plaintiff and the
putative class for employment purposes, prior to obtaining a copy
of their consumer reports.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donna V. Smith, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com
                  rcooke@wfclaw.com


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: "Canale" Suit Stayed Pending FTC Investigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cathy Seibel of the U.S. District for the Southern District
of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss or stay the case captioned LORI CANALE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO., Defendant, No. 16-CV-3308
(CS)(S.D. N.Y.).

The Defendant sells Colgate Optic White and Colgate Optic White
Platinum toothpastes at a premium price to capitalize on consumer
demand for whitening toothpaste.  Since October 2013, the
Defendant has represented that Colgate Optic White toothpaste
"Goes Beyond Surface Stain Removal to Deeply Whiten" teeth.  Since
February 2014, it has represented that Colgate Optic White
Platinum toothpaste "Deeply Whitens More Than 3 Shades."  Both
toothpastes contain the same supposedly whitening ingredient -- 1%
hydrogen peroxide.

The Plaintiff filed her putative class action on May 3, 2016
bringing claims for breach of express warranty individually and on
behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased Optic
White on or after Oct. 1, 2013, or who purchased Optic White
Platinum on or after Feb. 1, 2014.  She also brings claims for
violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General
Business Law individually and on behalf of all purchasers of Optic
White products in New York.  The basis for all three claims is the
Defendant's claim that its Optic White products go beyond surface
stains to deeply whiten teeth, which the Plaintiff alleges is
false and misleading.

Before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss or stay the
case.

The Defendant first argues that the Plaintiff's claims under state
law are expressly preempted by the Food Drug & Cosmetics Act
("FDCA"), and should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  It argues that as both a drug and a
cosmetic, its Optic White products are subject to "broad"
regulation by the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").  Where
federal law specifically regulates the subject matter of a
plaintiff's state law claims, and those claims seek to impose
requirements not identical to federal requirements, those state
law claims are preempted.  The Defendant argues that state law
claims are preempted whenever they would add labeling restrictions
or requirements beyond those in the FDCA, even where the FDA has
not specifically addressed the label claims at issue.

The Court finds that the Defendant has thus not identified any
federal requirements applicable to its Optic White products beyond
the FDCA's general prohibition against false and misleading
labeling.  Because that general prohibition is identical to the
requirement the Plaintiff seeks to impose through her claims under
state law, those claims are not expressly preempted.

Even if the Plaintiff's claims are not preempted, the Defendant
argues that they should be stayed or dismissed under the primary
jurisdiction doctrine, given that the FTC is currently
investigating the issue of which the Plaintiff complains.  The
Court says the Defendant is correct that because the FTC is
currently in the process of reviewing the validity of the exact
claims at issue in this litigation, the risk that it would be
subjected to inconsistent rulings is particularly high.  This
factor also favors deferring decision to the FTC, given its
ongoing investigation as to whether the claims at issue are
supported.  The Court finds that a stay is appropriate here to
protect the Plaintiff should she wish to pursue the matter
following the FTC's action.

For the reasons stated, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the case.  This case is stayed until the conclusion of the
FTC's investigation.  The Defendant is to provide status updates
every six months (and promptly upon the conclusion of the FTC
inquiry).  The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending
motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2017 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/fgmJA6 from Leagle.com.

Lori Canale, Plaintiff, represented by Frederick John Klorczyk --
fklorczyk@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A..

Lori Canale, Plaintiff, represented by Philip Lawrence Fraietta --
pfraietta@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. & Joseph Ignatius
Marchese -- jmarchese@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A..

Melissa L Vigil, Movant, represented by Jeffrey R. Krinsk,
Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP.

Colgate-Palmolive Co., Defendant, represented by Nathaniel Jacob
Kritzer -- nathaniel.kritzer@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Richard William Nicholson, Jr. -- richard.nicholson@kirkland.com -
- Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Robyn Eileen Bladow --
rbladow@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &Ellis LLP.


CONAGRA: Seeks Reversal of GMO Cooking Oil Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Mateusz Perkowski, writing for Capital Press, reports that a legal
dispute over labeling vegetable oil as "natural" even though it
contains genetically engineered ingredients could have
repercussions for other food-related class action lawsuits.

Earlier this year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a
lawsuit against the Conagra food processing company to proceed as
a class action, which means numerous consumers who bought its
Wesson vegetable oil can join in the litigation.

The complaint alleges that Conagra deceived consumers with labels
claiming the oil was "100% Natural" despite being derived from
genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, which aren't considered
natural.

Conagra now wants the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the class
action designation because there's no way to "efficiently and
reliably identify" the millions of people who've bought Wesson oil
over the past decade.

"That left only one other possible source of information about the
transactions -- consumers' memories of low-value grocery store
purchases, recalled years later in hopes of a cash reward,"
Conagra said in its Supreme Court review request.

Apart from having implications for foods containing GMOs, the
lawsuit is seen by food manufacturers as emblematic of a broader
problem with litigation over labeling.

The number of lawsuits over food labels has "ballooned" over the
past decade, increasing from fewer than 20 federal class actions
to more than 400, according to the Grocery Manufacturers
Association.

"Some of these lawsuits raise claims so frivolous they border on
comical: Do consumers really think that the name 'Froot Loops'
means that the cereal is made of fruit? Are coffee drinkers really
surprised to learn that iced lattes, in fact, contain some ice?"
GMA said in a court brief.  "But to defendants facing the
settlement pressure that comes with a certified class, the
explosion of food and beverage litigation is no laughing matter."

Although class certification doesn't mean the plaintiffs have won
the case, courts have recognized the designation tremendously
increases potential financial liability -- to the point where
companies often decide to settle questionable cases they'd
otherwise prefer to fight.

Conagra, GMA and other business groups believe the nation's
highest court should review the GMO vegetable oil case due to a
"circuit split" among federal appellate courts.

There's no requirement for plaintiffs to reliably identify a
multitude of class members in the 9th Circuit, 6th Circuit and 7th
Circuit, but such a test exists in the 2nd Circuit, 3rd Circuit,
4th Circuit and 11th Circuit, they argue.

California federal courts are particularly popular among food
labeling plaintiffs, with roughly two-thirds of such class actions
filed in that state.

Very similar cases "sail through" class certification in some
jurisdictions while they're blocked in others, according to
Conagra.

Food manufacturers claim this "circuit split" has undermined the
uniformity of food labeling rules set by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration that are meant to provide companies with regulatory
certainty across the country.

"Yet, the circuit split encourages plaintiffs to continue to
deputize California federal courts as food labeling agencies on
matters within the agency's purview," the GMA said.

The plaintiffs in the Conagra case have urged the Supreme Court
against reviewing the lawsuit, arguing that the "circuit split"
isn't severe and will likely be resolved by appellate courts on
their own.

The requirements for class action status sought by Conagra would
effectively "place allegations of widespread consumer fraud beyond
the reach of the legal system," the plaintiffs claim in a court
brief.

Identifying class members before a class is certified is
premature, since the total damages owed by the company can be
calculated without knowing the identity of specific people, the
plaintiffs said. [GN]


DEJA VU SERVICES: Settlement in Exotic Dancers' Suit Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III, of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan granted final approval of
settlement and Plaintiffs' request for attorney fees and costs in
the case captioned, JANE DOE 1-2, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DEJA VU SERVICES,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-10877 (E.D. Mich.).

In a collective and class action complaint, Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1
and 2 alleged that Defendants Deja Vu Services, Inc., DV Saginaw,
LLC, Harry Mohney, and Deja Vu affiliated nightclubs violated of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, state
wage and hour laws, and the California Business and Professions
Code.

Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants intentionally misclassified
class members as independent contractors, refused to pay minimum
wage, unlawfully required employees to split gratuities, and
unlawfully deducted employee wages through rents, fines, and
penalties.

The parties reached a settlement and filed a motion to transfer
the case to the Court, because the proposed settlement affected
the parties' rights and obligations under the Cin-Lan settlement.
On February 7, 2017, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
proposed settlement because it suffered from no obvious
deficiencies and appeared to fall within "the range of possible
approval."

After the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Final Approval of
Settlement, and an Amended Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs the
Court received five objections: from C.T. (represented by W. Allen
McDonald), B.D (represented by Daniel Arciniegas), Eva Cabrera and
Brittney Halverson (represented by Guy Conti and Harold Lichten),
Stephanie Sage (not represented by counsel), and Merry Clark (also
not represented by counsel). The major point of contention between
the parties and the objectors is whether the settlement adequately
compensates class members for release of their claims. And second,
the objectors contend that, given the value of the claims
released, the settlement vastly under-compensates class members.

In an Opinion dated June 19, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/Qpa5pH from Leagle.com, Judge Murphy found that (1)
the high risk of continued litigation and the uncertain likelihood
of success on the merits weigh heavily in favor of approval, (2)
the parties have provided the "best notice that is practicable
under the circumstances"; (3) the proposed class settlement is
fair, reasonable and adequate; and (4) request for attorney fees
is reasonable.

The Court dismissed Defendants' motion to dismiss or stay
proceedings in favor of arbitration and for attorney fees and
costs.

Jane Doe 2, et al. are represented by Jason J. Thompson, Esq. --
jthompson@sommerspc.com -- and -- Jesse L. Young, Esq. --
jyoung@sommerspc.com -- SOMMERS SCHWARTZ

            --

      Megan Bonanni, Esq.
      Rachael Elizabeth Kohl, Esq.
      PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS PC
      117 W 4th St #200,
      Royal Oak, MI 48067
      Tel: (248)398-9800

Deja Vu Consulting, Inc, et al. are represented by Bradley J.
Shafer, Esq. -- bshafer@swartzcampbell.com -- and -- Matthew J.
Hoffer, Esq. -- mhoffer@swartzcampbell.com -- SHAFER AND ASSOC

Eva Cabrera, et al. are represented by Harold Lichten, Esq. --
hlichten@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC


DICOM MIDWEST: Failed to Pay Earned Wages, "Grady" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA GRADY, on his own behalf and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DICOM MIDWEST, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 17-1885-F (Mass. Super. Ct., June 12, 2017),
seeks to recover all compensation not properly remitted, non-
discretionary treble damages, and an award of attorney's fees
under Massachusetts Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant, hired to deliver
Amazon packages -- he brings this matter on his own behalf, and on
behalf of those individuals similarly situated, alleging that he
was denied the payment of earned wages and overtime premiums. The
Plaintiff and those similarly situated allege that the Defendant's
unlawful and inexplicable failure to furnish earned wages for each
and every hour actually worked is a violation of the Massachusetts
Wage Act.

Dicom is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking
company running freight hauling business from Woburn,
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Bace, Esq.
          BACE LAW GROUP, LLC
          PO Box 9316
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (508) 922 8328
          E-mail: mjb@bacelaw.com

               - and -

          John R. Bita, III, Esq.
          Tempus Fugit Law LLC
          183 State Street, 2nd Floor
          Telephone: (617) 538 5407
          E-mail: jrb@bitalaw.com


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Affirms Rulings in "Child Find" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DL, ET AL., Appellees, v. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL., Appellants, No. 16-7076
(D.C. Cir.), Judge David S. Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's
rulings in all respects.

In 2005, the parents of six children, ages three to six, sued the
District of Columbia, alleging that it was violating the "Child
Find" requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act by failing to provide special education to their children and
hundreds of other preschoolers with disabilities.  The district
court certified the suit as a class action under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, found the District liable, and entered a
comprehensive injunction designed to bring the District into
compliance with IDEA.  On appeal, the District argues that the
case has become moot because the six named Plaintiffs are no
longer toddlers with a stake in the requested relief.  The
District also challenges the class certification and argues that
the injunction exceeds the district court's authority.

In this case, the mootness issue stems neither from the lack of
real dispute nor from any deficiency in the parents' advocacy, but
rather from judicial error.  The separation of powers concerns
that animate justiciability jurisprudence are absent in this
context.  In Geraghty, the Court emphasized that the two elements
of a justiciable controversy can exist with respect to class
certification notwithstanding the fact that the named Plaintiff's
claim on the merits has expired.  Both elements remain present
here.  Having concluded that the relation back doctrine applies,
the Court have no need to consider whether the parents' claims
also fall under the "inherently transitory" exception to mootness.
It thus turned to the District's challenge to class certification.

To certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2), a single injunction must
be able to provide relief to each member of the class.  The
district court's comprehensive order does just that.  Rule
23(b)(2) exists so that parties and courts, especially in civil
rights cases like this, can avoid piecemeal litigation when common
claims arise from systemic harms that demand injunctive relief.
The Rule 23(b)(2) class action, in other words, was designed for
exactly this sort of suit.

This brings the Court to the District's challenges to the
injunction.  It finds that it is true that courts may remedy
certain IDEA disputes, such as a parent's claim that a child's IEP
is defective, only through "individualized" relief.  But to argue,
as does the District, that this limitation also applies to
violations of the Child Find requirement ignores that, unlike a
parent worried about her child's IEP, the parents in this case
challenge systemic defects in the District's identification and
eligibility determination policies, which harm all unidentified
preschoolers and can only be remedied by a comprehensive
injunction designed to bring the District into compliance with
IDEA.

Having considered each of the District's challenges, the Court is
convinced that the district court made no mistake.  So long as the
District of Columbia accepts federal funding, it is bound to its
pledge to find, evaluate, and serve all children with
disabilities.  The district court neither erred nor abused its
discretion in holding the District to its word.  The Court
affirmed in all respects.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/KcyjHM from Leagle.com.

Lucy E. Pittman, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General for the District of Columbia, argued the cause
for appellants. With her on the briefs were Karl A. Racine,
Attorney General, Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General, and Loren L.
AliKhan, Deputy Solicitor General.

Todd A. Gluckman -- tgluckman@tpmlaw.com -- argued the cause for
appellees. With him on the brief were Margaret A. Kohn --
argaret.Kohn07@gmail.com -- Cyrus Mehri -- cmehri@findjustice.com
-- Carolyn S. Pravlik -- cansay@torcivialaw.com -- and Patrick A.
Sheldon -- psheldon@FoUm.law.

Iris Y. Gonz†lez, Daniel B. Kohrman, Kelly R. Bagby, Sharon
Krevor-Weissbaum -- skw@browngold.com -- Ira A. Burnim, Mary Nell
McGarity Clark, and Martha Jane Perkins were on the brief for
amici curiae AARP, et al. in support of appellees. Jon M.
Greenbaum -- jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org -- entered an
appearance.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: WMATA Wins Summary Judgment in "Dawson"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ARTHUR DAWSON et al., Plaintiffs, v.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant, Civil
Action No. 15-2092 (RBW) (D.D.C.), Judge Reggie B. Walton of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the
Defendants motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action against the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, commonly known as
WMATA, asserting claims for breach of their employment contracts.
Between 2012 and 2015, the Plaintiffs were employed by WMATA as
supervisors.  They claim that WMATA's Metro Policy/Instruction
7.5.1, constitutes a contract mandating that they, as supervisors,
be paid at an amount equal to or greater than 5% of their direct
reports, and that WMATA has breached the alleged contract by
refusing to pay them according to the 5% differential.

In relevant part, the Policy states that it is structured to
address base salary adjustments using two distinct approaches: (a)
comprehensive salary review and (b) individual salary adjustments.
The Complaint places at issue only the comprehensive salary review
component of WMATA's salary adjustment approach.  Pertinent to
this dispute, the Policy further states that compression occurs
when a supervisor or manager experiences less than a 5% higher pay
differential between their salary and that of their highest paid
direct reporting subordinate.

According to the Policy, comprehensive salary adjustments are
subject to budgetary conditions and approval by the General
Manager/Chief Executive Officer who retains the discretion to
modify, change, or expand the salary structure.  Moreover, for
fiscal considerations or circumstances deemed to be in the best
interests of WMATA, the General Manager may establish a cap or
limitation on general comprehensive salary adjustment amounts.

WMATA's answer to the complaint denied that the Policy constitutes
a contract.  Currently pending before the Court is Defendant
WMATA's motion for Summary Judgment, in which it asserts that the
Plaintiffs' claims must fail because no contract exists which is a
prerequisite for establishing the alleged breach.  The Court
therefore ordered the parties to conduct discovery on the question
of whether a valid and enforceable contract exists, and to file
motions for summary judgment on this threshold, dispositive issue.

Upon a review of the Policy, the Court concludes that its clear
language demonstrates that it does not create a contract between
the Plaintiffs and WMATA that mandates the 5% pay differential.
It has long been true that to form a binding agreement, both
parties must have the distinct intention to be bound; without such
intent, there can be no assent and therefore no contract.  For the
reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs
have failed to carry their burden to establish that a valid and
enforceable contract was created between them and WMATA, because
the Policy does not show that WMATA intended to be bound by the 5%
pay differential as the plaintiffs claim.  The Court therefore
granted WMATA's motion for summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2017 memorandum opinion
is available at https://is.gd/uFKwzc from Leagle.com.

ARTHUR DAWSON, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Kenney, DK
ASSOCIATES, LLC.

ARTHUR DAWSON, Plaintiff, represented by Morris Eli Fischer --
morris@mfischerlaw.com -- MORRIS E. FISCHER, LLC.

RONALD MOORE, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Kenney, DK
ASSOCIATES, LLC & Morris Eli Fischer, MORRIS E. FISCHER, LLC.

GREGORY PETERS, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Kenney, DK
ASSOCIATES, LLC & Morris Eli Fischer, MORRIS E. FISCHER, LLC.

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant,
represented by Clifton M. Mount, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA
TRANSIT AUTHORITY & Janice Lynn Cole, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA
TRANSIT AUTHORITY.


DIVINE QUALITY: Faces "Capote" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
LEONARDO CAPOTE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiffs, v. DIVINE QUALITY CARE, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, and VENISHIA Q. JORDAN, individually
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-22173-JLK (S.D. Fla., June 9, 2017),
alleges that Defendants have violated the wage and hour provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act by depriving Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees of payment of overtime wages.
Throughout his employment, Plaintiff, and other similarly situated
employees, regularly worked for Defendants in excess of forty (40)
hours per week.

Defendants perform care and health related services that utilize,
in part, equipment, tools, goods, machinery, computers,
telephones, phone systems, and other materials and supplies to
engage in interstate commerce.  Plaintiff work for Defendants in
the course of his utilizing equipment, tools, machinery, buckets,
medical products, and other medical goods and supplies that moved
through interstate commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jose A. Socorro, Esq.
     SOCORRO LAW, PA
     355 Alhambra Circle, Suite 801
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 444-6628
     Fax: (305) 444-6627
     Email: jose@socorrolaw.com


DNC SERVICES: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Mason, writing for Breitbart, reports that backers of Bernie
Sanders are suing the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for
fraud based on last summer's hacks revealing systemic bias for
Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary campaign.

The class-action lawsuit, Wilding v. DNC Services Corp., is
underway in federal court in Florida, where it is awaiting a
ruling on the DNC's motion to dismiss heard in April.  The
plaintiff class, Bernie donors who also gave money to the DNC
under the assumption of its impartiality in the 2016 primary
contest between Clinton and Sanders.  The suit alleges fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and a consumer
protection violation.

The claims are based on the celebrated leaked emails and memos
from the "Guccifer 2.0" hacks last June.  The leaks appear to show
direct assistance of Secretary Clinton to the detriment of Senator
Sanders.  The novel legal theory is based on the donors having
been duped by the DNC's claims of impartiality.

Attorney Jared Beck -- jared@beckandlee.com -- of Beck & Lee Trial
Lawyers, the firm representing the class of Bernie supporters,
spoke with Breitbart News about the developing case and the
surrounding controversies.

The entire case shot into the public eye when, according to a
notice Beck & Lee filed with the court, their office received a
call asking for information about the case from a person using a
voice-altering device.  A quick lookup of the number revealed it
was from a number associated with the congressional office of DNC
Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL).  The DNC's
attorney's quickly denied any knowledge of the incident, claim the
number is from an unused office and is possibly the result of
number "spoofing" by an outside source.

Asked about the call, Mr. Beck told Breitbart News:

"The incident was startling at the time it happened and we are
still very puzzled and concerned by it.  The caller had altered
his or her voice to be unrecognizable, and refused to identify
themselves.  But please understand that this is just one  in a
number of disturbing events that have occurred  throughout the
case . . . I have no idea who was behind the call, but according
to the Defendants, the matter has been referred to the Capitol
Police."

As for the case itself, Mr. Beck was confident that general common
law principles of fraud and misrepresentation could sustain the
Bernie-donors' claim. "If there is anything "new," it is the
application of these principles to the sphere of political
campaigns," he said.

Mr. Beck went on to describe that application as follows:

     "One might view this application as a natural consequence of
Citizens United -- an opinion that crystallizes campaign
contributions as the quintessential form of American political
participation.  By equating political participation with financial
contribution, Citizens United, by inference, incorporates all of
the common-law principles of fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
etc. that typically govern in the economic sphere.  Americans have
a cognizable interest in the transparent and fair conduct of
primary campaigns precisely because they, through their campaign
contributions, are also financiers of the campaign."

Asked to make an analogy to a more traditional case of fraud
outside the political realm, Mr. Beck compared the DNC's actions
with a "Ponzi-scheme," in which investors buy in based on
fraudulent returns that are really just earlier investors:

      "I would think of this as a case against the ultimate
political Ponzi scheme.  We are used to the concept of Ponzi
schemes in the investment world.  In my view, the DNC is really no
different: it was purporting to be "selling" a fair primary
process but in reality was serving as a front for the Hillary
Clinton campaign. People lost well over $200 million as a result."

Mr. Beck told Breitbart News that there bringing the facts of the
DNC's conduct to light:

     "There are two main goals to the litigation: obtaining
justice for our clients through whatever legal remedies are
available; and having a trial on the issues, so that the public
may know the truth of what happened with respect to the 2016
Democratic nominating process."

The circumstances by which the DNC leaks came to light, allegedly
by hacks by Russian government agents, has been a major public
controversy for nearly a year.  If the case survives the motion to
dismiss, discovery will begin, potentially bringing a trove of new
information to light about the DNC's internal operations and how
they came to be the apparent victim of Russian hacking.

Mr. Beck was optimistic about the prospects for discovery:

     "If we do get to the discovery phase, I think it is safe to
say that we expect to find much more evidence of the DNC's
misconduct, with the publicly released material being only the tip
of the iceberg.  Also, we will be able to place all of the
material witnesses under oath and take their depositions.  In
addition, we will be able to conduct discovery on the question of
how the DNC's internal documents came to be placed into the public
domain by Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, which may ultimately be the
most important question of all."

It is unclear when the court will rule on the motion to dismiss
but Judge William Zloch told the parties in April it would "take
some time." [GN]


DICK SMITH: Faces Shareholder Class Action Following Collapse
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Peters, writing for Daily Mail Australia, reports
that Dick Smith shareholders have launched a multimillion-dollar
class action lawsuit claiming they were deceived about the failed
electronics store's financial position.

Close to 1,000 shareholders, with losses ranging from just $500 to
several million dollars, allege they were misled by the company
before its collapse in January 2016.

Compensation lawyers Bannister Law -- who have represented
shareholders in high-profile class actions against Volkswagen,
Ford and Bet365 -- will file the class action in the Supreme Court
of New South Wales.

"We actually really do think that the shareholders were deceived
and were not told the correct information that they needed to be
able to have to make an informed decision," lawyer Diane Chapman
told the ABC.

"The shareholders were treated very badly -- they had a right to
correct information to make an informed decision on the Australian
share market.

The class action is open to shareholders who purchased Dick Smith
shares between November 25, 2013 and January 4, 2016.

One of the shareholders hoping to be reimbursed for his losses is
airline baggage handler Paul Handley, from Sydney.

The father-of-two said he had lost $3,800 -- almost a third of his
portfolio -- after getting 'sucked in' to buying shares with the
electronics retailer.

"That $3,800 was a month's wages for me.  I can think of better
things to do with $3,800 -- holidays or school fees or just
putting some food on the table," he said.

The class action is in addition to claims filed earlier this year
in the Federal Court by Dick Smith's lenders, National Australia
Bank and HSBC.

The banks have accused the company of buying 'bad stock' to
inflate income and earnings.

Dick Smith went into voluntary administration in January 2016
after failing to secure a funds injection from its banks. [GN]


DISCOVERY METALS: Piper Alderman Files Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Ryan, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that Piper
Alderman, together with litigation funder Litigation Capital
Management Limited, have announced a proposed shareholder class
action on behalf of all shareholders of Discovery Metals Limited.

The proposed class action is on behalf of all shareholders of
Discovery Metals Limited (in liquidation) who have held shares in
the company from November 23, 2012 to February 15, 2013, according
to a statement from the firm.

It comes after an independent valuation of Discovery Metals
Limited that was prepared by KPMG Financial Advisory Services
(Australia) Pty Ltd released to the market on November 23, 2012.

"The valuation was commissioned by the DML's board to support a
recommendation to shareholders in respect of an off-market,
takeover bid received from Cathay Fortune Investment Limited
seeking to acquire all of the ordinary shares in the mining
company for $830 million at $1.70 per share in October 2012,"
Piper Alderman said.

"KPMG concluded in its report, among other things, that the fair
market value of a DML share, inclusive of a full premium for
control, was within the range of $1.74 to $2.11 per share.  At the
time DML shares were trading at around $1.65.

"Referencing the KPMG valuation, the DML Board recommended
shareholders reject the takeover bid on the basis that the offer
of $1.70 per share did not reflect the full value of the business
and was fair and reasonable."

The firm noted that had the offer been accepted by all
shareholders, approximately $827 million would have been paid by
the bidder.

"Following the bid, the share price rapidly declined.  By April
18, 2013, DML's average share price was $0.34 and by May 21, 2013,
it was $0.20. The share price never recovered and on  February 27,
2015, DML entered into voluntary administration," the statement
read.

According to Piper Alderman, the proposed class action alleged the
KPMG valuation was flawed including the fact that KPMG applied,
without justification, a 40 per cent uplift to the low-end
technical value of DML's primary asset, a copper mine in Botswana
(the Boseto Project).

"This technical value had been determined by SRK Consulting
(Australasia) Pty Ltd (SRK).  The application of this uplift
resulted in KPMG's low-end fair value of DML being US$268.4
million higher than the low-end technical value of the Boseto
Project as valued by SRK," the firm said.

Further commenting on the matter at hand, Piper Alderman partner
Simon Morris said that: "In our considered view, but for the flaws
in KPMG's approach to valuing DML, KPMG would have formed and
expressed the opinion that the takeover offer of $1.70 per share
was fair and reasonable".

"We believe that shareholders who suffered loss and damage as a
result of reliance on the flawed KPMG valuation have causes of
action against KPMG in negligence and for breach of relevant
provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

"These claims will be fully funded by LCM. Under the LCM funding
agreement, a DML shareholder who participates in the action will
not be required to pay any fees unless the claim is successful."
[GN]


DOM'S LAWNMAKER: Gonzalez Sues over Wage and Hour Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DOM'S LAWNMAKER, INC. AND
DOMINICO D'ALONZO, as an individual, the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-03519-ADS-SIL (E.D.N.Y., June 12, 2017), seeks to recover
compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding
$100,000 for violations of state and federal wage and hour laws
arising out of Plaintiff's employment at Dom's Lawnmaker, Inc.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not compensated for
his hours in excess of 32 hours each work week for Defendants from
November 2014 until November 2016.

Dom's Lawnmaker was founded in 1974. The company's line of
business includes providing a variety of lawn and garden
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263 9591


EGUMBALL INC: Violates TCPA, Abante Rooter Class Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING INC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. EGUMBALL, INC.; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 3:17-cv-03245-JSC (N.D. Cal., June 6,
2017), seeks damages and other remedies resulting from the alleged
illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and
willfully contacting the Plaintiff on its cellular telephone, as
well as on its residential telephone, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Egumball, Inc., is an internet marketing company.  The true names
and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EJR LOGISTICS: "LICEA" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO LICEA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. EJR LOGISTICS, INC. and PETER J. STEIN
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04479 (N.D. Ill.,
June 14, 2017), seeks to recover overtime pay and all earned wages
for all time worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a "truck
driver" for Defendants. The Defendants did not compensate
Plaintiff at the rate of one and one half time their regular rate
for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in individual work
weeks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELGIN MENTAL: Faces "Nadzhafaliyev" Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elgin Mental Health
Center. The case is captioned as Ali Nadzhafaliyev; Sean
Gunderson; Paul Olsson; Abby Grason; James Baker; Mark Owens;
Daniel Padilla, Other Similarly situated Detainees who fear
retaliation for Participating; and All residents/detainees of the
Elgin Mental Health Center, Elgin, Illinois, the Plaintiffs, v.
Daniel Hardy; Coleen Delaney; Brian Dawson; Jeff Pharis; Danette
Jungles; Bill Epperson; Dr. Langely; Debbie Giardina; Richard
Malis; Rhyma Jacobson; Tom Comeford; Daniel Malone; Jeff Pilario;
Anderson Freeman; Penny Sanchez; Lorrie Campbell; Sharon Coleman;
Carmen Carter; Naina Desai; Ghouse Mouhoudini, in his official &
individual capacities; and Elgin Mental Health Center, an Illinois
Agency; and Daniel Dyslin, in his official capacity(ies) as
general Counsel and legal oversight official for the lllinois
Department of Human Services, & the Elgin Mental Health Center &
his individual capacity, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04469
(N.D. Ill., June 13, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Jorge L. Alonso.

Elgin Mental Health Center is a mental health facility.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


EVANS CONSTRUCTION: "Alexander" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EVANS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00046-GFVT (E.D. Ky., June 14, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant pays straight time for
overtime to its hourly laborers. The Plaintiffs are paid an hourly
wage. The Defendant did not pay Plaintiffs time and half for hours
worked over forty in a workweek. The Plaintiffs regularly work
over 40 hours a week and receive only their regular rate of pay
for overtime.

The Defendant provides personnel to power plants, maintenance
facilities and offices to assist with day to day operations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          333 W Vine St Ste 1200
          Lexington, KE 40507
          Telephone: (859) 286 8368
          E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com


FCA US: Court Lieff Cabraser Lead Atty in Products Liability Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California appointed Lead Counsel and members
of the Steering Committee in the case captioned, IN RE CHRYSLER-
DODGE-JEEP ECODIESEL MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 17-md-02777-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

On April 14, 2017, the Court issued Pretrial Order No. 1 in which
it, inter alia, set a hearing date for selection of Plaintiffs'
Lead Counsel and Steering Committee. The Court received more than
thirty applications in response.

In a Pretrial Order dated June 19, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/umv0qQ from Leagle.com, Judge Chen appointed
Elizabeth J. Cabraser of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein as
Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel and Chair of the Steering Committee
(PSC).

Lead Counsel is expected to consult and work collaboratively with
the PSC in decision-making.

Steve W. Berman of Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro LLP, David S.
Casey of Casey, Gerry, Schenk, Francavilla, Blatt & Penfield LLP,
Rachel L. Jensen of Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd LLP, W. Daniel
(Dee) Miles, III of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles
P.C., Joseph F. Rice of Motley Rice LLC, Lynn Lincoln Sarko of
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Stacey P. Slaughter of Robins Kaplan LLP,
Roland Tellis of Baron Budd, P.C. and Lesley E. Weaver of
Bleichmar, Fonti & Auld LLP are appointed as members of the PSC.
Leigh P. Rende of the Environmental Enforcement Section,
Environment and Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department
of Justice is appointed as Government Coordinating Counsel for the
interests of the United States.

Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel must (1) file a protocol for attorneys'
fees, expenses, and/or costs for the Court's approval; (2) meet
and confer to discuss adoption of a hearing transcript protocol
similar to that adopted in the VW multidistrict litigation; (3)
file a consolidated amended complaint within thirty (30) days of
the date of the order;  and (4) file a response to the U.S.
Government's complaint no later than the filing of Defendants'
response to the Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint.

The Court will hold a case management conference on Tuesday,
August 8, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. A joint case management conference
statement shall be filed no later than a week prior to the
conference.

Miguel Fragoso, et al. are represented by Derek W. Loeser, Esq. --
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. --
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Esq. --
jlewis@kellerrohrback.com -- Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. --
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- and -- Ryan McDevitt, Esq. --
rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP -- Steve W.
Berman, Esq. -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP -- Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq. -- bbailey@baileyglasser.com --
BAILEY AND GLASSER, LLP --  Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Esq. --
ecabraser@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP --
James E. Cecchi, Esq. -- JCecchi@carllabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE
CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, PC

Gregory Giauque is represented by Jessica Thompson, Esq. --
jessicat@hbsslaw.com -- Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. --
shanas@hbsslaw.com -- and -- Steve W. Berman, Esq. --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP -- Theodore
Jon Leopold, Esq. -- tleopold@cohenmilstein.com -- and -- Andrew
N. Friedman, Esq. -- afriedman@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN
SELLERS & TOLL PLLC -- Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. --
cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- Jennifer Rebecca Scullion, Esq. --
jscullion@seegerweiss.com -- and -- Scott Alan George, Esq. --
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- SEEGER WEISS LLP

FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, et al. are
represented by Amie Adelia Vague, Esq. -- avague@lightfootlaw.com
-- LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE -- Kyle Allen Niemi, Esq. --
NIEMEK@sullcrom.com -- Darrell Scott Cafasso, Esq. --
cafassod@sullcrom.com -- Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Esq. --
guffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sharon L. Nelles, Esq. --
nelless@sullcrom.com -- and -- William B. Monahan, Esq. --
monahanw@sullcrom.com -- SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL LLP

Robert Bosch LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant,
represented by Matthew D. Slater, Esq. -- mslater@cgsh.com -- and
-- Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr., Esq. -- cboccuzzi@cgsh.com -- CLEARY
GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: 8th Cir. Reverses Antitrust Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the
district court's decision to dismiss the case captioned, In re: In
Re: Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litigation. Hartig Drug
Company; Jason Moore's Texaco, L.L.C., doing business as Moore's
Texaco; Mario Ortiz; Stephen Morrison; Steven Tseffos; Glenville
Shell, LLC; Zarco USA, Inc.; AQ Investments, LLC; LJax
Enterprises, Inc.; J & V Management, LLC; Butch's Central Coastal,
Inc.; Zerka's Party Store, Inc.; OM Commercial Neenah Oil, Inc.;
CCLAS, Inc.; Hopewell Exxon, LLC; Tuban Petroleum, LLC; 33 and a
Third, LLC; Tuban 610, LLC; Highway 182, LLC; West Main Street,
LLC; Roth's Country Corner, Inc.; 1919 Airline Hwy., LLC; East
Airline, LLC; Gramercy Cheap Smokes, LLC; Conti's Service Center,
Inc.; Route 49 Gas & Go, Inc.; Surinder Kaur, Inc., Plaintiffs,
Morgan-Larson, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant. Ashville General Store,
Inc.; Sean Venezia; Michael S. Harvey; Gregory Ludvigsen; Arthur
Hull; Alan Rockwell; James Halgerson; Thomas R. Clark; Bryce
Mander; Alex Chernavsky; Arrow Hardware, LLC; Birdie's, Inc.; Alex
Chernavsky; Lochraven Sunoco, Inc.; American Auto Repair,
Plaintiffs, Johnson Auto Electric, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant.
Cedar Holly Investments, LLC; Tuckerton Lumber Company; Ace High
Auto Repair & Propane; CEFO Enterprise Corp.; Jon Wall, Inc.; RC
Gasoline, Plaintiffs, Speed Stop 32, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant.
Zarco USA, Inc.; Dunmore Oil Co., Inc.; JoJo Oil Co., Inc.;
Ekonomy Enterprises, Inc., Plaintiffs, Yocum Oil Company, Inc.,
Plaintiff-Appellant. v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. a limited
partnership; Ferrellgas, L.P. a limited partnership, doing
business as Blue Rhino; AmeriGas Partners, LP a limited
partnership; UGI Corporation; AmeriGas Propane, Inc., doing
business as AmeriGas Cylinder Exchange; AmeriGas Propane, LP,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 15-2789 (8th Cir.).

In 2009, a group of plaintiffs -- indirect purchasers who bought
tanks from retailers -- filed a class action alleging the
Defendants conspired to reduce the amount of propane in the tanks
while maintaining the price, in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and state antitrust and consumer protection laws.  In
2010, the parties settled.

In 2014, the Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint against
Defendants -- later settled -- for conspiring to artificially
inflate tank prices.  Later that year, the Plaintiffs in this case
-- direct purchasers who bought tanks directly from the Defendants
for resale -- sued.  They allege the Defendants colluded to
decrease the fill level of tanks and continued to charge
supracompetitive prices throughout the Class Period.

The district court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims as barred by
the statute of limitations.  On appeal, a divided panel of this
Court affirmed.  In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litig.,
as corrected (Aug. 25, 2016), reh'g en banc granted, opinion
vacated.  This Court granted rehearing en banc.

The amended complaint alleges sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to show a continuing violation to restart the statute of
limitations, and, therefore, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.  Because it is not clear from the face of
the complaint that the action is barred by the applicable
limitations period, the Eighth Circuit held that the district
court erred in granting the motion to dismiss.

Circuit Judge Shepherd, with whom Circuit Judges Wollman and
Loken, join, dissenting, and with whom Circuit Kelly, joins Parts
I.B and II of the dissent.

Circuit Judge Shepherd finds that the opinion incorrectly
interprets Supreme Court precedent, fails to hold the Plaintiffs'
complaint to the plausibility standard of Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, and ignores the purposes of the
antitrust statute of limitations.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/M2vtYW from Leagle.com.

Craig Steven O'Dear -- csodear@bryancave.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Richard Frank Lombardo -- RLombardo@sls-law.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

James Michael Ponder -- michaeljponder@gmail.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Dianne M. Nast -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Daniel E. Gustafson, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Daniel C. Hedlund, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Stephen D. Susman -- ssusman@susmangodfrey.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Solomon B. Cera -- scera@cerallp.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jay Norman Varon, for Defendant-Appellee.

Brandon J.B. Boulware -- brandonb@germanmay.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Thomas C. Bright --  tbright@cerallp.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

R. Bryant McCulley, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Stuart H. McCluer, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jeremy Suhr -- jeremys@germanmay.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Catesby Ann Major, for Defendant-Appellee.

Tracy Robb Hancock -- tracy.hancock@bryancave.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Daniel M. Wall -- dan.wall@lw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Jesse B. McKeithen -- jesse.mckeithen@lw.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Niall Edmund Lynch -- niall.lynch@lw.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.


FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: Wins Summary Judgment in "Ellis"
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge William G. Young of the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts granted Defendant's motion for summary
judgment in the case captioned, JAMES ELLIS and WILLIAM PERRY,
individually and as representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. FIDELITY MANAGEMENT TRUST
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 17-md-02777-EMC (D. Mass.).

In the class action, James Ellis (Ellis) and William Perry
(Perry), representing a class of similarly situated individuals
(collectively, the Plaintiffs), contend that Fidelity Management
Trust Company (Fidelity) mismanaged the Fidelity Group Employee
Benefit Plan Managed Income Portfolio (the Portfolio), breaching
its fiduciary duties pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) Section 404(a), 29 U.S.C. Section
1104(a).

On December 14, 2016, the Court granted Ellis and Perry's
unopposed motion to certify a class of "all participants in
defined contribution employee pension benefit plans within the
meaning of ERISA Section 3(2)(A), 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(2)(A),
who invested in the Portfolio from January 1, 2010 until the time
of trial." The Court allowed the class to pursue the Plaintiffs'
investment management claim, deeming their excessive fees claims
waived.

Fidelity moved for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' remaining
claim for breach of fiduciary duty contending that the Plaintiffs
have failed to establish a breach of either the duty of loyalty or
the duty of prudence.

In a Memorandum and Order dated June 19, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/8xFGQh from Leagle.com, Judge Young held that the
Plaintiffs have not made a sufficient showing for the Court to
continue to entertain the claims against Fidelity because
Plaintiffs failed to establish that Fidelity breached the duty of
prudence in responding to addressing the Portfolio's investment
performance.

James Ellis and William Perrry are represented by Garrett W.
Wotkyns, Esq. -- gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com -- Mark T. Johnson,
Esq. -- MJohnson@schneiderwallace.com -- Jason H. Kim, Esq. --
jkim@schneiderwallace.com -- Kyle G. Bates, Esq. --
kbates@schneiderwallace.com -- Michael C. Mckay, Esq. --
mmckay@schneiderwallace.com -- and -- Todd M. Schneider, Esq. --
tschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
BRAYTON KONECKY LLP -- Paul T. Sullivan, Esq. --
psullivan@zelle.com -- Rory D. Zamansky, Esq. --
rzamansky@zelle.com -- Jeffrey A. Gordon, Esq. --
jgordon@zelle.com -- and -- Heather T. Rankie, Esq. --
hrankie@zelle.com -- ZELLE LLP

Fidelity Management Trust Company is represented by Alison V.
Douglass, Esq. -- adouglass@goodwinlaw.com -- and -- John J.
Falvey, Jr., Esq. -- jfalvey@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
-- Brian D. Boyle, Esq. -- bboyle@omm.com -- Gregory Jacob, Esq.
-- gjacob@omm.com -- and -- Meaghan VerGow, Esq. --
mvergow@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP


FIELDTURF USA: Medford Sues over Artificial Turf Fields
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fieldturf USA Inc.
The case is entitled TOWNSHIP OF MEDFORD, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
FIELDTURF USA INC., a Florida Corporation; FIELDTURF INC., a
Canadian Corporation; TARKETT, INC., a Canadian Corporation; and
FIELDTURF TARKETT SAS, a French Corporation, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:17-cv-04338-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., June 14, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael A. Shipp.

The suit seeks to recover compensatory damages, statutory damage,
and all other forms of monetary and non-monetary relief
recoverable under state law.

The case is a federal class action case alleging massive fraud
"committed by an industry giant against those least able to bear
the cost."  According to the Complaint, between the early 2000's
and 2012, FieldTurf -- the manufacturer and seller of synthetic
grass turf -- knowingly sold synthetic grass turf fields
containing a defective monofilament fiber, a component used in
synthetic turf fields to form the grass-like fronds -- "Evolution
Fiber" -- to Plaintiff and hundreds of other U.S. consumers.

According to the complaint, the Artificial Turf Fields were and
are inherently defective due to the inferior and defective
Evolution Fiber, a defect that also renders the long-term
durability and promised performance of the fields impossible.
Despite knowing that the Artificial Turf Fields were defective,
FieldTurf marketed and sold its defective product with
representations that they would last for more than ten years, and
would not prematurely degrade.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          550 Broad Street, Suite 920
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 639 9100
          Facsimile: (973) 639 9393
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750 3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750 3364


FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Aug. 14 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, on June 20 announced the
filing of a class action lawsuit against FleetCor Technologies,
Inc. ("FleetCor" or the "Company") (NYSE: FLT) concerning possible
violations of federal securities laws between February 5, 2016 and
May 2, 2017 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period
should contact the firm prior to the August 14, 2017 lead
plaintiff motion deadline.

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

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

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, FleetCor
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that the Company owes its earnings and growth to overcharging
customers, disseminating misleading marketing materials, and
engaging in predatory sales practices.  When this information was
released, shares of FleetCor fell in value, causing investors harm
according to the Complaint.

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


FMS FINANCIAL: Faces "Hopson" Suit in District of New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FMS FINANCIAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC. The case is captioned as OSHA M. HOPSON, on behalf
of herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FMS
FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, DONNAMARIE MEYERS, and JOHN DOES 1 to
10, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04341-JMV-MF (D.N.J., June 14,
2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John Michael
Vazquez.

FMS Financial is a professional debt collection agency for both
medical collections and rent collections and financial services
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORD MOTOR: Settles Faulty Transmission Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Lisa Parker, writing for NBC 5, reports that cars that grind,
lurch, stutter and sometimes stop in the face of oncoming traffic:
over the last six years, owners of a best-selling cars in the U.S.
shared their concerns about what some called a safety defect.
Today, thousands who are affected get answers.
Owners of the 2011-2016 Ford Fiesta and 2012-2016 Ford Focus may
be eligible for a class action settlement with Ford.  As NBC5
Investigates first reported in 2015, hundreds of drivers
nationwide reported problems with the transmission in their cars,
some saying they no longer felt safe to drive.  Many expressed
frustration that Ford offered no recall or remedy to fix the
issue, despite growing complaints.

Now, Ford reached a settlement agreement with members of a class
action lawsuit, though the carmaker admitted no wrongdoing and
denied all the allegations in the suit -- including that it
intentionally sold a malfunctioning transmission in hundreds of
thousands of cars.

Are the terms of the settlement a good deal for affected drivers?
Not according to Chicago Lemon Law attorney Greg Moss, who has
filed more than 100 lawsuits on behalf of Focus and Fiesta owners.

"I really hope people take the time to look into other options
because cars are the second-most expensive investment outside of
your home and there's no reason to accept less than what your
maximum compensation should be," Mr. Moss said.

Mr. Moss says Ford has quietly settled hundreds of private
lawsuits involving the cars, paying out more money than is being
offered in the class settlement.

For its part, the carmaker told NBC5 Investigates:

"Ford is committed to providing our customers with top-quality
vehicles.  Ford denies all allegations in this lawsuit, but rather
than continuing with the litigation, has decided to settle the
case and to provide additional assistance to members of the
settlement class.  We cannot comment further on pending
litigation." [GN]


FTS USA: 6th Cir. Reverses Calculation of Damages in "Moore"
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district
court's certification of the case captioned EDWARD MONROE, FABIAN
MOORE, and TIMOTHY WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FTS USA, LLC
and UNITEK USA, LLC, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 14-6063 (6th
Cir.), as a collective action, allowance of representative
testimony at trial, and use of an estimated-average approach, and
reversed the district court's calculation of damages.

Edward Monroe, Fabian Moore, and Timothy Williams brought the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, against their employers, FTS USA, LLC
and its parent company, UniTek USA, LLC. FTS is a cable-television
business for which the plaintiffs work or worked as cable
technicians.

The district court certified the case as an FLSA collective
action, allowing 293 other technicians (collectively, FTS
Technicians) to opt in. FTS Technicians allege that FTS
implemented a company-wide time-shaving policy that required its
employees to systematically underreport their overtime hours. A
jury returned verdicts in favor of the class, which the district
court upheld before calculating and awarding damages.

FTS and UniTek challenge the certification of the case as a
collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), the
sufficiency of the evidence as presented at trial, the jury
instruction on commuting time, and the district court's
calculation of damages.

In a Decision dated June 19, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/5zTTlc from Leagle.com, the Sixth Circuit concluded
that the evidence here is sufficient to support the jury's verdict
that all FTS Technicians, both testifying and nontestifying,
performed work for which they were not compensated. As for the
damages calculation to be compensatory, the hourly rates must be
recalculated with the correct number of hours to ensure that FTS
Technicians receive the pay they would have received had there
been no violation.

The case is remanded to the district court for recalculation of
damages consistent with the opinion.

FTS USA, LLC is represented by Colin D. Dougherty, Esq. --
cdougherty@foxrothschild.com -- and -- Jonathan D. Christman, Esq.
-- jchristman@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP -- Miguel A.
Estrada, Esq. -- mestrada@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CUTCHER
LLP

Dward Monroe, Fabian Moore and Timothy Williams are represented by
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. -- srey@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP

            -- and --

      William B. Ryan, Esq.
      Bryce W. Ashby, Esq.
      DONATI LAW FIRM, LLP
      1545 Union Ave,
      Memphis, TN 38104
      Tel: (901)209-5500


GC SERVICES: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Smith"
-----------------------------------------
Judge Richard L. Young of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned, FRANCINA SMITH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GC SERVICES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership, and OWNERS RESOURCE
GROUP GC GP BUYER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants, Case No. 17-md-02777-EMC (S.D. Ind.).

Plaintiff, Francina Smith, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, claims the Defendants, GC Services
Limited Partnership and Owner Resource Group GC GP Buyer, LLC,
sent her and the putative class a debt collection letter that
violated various provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 .

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, filed on October 18, 2016, alleges
that Defendants violated Section 1692g by wrongfully informing
Plaintiff that disputes must be in writing when, in fact, an oral
dispute is valid. She alleges Defendants' letter also violated
Sections 1692e and 1692f because the statement -- that any dispute
of the debt must be in writing -- was false, deceptive, and
misleading, and unfair and unconscionable

Defendants move to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6).

In an Entry dated June 19, 2017 available at https://is.gd/tKtRSo
from Leagle.com, Judge Young found that Plaintiff has standing to
bring her claims under the FDCPA and that those claims plausibly
suggest a right to relief.

Francina Smith is represented by:

      Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S Roberts Rd
      # 1A, Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Tel: (708)974-2900

            -- and --

      David J. John Thomas Steinkamp, Esq.
      JOHN T. STEINKAMP AND ASSOCIATES
      5214 East Street, Suite D-1
      Indiana, IN 46227
      Tel: (317)649-4786

GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al. are represented by William
S. Helfand, Esq. -- Bill.Helfand@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS
BRISBOIS BISGAARD SMITH LLP


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Vazquez" Suit over Corvette Z06 Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL VAZQUEZ, MICHAEL MALONE, JONATHAN WHITE, BRIAN NAKEL,
JEDEDIAH BLANKS, and SAMEER HAMID, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-22209-DPG (S.D. Fla., June
13, 2017), seeks damages and other equitable relief.

According to the complaint, GM is aware of the defect and
suspended production of the Z06 for a period of time to find a
solution to the overheating issue, which it intended to
incorporate in the 2017 Z06.  GM claimed to have fixed the problem
in the 2017 model by switching to a new hood with larger vents and
a new supercharger cover.  However, this fix does not help
consumers with previous models and does not fix the problem. The
2017 still overheats and GM's only answer is to, after the fact,
warn owners that automatic transmissions have the potential for
overheating.  But GM cannot shift its warranty obligations onto
its customers.  If the Z06s need a different cooling system to
actually perform as advertised, then GM should retrofit the cars
with these components on its 2015 and 2016 models as well as fix
the 2017 model to allow the car to perform as promised.
Additionally, GM should address and remedy the problems to the
engine, transmission, drivetrain, and other parts that occur as a
result of these unintended overheating issues.

General Motors is an American multinational corporation
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, that designs, manufactures,
markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells
financial services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stuart Z. Grossman, Esq.
          Rachel Furst, Esq.
          GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN
          2525 Ponce de Leon, Suite 1150
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (888) 296-1681
          Facsimile: (305) 285-1668
          E-mail: szg@grossmanroth.com
                  rwf@grossmanroth.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Shelby Smith, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623 0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  shelbys@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jason D. Weisser, Esq.
          SCHULER, HALVORSEN, WEISSER,
          ZOLLER, OVERBECK
          1615 Forum Place, Suite 4
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 689 9180


GEORGIA: Faces "Dingler" Suit in Northern District of Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The State of
Georgia. The case is styled as Joseph Dingler and Ashton Dingler,
on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. The State of Georgia; GA Div. of Family & Children
Services; Dir. Bobby Cagle, DFCS; Fulton County Georgia, Family
Court; and Cathelene Tina Robinson, Clerk, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-02194-AT (N.D. Ga., June 14, 2017). The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg.

Georgia is a southeastern U.S. state whose terrain spans coastal
beaches, farmland and mountains.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GREYHOUND LINES: Faces National Federation Suit in N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greyhound Lines,
Inc. The case is captioned as National Federation of the Blind,
Greg DeWall, Ricardo Flores, Michael Hingson, Michael Richardson,
and Tina Thomas, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. and FirstGroup
America, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-03368-RS (N.D.
Cal., June 12, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Richard Seeborg.

Greyhound Lines is an intercity bus common carrier serving over
3,800 destinations across North America.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy Ryan Elder, Esq.
          TRE LEGAL PRACTICE
          4226 Castanos Street
          Fremont, CA 94536
          Telephone: (410) 415 3493
          Facsimile: (888) 718 0617
          E-mail: telder@trelegal.com

               - and -

          Lisa Adrienne Ells, Esq.
          Michael S. Nunez, Esq.
          ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
          50 Fremont Street, 19th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 433 6830
          Facsimile: (415) 433 7104
          E-mail: lells@rbgg.com
                  mnunez@rbgg.com


J CHOO USA: Wagner Appeals Ruling in "Wood" Suit to 11th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Interested Party Cynthia Wagner filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Kerri Wood v. J Choo USA, Inc., et
al., Case No. 9:15-cv-81487-BB, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, a would-be
class member in a proposed class action accusing luxury shoe brand
Jimmy Choo of printing sensitive data on credit card receipts has
objected to a proposed $2.5 million settlement, complaining about
the payouts to the named plaintiff and class counsel and raising
questions about their motivations.

Tennessee resident Cynthia Wagner filed an objection on March 17
in federal court in Miami seeking to upend the agreement reached
by plaintiff Kerri C. Wood and J Choo USA Inc. to resolve Wood's
potential nationwide class action.

The appellate case is captioned as Kerri Wood v. J Choo USA, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 17-12578, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or
      before June 30, 2017, as to Appellant Cynthia Wagner; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before July 5, 2017, as to Appellee Kerri C. Wood.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee KERRI C. WOOD, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Patrick Christopher Crotty, Esq.
          Sean Martin Holas, Esq.
          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS PA
          3800 S Ocean Dr., Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: Scott@ScottDOwens.com

               - and -

          Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
          Seth Lehrman, Esq.
          FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS & LEHMAN, PL
          425 N Andrews Ave., Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: steve@pathtojustice.com
                  seth@pathtojustice.com

               - and -

          Bret Leon Lusskin, Jr., Esq.
          BRET LUSSKIN PA
          20803 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 302
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (954) 454-5841
          Facsimile: (954) 454-5844
          E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com

Interested Party-Appellant CYNTHIA WAGNER is represented by:

          Wallace Allen McDonald, Esq.
          LACY PRICE & WAGNER, PC
          249 N Peters Rd., Suite 101
          Knoxville, TN 37923
          Telephone: (865) 246-0800
          E-mail: amcdonald@lpwpc.com

Defendant J CHOO USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, d.b.a. Jimmy
Choo, is represented by:

          Mark R. Cheskin, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          1835 Market St., 29th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 675-4664
          E-mail: mark.cheskin@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          James VanLandingham, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          600 Brickell Ave., Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 459-6658
          E-mail: james.vanlandingham@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Carol Ann Licko, Esq.
          STROOCK STROOCK & LAVAN, LLP
          200 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 789-9395


JUNO: Drivers File Class Action Over False Ride-Hail App Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J. Hawkins, writing for The Verge, reports that drivers
filed a federal class action lawsuit against so-called "driver-
friendly" ride-hail apps Gett and Juno, alleging contractual
breaches, intentional misrepresentations, false and deceptive
advertising, and stock fraud.

When it first launched in New York City in April 2016, Juno
positioned itself as the "anti-Uber," promising better earnings
and equity in the company to drivers.  Drivers flocked to the app,
instantly catapulting Juno to the top tiers of ride-hailing in New
York City.  But after it was acquired by the Tel Aviv-based Gett
for $200 million earlier this year, Juno nullified its equity
program with drivers, promising payouts to some drivers who had
accumulated shares with the company.

But drivers say those payouts reflect a dramatic devaluation of
their stock in the company, with some drivers receiving nothing
for their shares and others being cashed out at less than 2
percent per share.  In an email to drivers, Juno promised "a new
cash incentive plan," but drivers say the damage has already been
done.

"I told people all the time that they should ride Juno," said
Mohammed Siddique, one of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, in
a statement provided by his lawyer.  "I would tell them that I had
an ownership stake in the company.  But it was all a sham. Juno
needed us to get them going in New York City so they said and
offered whatever it took to get us to come, knowing that they had
no intention to live up to their end of the deal.  As soon as
someone put a big cash offer on the table, Juno forgot all about
the drivers that got them there."

Once Juno officially responds to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs will
"move swiftly" to get a judge to approve their class action
certification," attorney Mohammed Gangat told The Verge.  Once
that happens, the plaintiffs' lawyers can seek to recruit more
drivers in the hopes of bolstering their case.  Juno and Gett did
not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit is proof that ride-hail companies pitching themselves
as friendlier alternatives to Uber and Lyft are still not immune
to much of the upheaval that has plagued those apps.  Recently,
the Independent Drivers Guild of New York filed a formal complaint
against Gett and Juno with the Federal Trade Commission for
misleading drivers with false claims about earnings.  The FTC has
made rulings relevant to the ride-hail industry, ordering Uber to
pay $20 million to drivers to settle misleading claims about
earnings and financing. [GN]


K-MAC ENTERPRISES: Faces "Ash" Suit Under FLSA, Ark. Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
TONYA ASH, SOMER WILLIAMS and LAKEISHA TROTTER, Each Individually
and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, vs. K-MAC ENTERPRISES,
INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-385-DPM (E.D. Ark., June 9, 2017), seeks
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendant's failure to
pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated overtime
compensation for all hours that Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek as required
by the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act.

Defendant K-Mac Enterprises, Inc. is a fast food eatery company
headquartered in Fort Smith, Arkansas.  Defendant employed each of
the three named Plaintiffs at restaurants in Little Rock,
Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Tonya Ash, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Fax: (888) 787-2040


KALEO PHARMA: Law Firm Seeks Individuals for EVZIO Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frier Levitt on June 20 announced a search for individuals who
purchased EVZIO and any entity that sponsored a health plan or
prescription drug plan ("plan sponsor") that included EVZIO on its
"formulary" for potential legal action.  Kaleo Pharma ("Kaleo"),
manufacturer of EVZIO, may have been artificially inflating the
price of the device and causing purchasers and plan sponsors that
reimburse for the device to substantially overpay. Frier Levitt is
looking for individuals to serve as class action representatives
and plan sponsors to serve as plaintiffs to bring a claim for
damages against Kaleo and ultimately stop any practice that
results in overpayment for this critical device or harms the
intended beneficiaries of the device.

Kaleo, a Virginia-based pharmaceutical company, manufactures
EVZIO, the first and only FDA approved auto-injector in the
administration of naloxone hydrochloride, which is used for
emergency treatment of opioid overdose.  Since 2014, the cost of
the EVZIO injector has increased dramatically.  In 2014, the price
for a two pack of EVZIO was approximately $690.  Today, the same
two pack costs, in some cases, over $4,500.  Depending on the
circumstances, individuals and plan sponsors may have paid
hundreds or even thousands of dollars more than they should have
for a two pack of the device.

Individuals that purchased EVZIO between 2014 and today may have
claims against Kaleo for improper overpayment.  Frier Levitt is
looking to file a class action against Kaleo challenging the
substantial spike in the price of EVZIO and is looking for
patients to serve as class action representatives to bring a claim
for damages against Kaleo.  Upon success, class action
representatives are not only compensated for their loss, but also
receive payment for their service as a class action
representative.

Plan sponsors that paid for EVZIO between 2014 and today may also
have claims against Kaleo for improper overpayment.  Frier Levitt
is looking for plan sponsors to serve as plaintiffs to bring a
claim for damages against Kaleo.

Frier Levitt is looking to take legal action against Kaleo
challenging the substantial spike in the price of EVZIO. If you
are a patient or plan sponsor that paid for EVZIO between 2014 and
today, you are encouraged to contact attorney Lucas W. Morgan,
Esq. at lmorgan@frierlevitt.com or (973) 618-1660.

                  About Frier Levitt, LLC

Frier Levitt -- http://www.FrierLevitt.com-- is a national
boutique healthcare law firm.  Its 27 healthcare attorneys include
pharmacist-lawyers, class action attorneys, trial attorneys whose
practice concentrates in Healthcare and Pharmacy law. [GN]


KALOBIOS PHARMA: Ex-CEO Wins Dismissal of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 5:15-cv-05841-EJD (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, granted Defendant
Martin Shkreli's motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

Beginning in early January 2015, prior to the Class Period,
KaloBios was under severe financial distress, and by mid-2015, the
company's leadership began searching for other potential
investors.  On Nov. 5, 2015, KaloBios announced a 61% workforce
reduction and the pursuit of strategic alternatives.  By Nov. 9,
2015, KaloBios announced it was halting enrollment in its clinical
studies, and on Nov. 13, 2015, KaloBios issued a press release
stating that it would begin efforts to wind down its operations
and liquidate its assets.  As a result of this news, KaloBios's
stock further declined, closing at $0.90 on Nov. 13, 2015.

Between Nov. 10, 2015 and Nov. 24, 2015, Shkreli purchased
2,075,200 shares of KaloBios common stock on the open market,
making him the largest shareholder of KaloBios, and prompting
discussions with KaloBios' regarding possible direction for the
company to continue in operation.  Just prior to the Shkreli's
purchase of the majority shares of KaloBios stock, between August
and September 2015, reports of criminal investigations into
Shkreli's management of Retrophin and MSMB Capital were published
by mainstream news sources including The New York Times, Forbes
and Newsweek.  Nevertheless, by Nov. 19, 2105, KaloBios' Board had
accepted Shkreli's financing proposal and appointed him as CEO.
The existing Board then resigned.

After Shkreli was appointed as CEO, he made a number of public
statements regarding KaloBios' strong potential and positive
progress, as well statements regarding his efforts to turn the
company around financially and why he was qualified to be the CEO.
However, on Dec. 17, 2015, Shkreli was arrested for alleged
misconduct at his previous company.  Shkreli was immediately
terminated as CEO.  When the news of Shkreli's arrest broke,
KaloBios stock price fell dramatically, plummeting 53% in pre-open
trading before NASDAQ halted all trading so it could request more
information from KaloBios.  Soon thereafter on Dec. 24, 2015,
NASDAQ announced that KaloBios's stock would be delisted, and on
Dec. 29, 2016, KaloBios filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  Trading
resumed on Jan. 13, 2016.

This is a federal securities class action brought by purchasers of
KaloBios common stock between the Class Period of Nov. 19, 2015
and Dec. 16, 2015 against KaloBios and individuals Ronald Martell,
and Herb Cross, and Shkreli, alleging violations of Sections
10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Defendants KaloBios, Martell, and Cross
reached a partial settlement with the Plaintiffs, which the Court
granted final approval of concurrently with the entry of the
order.  Accordingly, Defendant Shkreli remains the sole non-
settling defendant in this case.

The Plaintiffs allegations against Shkreli fall into two general
categories: (i) reputation and qualification allegations,
asserting that Shkreli mislead investors regarding his reputation
and qualifications to lead KaloBios by failing to disclose his
alleged misconduct at Retrophin and MSMB, and through affirmative
misstatements about his business experience, credibility, and
trustworthiness; and (ii) KaloBios recovery and success
allegations, asserting that Shkreli misled investors through
unrealistic statements touting KaloBios' financial recovery,
advancement potential and operational successes.

Presently before the Court is Shkreli's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), and for failure to plead claims with the
requisite level of particularity under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995.

In light of the significant publicity garnered by the criminal
investigation and related accusations of misconduct prior to
Shkreli's arrest on Dec. 17, 2015, the Court agrees that the
market was aware of the information the Plaintiffs accuse Shkreli
of withholding or misrepresenting before any corrective disclosure
occurred.  Consequently, while a "truth-on-the-market" defense is
a heavy burden at this stage of proceedings, the Court finds that
Shkreli has met that burden and rebutted the fraud-on-the-market
presumption relied on by the Plaintiffs.  Absent this presumption,
the Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead reliance.  Therefore, the
Court granted Shkreli's motion to dismiss as to claims based on
the alleged reputation and qualification statements or omissions.

The second category of statements the Plaintiffs identify as false
and misleading concern more specific representations regarding
KaloBios' financial recovery, advancement potential and
operational successes.  They contend that these representations
were so unrealistic in light of Shkreli's prior misconduct that
they amount to being knowingly false and misleading.  While the
Plaintiffs may be correct that the long-term success of KaloBios
was unrealistic, the reality is that Shkreli was arrested before
proof of this theory had an opportunity to come to light.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that they have failed allege a
sufficient factual basis for their allegations that the KaloBios
recovery and success statements were false or misleading.
Accordingly, the Court granted Shkreli's motion to dismiss with
respect to claims these statements as well.

For these reasons, Shkreli's Motion to Dismiss is granted. All
claims are dismissed with leave to amend. Any amended complaint
must be filed on or before July 21, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/UssIKT from Leagle.com.

Kang Li, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay --
RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Kang Li, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley F. Portnoy --
lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Lionel Z.
Glanc -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP &
Robert S. Green, Green & Noblin, P.C..

Kaniz Fatema, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Matthew Laurence Tuccillo --
mltuccillo@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Marc Ian
Gross, Pomerantz LLP.

Zeke Ingram, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz
LLP, Matthew Laurence Tuccillo, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Marc
Ian Gross, Pomerantz LLP.

Bhaskar R. Gudlavenkatasiva, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer
Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP, Matthew Laurence Tuccillo, Pomerantz LLP,
pro hac vice & Marc Ian Gross -- migross@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP.

Abuhena M. Saifulislam, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti,
Pomerantz LLP, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz LLP & Matthew Laurence
Tuccillo, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.

Christopher Massad, Plaintiff, represented by Robert S. Green --
Green & Noblin, P.C..

Austin Isensee, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti,
Pomerantz LLP & Matthew Laurence Tuccillo, Pomerantz LLP.

KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael
J. Shepard -- michael.shepard@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US
LLP & Stacy R. Hovan -- stacy.hovan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP.

Martin Shkreli, Defendant, represented by Keith I. Chrestionson --
kchrestionson@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP, Peter C.
Buckley -- PCBuckley@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild, pro hac
vice, Scott L. Vernick -- svernick@foxrothschild.com -- Fox
Rothschild LLP, pro hac vice & William Stassen --
svernick@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP, pro hac vice.

Ronald Martell, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Ann Ebling --
jebling@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West, Susan Samuels Muck,
Fenwick & West LLP & Jennifer Corinne Bretan --
jbretan@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP.

Ernso Auguste, Movant, represented by Avraham Noam Wagner --
avi@thewagnerfirm.com  -- The Wagner Firm.

David Borges, Movant, represented by Adam Christopher McCall --
amccall@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP.

Javier Marte, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Ming Wang, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP.

Jing-Wei Wang, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Yi Wang, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP.


KING.COM: Court Allows Candy Crush Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Burstein, Esq. -- jburstein@reedsmith.com -- and Jason
Gordon, Esq. -- jgordon@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith, in an
article for JDSupra, wrote that a class action lawsuit against the
developer of Candy Crush will continue in Illinois federal court.
According to the complaint, Candy Crush, a popular mobile game,
entices users into sharing the game with Facebook friends in
exchange for free "lives" (or plays) only to have those lives
promptly deleted.  The plaintiffs allege that the lives are valued
at $0.20 each.  The court rejected Candy Crush's argument that
failing to receive free lives does not constitute an "injury in
fact," and permitted breach of contract, unjust enrichment and
state consumer protection claims to proceed.  The plaintiff will,
however, need to identify individuals who've lost free lives
outside of Illinois in order for claims under any other state's
consumer protection laws to proceed.  The Court dismissed the
remaining claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Takeaway: Companies that offer virtual items, plays, currency,
skins, or other digital benefits to game players should pay
special attention to this case, as it may suggest that game
publishers are required to provide such items (even those with a
nominal value) to players in the future. [GN]


KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Court Denies Change of Venue in "Martinez"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ROBERT MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. KNIGHT
TRANSPORTATION, INC., a corporation, dba ARIZONA KNIGHT
TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant, No. 1:16-cv-01730-DAD-SKO (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California denied the Defendant's motion for
change of venue.

On Sept. 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in
Tulare County Superior Court against Defendant Knight.  On Nov.
14, 2016, the latter removed the action to this federal court
based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges the following seven claims
against defendant Knight: (i) failure to provide meal breaks in
violation of California Labor Code Section 226; (ii) failure to
separately pay for non-productive work and rest breaks in
violation of Labor Code Section 1194; (iii) failure to pay missed
rest break premiums under Labor Code Section 226.7; (iv) failure
to provide accurate wage statements under Labor Code Section 226;
(v) failure to pay wages due at termination under Labor Code
Sections 201-203; (vi) unfair business practices under the
California Business and Professionals Code Section 17200; and
(vii) a claim for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys'
General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), Labor Code Section 2699, et seq.
(Doc. No. 2-1 at 8.)

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant Knight from September 2015
through March 2016.  During that time, he and similarly situated
employees were not provided with off-duty meal breaks; authorized
or permitted to take off-duty rest breaks; paid premium pay for
missed meal and rest breaks; or paid separate and hourly wages for
non-driving work tasks, and for rest breaks taken while driving
routes in California.  He and similarly situated employees also
did not receive all wages due to them upon separation from
employment.

The Plaintiff has proposed this following class: All current and
former truck drivers employed by Defendant Knight and who drove
one or more routes of five hours or more within California for the
Defendant during either the Non-California Resident Class Period
(for Non-California residents) or during the California Class
Period (for California residents).  The California resident Class
Period runs from Aug. 7, 2015, through the date of trial, and the
non-California resident Class Period runs from four years prior to
the date of the filing of this complaint through the present.

On March 21, 2017, Defendant Knight filed a motion to change
venue, seeking transfer of this action to the District of Arizona
on the basis that the Plaintiff could have brought the action in
Arizona, and that transfer will promote convenience and fairness.
In his opposition to the pending motion filed on April 4, 2017,
the Plaintiff disputes only the convenience and fairness of the
transfer sought by the Defendant.  The Defendant filed a reply on
April 25, 2017.  At the May 2, 2017 hearing, the Court directed
the parties to file additional briefing clarifying their positions
as to the impact of a recent class action settlement in a separate
litigation involving defendant upon resolution of the pending
motion.  The Plaintiff filed his supplemental brief on May 8,
2017, and the Defendant filed its brief on May 12, 2017.

The Court concludes that the balance of the factors described
weighs against transfer of this action to the District of Arizona.
The Plaintiff has chosen to litigate this action in the Eastern
District of California; brings California law claims based on
factual allegations that took place within California; and seeks
to represent a class of employees who worked within the state.  In
light of these factors, the Court is not persuaded that
considerations of witness convenience or ease of evidentiary
access justify the transfer of this action.  Accordingly, the
Court denied Defendant's motion to change venue.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/oCRbmq from Leagle.com.

Robert Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Justin Ackermann
-- cja@ackermanntilajef.com -- Ackermann & Tilajef, PC.

Robert Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Julian Ari Hammond --
jhammond@hammondlawpc.com -- HammondLaw P.C..

Knight Transportation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael J.
Hui -- mhui@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Richard H.
Rahm -- rrahm@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Kai-Ching
Cha -- kcha@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..


KONA GRILL: Cedeno Moves to Certify Class of Sous Chefs, Others
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MIGUEL CEDENO Individually,
and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Who Consent to
Their Inclusion in a Collective Action v. KONA GRILL, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, and KONA MACADAMIA, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 8:17-cv-01039-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), moves the
Court to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act
Collective Action and to order notice to be sent to members of a
class of:

     all current and former employees of Kona Grill, Inc. after
     June 1, 2014, who worked overtime but were not paid overtime
     wages, and who held the following positions: sous chef,
     assistant general manager of restaurant, assistant manager
     of restaurant, site development manager, lease
     administrator, development procurement manager, facilities
     manager, purchasing/facilities coordinator, project
     designer, manager of architecture, accounts payable manager,
     accountant, senior manager of tax, manager of IT, senior tax
     analyst, marketing manager, marketing coordinator,
     applications system support analyst, recruiter, training
     manager, and training coordinator.

Mr. Cedeno also asks the Court to direct Kona Grill and Kona
Macadamia to provide his counsel with the last known addresses of
all putative class members and the telephone number, date of
birth, and last four digits of the social security number of any
potential class members, whose notice is returned by the post
office, so that the counsel may provide effective notice to the
class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ujH7QxKo

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Castellano, II, Esq.
          BUCKMAN & BUCKMAN, P.A.
          2023 Constitution Blvd.
          Sarasota, FL 34231
          Telephone: (941) 923-7700
          Facsimile: (941) 923-7736
          E-mail: nick@buckmanandbuckman.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Laura E. Prather, Esq.
          Andrew Lincoln, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS, PC
          Wells Fargo Center
          100 S. Ashley Drive, Suite 2200
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 512-3225
          E-mail: laura.prather@jacksonlewis.com
                  andrew.lincoln@jacksonlewis.com


KUEHNE NAGEL: "Scott" Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Charles Scott, an individual, and
all others similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. Kuehne
Nagel Inc., an unknown business entity, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. CIVDS1707477, was removed on June 12, 2017
from the San Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District Of California (Eastern Division -
Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-
01147-JGB-KK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Jesus G. Bernal.

Kuehne Nagel is a global transportation and logistics company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE PC
          410 West Arden Avenue Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021
          E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com

Attorney for Kuehne Nagel Inc.

          Michelle McCoy Wolfe, Esq.
          VARNER AND BRANDT LLP
          3750 University Avenue Suite 610
          Riverside, CA 92501
          Telephone: (951) 274 7777
          Facsimile: (951) 274 7770
          E-mail: michelle.wolfe@varnerbrandt.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: 9th Cir. Reverses 30-Day Impound Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district
court's decision holding that the 30-day impound is a valid
administrative penalty in the case captioned, LAMYA BREWSTER,
individually and as class representative, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
CHARLIE BECK, Chief, individual and official capacity; CITY OF LOS
ANGELES, a municipal corporation; CITY OF LOS ANGELES POLICE
DEPARTMENT, a public entity, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15-
55479 (9th Cir.).

Lamya Brewster loaned her vehicle to Yonnie Percy, her brother-in-
law. Percy was stopped by Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)
officers who learned that Percy's driver's license was suspended.
The officers then seized the vehicle under California Vehicle Code
section 14602.6(a)(1), which authorizes impounding a vehicle when
the driver has a suspended license.

Brewster filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
on behalf of all vehicle owners whose vehicles were subjected to
the 30-day impound. The complaint alleges that the 30-day impound
is a warrantless seizure that violates the Fourth Amendment.

The district court concluded that the 30-day impound is a valid
administrative penalty and granted motion to dismiss.

On appeal, Brewster claims only that the 30-day impound violates
the Fourth Amendment.

In an Opinion dated June 21, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/AH5FXY from Leagle.com, the Ninth Circuit held that
the 30-day impound of Brewster's vehicle constituted a seizure
that required compliance with the Fourth Amendment.  The Appellees
argue that this result frustrates the state legislature's intent
to impose a penalty on unlicensed drivers.  The Ninth Circuit said
it has no occasion to decide whether this objective is lawful.
The Ninth Circuit held that police could impound a vehicle under
section 22651(p), which authorizes impoundment when the driver
doesn't have a valid license.  Section 22651(p) doesn't have a
mandatory 30-day hold period, thus avoiding the Fourth Amendment
problem presented by section 14602.6(a).

Lamya Brewster is represented by Barrett S. Litt, Esq. --
blitt@kmbllaw.com -- KAYE MCLANE BEDNARSKI & LITT -- Paul Hoffman,
Esq. -- Hoffpaul@aol.com -- and -- Catherine Sweetser, Esq. --
catherine.sdshhh@gmail.com -- SCHONBRUN DE SIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS &
HOFFMAN LLP

LAPD is represented by Gabriel S. Dermer, Esq. --
gabriel.dermer@lacity.org -- Adena M. Hopenstand, Esq. --
adena.hopenstand@lacity.org -- and -- Ronald S. Whitaker, Esq. --
ronald.whitaker@lacity.org -- LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY


MACQUARIE GROUP: Sued Over Cleveland Mining Stock Price Inflation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Houston and Chris Vedelago, writing for The Sydney Morning
Herald, report that Macquarie Group faces a major class action
over allegations some of its investment advisers artificially
inflated the price of a small mining company before a sudden
collapse wiped out many of its investors.

The investment bank's brokers are accused of deliberately
"ramping" stock in Cleveland Mining Group by playing a key role in
the acquisition of a Brazilian iron-ore mine project with a
potential value of $34 billion that turned out to be a worthless
patch of jungle.

Many investors were long-term friends of the Macquarie advisers,
but they now claim they were duped by assurances the speculative
stock would deliver massive financial returns.

The bank, known as the "millionaires' factory", is facing legal
action on several fronts, with a series of explosive claims
referred to the corporate regulator last month.

The country's largest investment bank is bracing for another
scandal at a time when its stockbroking arm has only recently
emerged from an enforceable undertaking order from the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) over its "systemic
deficiencies" in compliance with financial services laws.

Cleveland Mining Group managing director David Mendelawitz has
taken the extraordinary step of complaining about the advisers'
conduct to ASIC.

In a letter to ASIC obtained by Fairfax Media, he raises specific
concerns about the three Macquarie employees based on information
collected during a two-year private investigation funded by a
major shareholder.

Macquarie has been aware of many of the claims for more than a
year, after civil action was begun by a Ballarat businessman who
lost about $4 million investing in Cleveland.

The allegations have also rippled around the bayside suburb of
Brighton, where dozens of locals were burnt after buying into
Cleveland on the advice of two former Macquarie directors who
lived in the area.

Clients were recruited at primary school functions, dinner parties
or while cycling down Beach Road.

Another divisional director at Macquarie, who has since left the
bank, also pushed the stock aggressively among his network of
wealthy investors.

For most of 2011, Cleveland stock hovered around 35õ, but the
Macquarie advisers assured potential investors it was destined to
reach $1.20.

Many jumped aboard, and encouraged friends to do the same.

They appeared oblivious to the fact Cleveland was a highly
speculative stock that began with a market capitalisation of just
$20 million -- less than some of the real estate along Brighton's
golden mile.

Propelled by a string of positive announcements, Cleveland's share
price almost tripled between March and April 2012, as investors
contemplated a massive windfall.

Their dreams were fleeting;  the share price collapsed in late
2012.

The stock, which was voluntarily suspended from the ASX in October
2016, last traded at just 7 cents.

Risks 'understood'

Macquarie is expected to argue its clients were "professional" or
"sophisticated" investors, who should have understood the implicit
risks of buying shares in a mining company that had never produced
an ounce of anything valuable.

But several victims of the rout told Fairfax Media the stock was
artificially inflated.

In stockbroking parlance, they claim it was a classic "pump and
dump", where stock is purchased at a low price before the release
of positive and often misleading company announcements, which are
often promulgated on social media, on online forums, or by word-
of-mouth.

Based in Perth, Cleveland was founded in 2009 by several former
executives from Fortescue Metals Group, with ambitions of becoming
a mid-tier gold producer.

Mr Mendelawitz, who spent five years as Fortescue Metals' business
improvement manager before joining Cleveland, told the media in
2010 that he would assess "a pipeline of prospective projects
based on stringent economic criteria rather than hype".

In December that year, Mr Mendelawitz engaged Macquarie Equities
Ltd to raise $4.64 million in funding for several offshore
projects, including the Premier Gold Mine in Brazil.

Mr Mendelawitz told Fairfax Media he felt like he had joined an
exclusive club when he signed the agreement with Macquarie.

In September 2011, Stefan Whiting, then a Macquarie investment
adviser, became involved in a contentious deal that super-charged
Cleveland's share price but ultimately contributed to its
collapse.

Lost in the Amazon

Emails obtained by Fairfax Media show Mr Whiting acted as an
intermediary in the sale of a separate Brazilian iron ore mine to
Cleveland.

His role in the transaction appears to have been a serious breach
of his conflict-of-interest obligations, and would have given him
access to potentially price-sensitive information.

Mr Whiting even asked Cleveland for an "introduction fee", outside
his remuneration package with Macquarie.

"All we need is confirmation of a [sic] introduction fee of 1.5
per cent on purchase price plus the NDA [non-disclosure
agreement].  This will give access to geo [geological] reports and
data room info," Mr Whiting said in an email on September 7, 2011.

When Mr Mendelawitz refused, Mr Whiting claimed it was a joke.

It was not the only time Mr Whiting would request a commission. On
December 20, 2012, Mr Whiting sent an invoice to Cleveland asking
for a $12,500 commission for "corporate services".

According to preliminary core samples, the mine known as Ferradura
was expected to deliver more than 10 billion tons of iron ore at a
time when Australia was struggling to keep pace with demand in
China.

One initial report provided by an independent source valued the
tenement, in the northern Brazilian state of Amapa, at $34
billion.

Hot property?

As the Ferradura deal was being negotiated, a series of mysterious
posts began appearing on Hot Copper -- an online forum where
traders swap tips, information and, sometimes, baseless rumours.

Numerous comments posted by "Troutfish007" revealed extraordinary
insight for someone claiming to be "new to this game".

Several of Troutfish007's posts preceded announcements by
Cleveland to the Australian Stock Exchange.

Fairfax Media does not suggest Macquarie or its advisers had any
involvement with the posts by Troutfish007, but the comments
appeared to be part of a broader campaign to spruik Cleveland
stock.

In the six months after Mr Whiting introduced the Ferradura
project to Cleveland in September 2011, Macquarie's then
divisional director, Michael Rosenbaum, and another Macquarie
adviser made more than 20 trades in Cleveland in the names of
companies registered to them or family members.

Most of the trading was done by Mr Rosenbaum in two companies
owned by a relative.

On February 23, 2012, Cleveland announced to the ASX it had signed
a memorandum of understanding to purchase the Brazilian mine.

Stock climbs

The stock began to climb in the following weeks, leading to a
trading frenzy that briefly piqued the interest of the ASX, which
queried why the price had soared from 54õ on March 19 to 76õ just
four days later.

"The company does not have any other explanation for the price
change and the increase in volume in securities traded in the
company," Cleveland's finance director Aaron Finlay told the ASX.

As the share price surged, "Troutfish007" posted on Hot Copper on
March 27: "I expect some consolidation around 67-70, and then more
progress the next week.  Any additional positive news and the
magical $1 mark you speak of will be seriously tested. These
Fortescue Metals boys don't mess about.  Happy holding."

On April 2, 2012, another investment adviser at Macquarie
purchased 50,000 Cleveland shares through a privately owned
company.

On April 3, 2012, Troutfish007 again demonstrated extraordinary
prescience in another post on Hot Copper.

"I believe [sic] something big is about to happen, due to the big
run we've had, but I'm really not certain about pinpointing where
the catalyst is lying with Cleveland. Perhaps there's good news on
all fronts . . . but, I have a feeling it's down to one project .
. . just not sure which."

A day later, on April 4, Cleveland announced that drilling
would begin at another of its Brazilian mines, Porto Grande.

The stock price peaked at 95õ on April 10 and the Macquarie
insider began to sell down his holding of about 400,000 shares on
April 13.

Cleveland had become a self-fulfilling prophecy, propelled by hype
and misinformation rather than any apparent improvement to the
underlying business.

Tight control

Behind the scenes, Mr Whiting and Mr Rosenbaum maintained tight
control of anyone with a significant stake in the company.

Mr Rosenbaum regularly contacted a Cleveland insider, asking for
information from the company's share register about the identity
of sellers.

"Can we see who sold yesterday," Mr Rosenbaum said in an email on
September 28, 2011. "Yep" was the immediate response.

In another email on November 15, 2011, Mr Rosenbaum tells his
source at Cleveland: "40 cents, only three dollars to go."

Almost a year later, on September 7, 2012, Mr Rosenbaum appeared
to be still attempting to prop up the share price.

"Cleaned out all selling, onward and up," he said in an email.

When clients wanted to sell Cleveland stock or "take profit", Mr
Whiting often intervened and urged them to hold, or buy more.

One client set up an online trading account after Mr Whiting
repeatedly refused to sell his stock.

"We used to ride together, we were mates I guess. He refused my
requests to sell on two occasions. He said he couldn't do it, as a
mate. When I realised it was all bullshit, I transferred to an
online trading account and sold the lot," said the former friend
of Mr Whiting, who lost about $31,000 on Cleveland trades.

Two investors told Fairfax Media that Mr Whiting purchased
Cleveland stock in their accounts, without their knowledge or
consent.

Selling staunched

Even as doubts emerged over the Ferradura project, Mr Whiting
continued to hawk Cleveland and staunch any selling that would
potentially put downward pressure on the stock price.

In an email to a former friend, Mr Whiting offered to personally
buy the man's shares if he wanted to sell.

"We have spent the last two weeks in South America with the
company and are completely comfortable with the CDG story ... If
you want to sell or know anyone who does, ask them to call me and
we will arrange to buy their stock," Mr Whiting said in a message
on October 25, 2012.

Eventually, and perhaps belatedly, Mr Mendelawitz became worried
about the direction of his company and the steep trajectory of its
share price.

"They were trying to keep it as tight as possible. They controlled
the registry, so if anyone was selling they could get in and buy
straight away. We weren't complaining because the price was going
up, but I was very concerned about whether we could support the
valuations," he said.

Tensions boil over

On a second trip to the Ferradura project in Brazil in October
2012, tensions finally boiled over amid growing concerns about the
credibility of the initial core samples following a site visit.

A flurry of large sell orders suddenly destabilised the stock and
the price dipped to mid-40õ. Mr Rosenbaum and Mr Whiting denied
any knowledge about who was responsible for dumping the stock,
according to Mr Mendelawitz.

While staying at the St Moritz Hotel in Brasilia, Mr Mendelawitz
received information from Australia about the identity of the
seller.

It was a prominent Melbourne businessman who also happened to be a
client of Mr Rosenbaum.

Mr Mendelawitz claims that a tearful Mr Rosenbaum admitted during
a confrontation on the hotel's rooftop terrace that he was behind
the sell orders.

"He basically broke down. He said his client had to sell because
he needed the money. He promised to get his life in order and
promised he could still get the stock to $1.20," Mr Mendelawitz
said.

Project worthless

But the company was about to receive disastrous news - the
Ferradura project that had generated so much buzz was confirmed as
a worthless dud.

Concerns had first been raised by Cleveland director Jim Williams,
who warned other directors in a July 2012 email: "There may not be
any economic ore at Ferradura."

A report almost a year later confirmed his fears.

Cleveland had been misled, and the initial core samples that
indicated a motherlode of iron ore were wrong, amid claims they
had been fabricated.

In an internal email, questions were also asked about the adequacy
of the due diligence undertaken by Cleveland, and why problems had
not been identified before the acquisition.

If the research reports had been falsified, it had nothing to do
with Macquarie.

The investment bank and its executives had no knowledge or
involvement in the preparation of the allegedly fraudulent mining
reports.

Shares plummet

By December 2012, the share price had plummeted back to around
30õ. The fall continued over the following years, finally closing
at 7õ when the company requested a suspension from the ASX.

Mr Whiting appears to have made a significant loss on his private
holding of Cleveland bought by his company Fishin Chips Pty Ltd
after selling his holding of 300,000 shares between February and
July 2013.

At least one major Cleveland shareholder claims he was urged to
hold or buy more stock by Mr Whiting, who was offloading his
shares at the same time.

The Ferradura project was officially declared dead by late 2013.

"The historical information [about the quality of the mine] was
found to be largely unreliable and shaft digging showed only minor
potential for the project," the annual report said.

Mr Whiting left the stockbroking industry in 2013, while Mr
Rosenbaum moved to a rival firm that same year. The other
investment adviser continues to work at Macquarie.

None of the three bankers responded to questions about their
conduct from Fairfax Media. All three have issued legal warnings
to Fairfax Media via their lawyers.

Macquarie is expected to again be in ASIC's crosshairs over the
misconduct allegations levelled against some of its most senior
staff.

'Utmost seriousness'

A Macquarie spokeswoman said the bank would not comment on
individual client matters or matters subject to litigation, but
added that the allegations aired by Fairfax Media only "represent
one side of a matter".

Macquarie refused to answer a series of questions about the
activities of its traders and their involvement with Cleveland.

"Macquarie treats any allegations regarding inappropriate or
potentially illegal behaviour with the utmost seriousness,
regardless of their source. Where matters are raised, Macquarie
conducts a thorough investigation and where appropriate, notifies
relevant authorities," the spokeswoman said.

In 2013, ASIC issued Macquarie with an enforceable undertaking
after it was unable to demonstrate a reasonable basis for the
advice it provided to hundreds of clients.

The bank was forced to pay almost $25 million in compensation to
about 260 clients.

The latest misconduct allegations and prospect of another ASIC
investigation into Macquarie's activities comes at an inconvenient
time for the banking industry.

After a string of damaging scandals over the past five years, the
four big banks and Macquarie launched a campaign against the
government's contentious plan to impose a levy.

They have also attempted to persuade the government and ASIC that
increased compliance or a royal commission would be overkill.

Court looms

But several Cleveland investors will not be waiting for the
government or regulators to intervene.

Lawyers for the Ballarat businessman, who lost $4 million
following Macquarie's advice, began negotiating with the bank in
April last year in a bid for compensation.

A writ was lodged in the Supreme Court in January 2017, while a
separate complaint is before the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Macpherson Kelley Lawyers made contact with hundreds of Cleveland
investors in preparation for a class action.

Michael Hazell, from Macpherson Kelley Lawyers, confirmed the firm
was acting on behalf of several clients "who have concerns about
the financial advice provided by Macquarie in relations to
Cleveland Mining".

After losing about $30 million on the value of his personal stock,
Mr Mendelawitz is still scrambling to save his company. He
concedes he made mistakes.

But he accuses Macquarie of turning a blind eye to the conduct of
its investment advisers.

"We thought we were covered, we had Macquarie Bank in our corner.
But we didn't, we had a few blokes pumping up a stock and when
their network ran out, it all fell over." [GN]


MASSAPEQUA DINER: Accused by "Lamar" Class Suit of Violating FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDDY SANTOS LAMAR, individually and on behalf of those individuals
similarly situated v. MASSAPEQUA DINER, INC., MASSAPEQUA REALTY,
LLC, VALENTINO ZARBOUTIS, NIKOLAOS GLYKOS, "JOHN DOE #1", "JOHN
DOE #2" AND "JOHN DOE #3", Case No. 2:17-cv-03386-DRH-AKT
(E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2017), accuses the Defendants of violating the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the New York
State Department of Labor.

Massapequa Diner, Inc., is a New York domestic business
corporation operating a restaurant in Massapequa, New York.
Massapequa Realty, LLC, is a New York domestic business
corporation.  The Individual Defendants are owners, part owners or
principals of the Defendant Corporations.  The Doe Defendants are
unknown controlling and supervisory agents of the Defendant
Corporations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAZOR ROBOTICS: Faces "Bergeron" Suit Over ISA Investigation
------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAND BERGERON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MAZOR ROBOTICS LTD., ORI
HADOMI, ELIYAHU ZEHAVI, and SHARON LEVITA, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-04387 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2017), alleges that
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was engaged in
conduct that subjected it to the Israeli Securities Authority
investigation; (2) that, as such the Company was exposed to
potential liability; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about Mazor's business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On June 8, 2017, the Company disclosed that in May 2017, the ISA
conducted a search at the offices of Mazor and questioned certain
officers in connection with an investigation held by the ISA.  On
this news, the Company's American Depository Share price fell
$3.70 per share, or 9.9%, to close at $33.67 per share on June 8,
2017. The next day, the share price continued to decline, falling
another $3.08 per share, or 9.1%, to close at $30.59 per share on
June 9, 2017.

Mazor Robotics Ltd. is a medical device company that purportedly
develops and markets innovative surgical guidance systems and
complementary products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     230 Park Ave, Suite 530
     New York, NY 10169
     Phone: (212) 682-5340
     Fax: (212) 884-0988
     E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

        - and -

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Fax: (310) 201-9160


MEARS TRANSPORTATION: Luxury Chauffeurs Join Wage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that luxury
chauffeurs for Mears Transportation have joined a lawsuit seeking
at least $50 million in lost overtime wages and other expenses,
saying Mears wrongly classifies the chauffeurs as independent
contractors when they should be employees.

The lawsuit identifies 40 plaintiffs as former or current Mears
chauffeurs -- those who drive luxury vehicles such as Lincoln Town
Cars to transport local executives and VIPs.

The suit says Mears gives the luxury chauffeurs employee handbooks
and business cards bearing the Mears logo and address; requires
them to wear employee uniforms with name tags bearing the Mears
logo; and drive fully insured and fueled company cars.

"There is no credible basis for classifying the luxury chauffeurs
as independent contractors, given the amount of control exerted
over them on a daily basis," said plaintiffs' attorney
Thomas Bundy, Esq. -- thomas.bundy@lawrencebundy.com -- of
Lawrence & Bundy, which is based in Maryland.  "Mears cannot
credibly distinguish its contractor chauffeurs from its employee
chauffeurs who perform virtually the same job for the same company
in the same locations."

Among the relief requested in the lawsuit is to pay luxury
chauffeurs the same as Mears van and motor-coach drivers, which
attorneys think is higher pay.

Roger Chapin, spokesman for Mears, said on June 19 the company
hasn't been served with the lawsuit and declines to comment on it.

Mears, founded in 1939, has dominated the taxi industry in Orlando
since Walt Disney World opened. It is the largest and one of the
oldest taxi companies in the area.

The suit comes as Mears is facing pressure from transportation-
networking companies entering the market, such as Uber and Lyft,
which use independent contractors.

Uber and Lyft have also faced complaints about paying drivers as
contractors, but that is the entire business model for them. In
February, a Florida appellate court ruled that Uber driver Darrin
McGillis was properly classified as an independent contractor.

The lawsuit, which seeks federal class-action status, states that
Mears intentionally misclassifies luxury chauffeurs as independent
contractors "in a scheme to avoid paying minimum and overtime
wages, employment taxes, and certain ordinary business expenses."

Other than their technical classification, the chauffeurs go
through much the same hiring and employment situations at the
company, such as applying for work by submitting an employment
application, going through an employee background check,
participating in employee interviews and attending mandatory
employee training, according to the lawsuit.

According to Bundy, most of the luxury chauffeurs say they
struggle to earn a living despite working 70 to 100 hours a week.
The drivers allege in the lawsuit that they must pay Mears
significant sums to operate Mears vehicles and drive Mears clients
during shifts set by Mears. Bundy said Mears does not allow the
chauffeurs to have a copy of their contract or allow them to
remove it from the building.

Sara Blackwell, a Sarasota attorney who handles class-action
employment cases, said many employers classify workers as
independent contractors because it's easier.  She said she wasn't
familiar with the Mears case.

"When employers are classifying someone as an independent
contractor, they need to be very careful, and I recommend they get
independent counsel's opinion on it," Blackwell said.

She said the court will likely look at similarities between the
luxury chauffeurs and other Mears employees.

Ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft are now aiming for
pickup privileges for millions of travelers flying into Orlando
International Airport, creating more competition for companies
such as Mears.  Up until now, Uber and Lyft have been limited to
dropping off at the airport.

In 2014, Mears was forced to acknowledge that it was delaying work
on a new $20 million headquarters because of the uncertainty
surrounding transportation networking. [GN]


MIDLAND FUNDING: Status Hearing in "Janetos" Suit Set for Aug. 16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joan B. Gottschall entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled Mary Janetos v. Midland Funding, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-04490 (N.D. Ill.), setting a status hearing for August 16,
2017, at 9:30 a.m.

Judge Gottschall ordered that if, by the date of the scheduled
status hearing, the Defendants have not been served, the Plaintiff
should call the courtroom deputy (312-435-5641) and reset the
status date.  No status hearing should be held until the
Defendants have been served.  The Plaintiff is directed to advise
the Defendant of the status hearing forthwith.

In the interest of judicial economy, the Plaintiff's motion to
certify class is denied without prejudice, with the understanding
that the Plaintiff's request for class certification remains
pending as a placeholder and no rights are waived, according to
the Order.  The Plaintiff's motion to continue is denied as moot.
Pursuant to LR 5.2(f), a stapled and/or bound paper copy of all
electronically filed documents, including the complaint, must be
delivered to chambers (2356) within one business day.

Judge Gottschall also directed the Parties are to discuss
settlement of case, consent to proceed before the Magistrate
Judge, and a proposed discovery plan.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jk27F3XR


MUTUAL SECURITIES: Milliner Seeks Certification of Clients Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled CHARLOTTE B. MILLINER, as
trustee of the Charlotte B. Milliner Trust dated January 30, 1997,
and as owner and holder of the CHARLOTTE B. MILLINER SEP IRA;
JOANNE BREM, as Trustee of the Van Santen-Brem Revocable Trust,
for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
MUTUAL SECURITIES, INC., a California corporation, Case No. 3:15-
cv-03354-TEH (N.D. Cal.), move the Court for an order certifying
this class:

     All persons and entities who were clients of Mutual
     Securities, Inc. as their broker-dealer with Bock Evans
     Financial Counsel, Ltd. as their investment advisor during
     the period from July 21, 2011 through August 8, 2015.

Plaintiffs Charlotte B. Milliner and Joanne Brem also ask the
Court to appoint them as class representatives and to appoint The
Law Offices of David Sturgeon-Garcia as class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on July 24, 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=Pa3hBmMb

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Sturgeon-Garcia, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID STURGEON-GARCIA
          1042 Country Club Drive, Suite 1A
          Moraga, CA 94556
          Telephone: (925) 235-7290
          Facsimile: (925) 235-7319
          E-mail: dsglaw@comcast.net


NA PIZZA: Faces "Gibbons" Suit Alleging Inadequate Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER GIBBONS, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. NA PIZZA, LLC d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S,
AHMER GHAURI, and NAVEED REHMAN, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01769
(S.D. Tex., June 9, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff worked off the
clock without pay, had time keeping techniques utilized against
him wherein he was not adequately compensated for all hours
worked, and/or were not paid the federal minimum wage.  The case
alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own and operate Papa John's franchises.  Plaintiff
initially worked as a pizza delivery driver before being promoted
to a manager.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clif Alexander, Esq.
     Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
     Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
     ANDERSON2X, PLLC
     819 N. Upper Broadway
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Phone: (361) 452-1279
     Fax: (361) 452-1284
     E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
             austin@a2xlaw.com
             lauren@a2xlaw.com


NEXVET BIOPHARMA: WeissLaw LLP Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
WeissLaw LLP on June 19 disclosed that a class action was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of shareholders of Nexvet
Biopharma Public Limited Company ("Nexvet") (NASDAQ: NVET) seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed acquisition
of Nexvet by Zoetis Inc. ("Zoetis").

On April 13, 2017, Nexvet and Zoetis issued a joint press releases
announcing that they had entered into a definitive agreement
pursuant to which Zoetis would acquire all of the outstanding
shares of Nexvet common stock for $6.72 in cash for each share of
Nexvet common stock ("Proposed Transaction").  The complaint seeks
injunctive relief on behalf of the named plaintiff and all Nexvet
shareholders.  The plaintiff is represented by WeissLaw, which has
expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.

The complaint alleges that in an attempt to secure shareholder
approval for the merger, the defendants filed materially false
and/or misleading statements with the SEC in violation of the
Exchange Act.  The omitted and/or misrepresented information is
believed to be material to Nexvet shareholders' ability to make an
informed decision whether to approve the Proposed Transaction.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than sixty days from June 19, 2017.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Joshua M.
Rubin of WeissLaw at 888.593.4771, or by e-mail at
stockinfo@weisslawllp.com.  Any member of the putative class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

WeissLaw LLP -- http://www.weisslawllp.com-- has litigated
hundreds of stockholder class and derivative actions for
violations of corporate and fiduciary duties. [GN]


NEW YORK, USA: Sued by Turano on Behalf of Medicaid Recipients
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIE TURANO, LEONARD TURANO and GEMMA SAMELE, individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. HOWARD ZUCKER, as
Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, Case No.
2:17-cv-03397-ADS-AKT (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2017), alleges that the
Defendant failed to ensure that the Plaintiffs will have their
home care benefits continued at their current level until and
unless they receive a timely and adequate notice of their right to
aid continuing.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent Medicaid recipients, who have
long-term illnesses and disabilities that make them dependent on
long-term care services, including home care, in order to continue
living in their homes in the community.  The Plaintiffs contend
that the proposed class members are now at risk of reductions or
terminations of their care in violation of the Medicaid Act and
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


NICOLET RESTAURANT: Supreme Court Refuses to Review Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy H. Koo, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court June 19 declined to review a class action over a
Wisconsin restaurant's alleged failure to truncate the credit card
expiration dates on customers' receipts (Meyers v. Nicolet
Restaurant of De Pere, LLC , U.S., No. 16-01113, petition for
certiorari denied 6/19/17).

The petition sought high court review of the first federal appeals
court case to address standing in a Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act case following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in
Spokeo v. Robins , 136 S.Ct. 1540.

In December, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
held that, although failure to truncate the expiration date is
technically a violation of FACTA, plaintiff Jeremy Meyers didn't
have standing because he failed show that he was actually harmed
or that the violation created any risk of harm.

Under Spokeo, the appeals court said, Mr. Meyers needed to show a
"concrete and particularized" injury that is "actual or imminent,
not conjectual or hypothetical."

Mr. Meyers was represented by Zimmerman Law Offices PC. Nicolet
Restaurant was represented by Nash, Spindler, Grimstad & McCracken
LLP. [GN]


PACIFIC COAST: "Serrano" Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Maria Serrano, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pacific
Coast Feather Cushion Co., a corporation; and Pacific Coast
Feather Company, a corporation; Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No.
BC659563, was removed on July 14, 2017 from the Superior Court of
California County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Central District Of California (Western Division -
Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-
04414-DMG-JEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Dolly M. Gee.

Pacific Coast manufactures natural fill upholstery cushions. The
company was incorporated in 1991 and is based in Pico Rivera,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ali Sarah Carlsen, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379 6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379 6251
          E-mail: acarlsen@aegislawfirm.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel Y Zohar, Esq.
          Todd M Foreman, Esq.
          ZOHAR LAW FIRM PC
          601 South Figueroa Street Suite 2675
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 689 1300
          Facsimile: (213) 689 1305
          E-mail: dzohar@zoharlawfirm.com
                  tforeman@zoharlawfirm.com


PATCO ELECTRICAL: Class of Apprentice Certified in "Roberts" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Vicki Miles-LaGrange grants in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional class certification in the lawsuit titled
KYLE R. ROBERTS AND JOHNY L. SMITH, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. PATCO Electrical Services, Inc., Case
No. 5:16-cv-00720-M (W.D. Okla.), as follows:

   (A) The Court conditionally certifies the following class:

       all current and former apprentice electricians who worked
       at the Calumet facility any time from June 24, 2013 to the
       present;

   (B) The Court orders the parties to confer and present to the
       Court an agreed notice to potential collective action
       members and consent form within twenty (20) days of the
       date of this Order.  If the parties cannot agree on all
       terms, the parties are directed to file with the Court
       within twenty (20) days of this Order a notice setting
       forth those terms to which the parties do agree and each
       party's proposed term(s) for those term(s) on which the
       parties have been unable to reach an agreement;

   (C) The Court orders PATCO to produce to plaintiff within
       fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order a list of
       names, addresses, telephone numbers and email addresses
       for each member of the modified putative class; and

   (D) The Court finds that the opt-in period to participate in
       this action shall last for sixty (60) days from the date
       PATCO discloses the names and information of all putative
       class members.

The Plaintiffs filed the action to recover alleged unpaid
compensation from PATCO on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that PATCO only paid them
overtime compensation for the hours they worked in excess of 50
hours per week.

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




PFIZER: Motion to Remand Lipitor Class Action to State Court OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Myers, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that U.S. District
Judge Cormac Carney has granted plaintiffs' motion to remand their
claims against a global pharmaceutical company to a state court
after the defendant had removed it to federal court under the
Class Action Fairness Act.

The order issued May 23 by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California explains that the goal of
consolidating mass actions in federal court under CAFA is to
preserve judicial resources and to reduce the odds of creating
inconsistencies from similar lawsuits with judicially different
rulings.

The dispute began on Aug. 16, 2013, when three plaintiffs filed a
petition with the California Judicial Council to have their
individual cases coordinated into a Joint Council Coordinated
Proceeding (JJCP).  The complaint alleges that the pharmaceutical
product Lipitor, made by Pfizer and distributed by McKesson Corp.,
gave the defendants Type 2 diabetes.  On Sept. 25, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed an amended petition adding 21 plaintiffs more to
the complaint.

The next phase of the dispute began on Dec. 6, 2013, when the CJC
granted the request for coordination and created a Joint Council
Coordinated Proceeding (JCCP) with the special title of "Lipitor
Cases."  However, as of May 23, only 65 plaintiffs have joined the
mass class action.

By Feb. 24, 2014, the plaintiffs made the case that at one point
in time, there were at least 54 cases concerning similar effects
of Lipitor filed in California that encompassed 1,855 plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs went on to explain that they were in contact with
other lawyers who were poised to also join the class action.

However, by June 2014 the majority of these plaintiffs had not
consented to join the class action and therefore the case had not
reached the necessary number of plaintiffs to be eligible for
federal court, because, as the court noted, the requirements for
CAFA are very narrow.

Carney argued that the court could not assume the that the
remaining necessary number of plaintiffs would join the class
action to push the complaint over the minimum number of
participants needed for the case to qualify for CAFA Court.

"The plaintiffs who are not yet part of the JCCP could have many
legitimate reasons for not wanting a joint federal trial,"
according to the court order.  "For example, some plaintiffs might
seek to distance themselves from those with seemingly weaker
claims or from those who will be preoccupied with defenses unique
to them."

Because the necessary number of plaintiffs were not willing to
join the dispute, Judge Carney issued an order to move the lawsuit
back to state court.  Meanwhile, the remaining lawsuits have been
divided among four different federal courts in the state of
California. [GN]


PRECOR INC: Class Action Over Treadmill Sensors Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
exercise equipment manufacturer Precor failed in its quest to get
a judge to scuttle a federal class action complaint, which alleged
the company sold treadmills it knew included inaccurate heart rate
sensors.

In an opinion issued June 16 in Chicago, Judge Harry D.
Leinenweber denied a motion Precor, Inc., filed to ask him to
reconsider his March certification of a class action brought
against the company by plaintiffs Gary Mednick and Steven Bayer.

Judge Leinenweber noted his certification was limited as he
allowed the case to proceed only for the purpose of determining
liability, reserving issues related to damages for individual
hearings.  He called that a "hard won" victory for the plaintiffs,
noting they "significantly narrowed the proposed class" after he
refused to certify the initial broad proposal in June 2016.

In response, Mr. Mednick and Bayer dropped a warranty claim,
halved the number of states for which they sought warranty fraud
claims from 10 to five and narrowed the focus on Precor products
to nine models of treadmills, rather than also including
ellipticals and stationary bicycles in their claims. Remaining was
a "pure consumer fraud action" alleging Precor marketed its
treadmills deceptively, the judge said.

With the lawsuit focusing only on graphics on the nine treadmills
in question and whether Precor knowingly kept information from
customers that might have influenced purchasing decisions,
"plaintiffs could carry their burden to show proximate causation
with classwide proof," Judge Leinenweber wrote.

Precor moved for reconsideration, asserting "multiple manifest
errors of law," but Judge Leinenweber noted "no such motion exists
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."  He further explained
the company did not allege new facts, stressing the touch sensors
perform differently based on a user's individual physiology.  He
noted Precor's own testimony acknowledged a majority of users
experience inaccurate reading, and said the company's language
implying sensors work "whether you walk or run" negates its
contention a class action is inappropriate because "the type and
intensity of the exercise performed" affects accuracy.

Judge Leinenweber further explained the complaint included reports
of testing the two sensor systems in all the accused products,
which keeps Precor from claiming "the heart rate system included
in the machine" determined results.

"Given the court's prior disposal of the issue, Precor cannot
raise the same argument yet again and hope for a different
result," Judge Leinenweber wrote.  The only new information Precor
offered, he added, seems to be an attempt "to discredit its own
expert's study" by pointing to minimal warranty claims rather than
product testing data showing a majority of users could not get the
sensors to function properly.  However, even Bayer noted he didn't
file a warranty claim, but testified his monitor didn't work.

Judge Leinenweber also restated his earlier opinion that human
error involved in faulty sensor readings "is neither idiosyncratic
nor due to human failings alone," pointing to a study in which
participants given instructions still failed to get accurate
figures.

Precor also repeated its argument the complaint is flawed because
it calls for the court to assume all who bought the treadmills did
so based on perceived sensor accuracy.  But Judge Leinenweber
explained the customers alleged Precor sold a flawed product,
meaning the packaging would likely mislead any consumer.

Finally, Judge Leinenweber addressed damages, writing the issue of
whether plaintiffs seek full or partial refunds is not sufficient
to undercut a class action, but something that can be proved
during the merits stage of the case -- granting Precor a window to
challenge the final damages model.

Precor is defended in the action by attorneys with the firms of
Seyfarth Shaw, of Chicago, and Key & Associates, of Chicago.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from the firms of
Siprut P.C., of Chicago; Lite Depalma Greenberg LLC, of Newark,
N.J. and Chicago; Gordon Law Offices Ltd., of Chicago; and
Maurice Wutscher LLP, of Chicago. [GN]


PREMIER DERMATOLOGY: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Texts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Yorkville couple has filed a class-action lawsuit against Premier
Dermatology and Forefront Dermatology, alleging violation of
telephone harassment statutes.

Kimberly Smith and Steve Smith filed a complaint on behalf of all
others similarly situated on May 17 in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the defendants alleging they
sent unwanted text messages to the plaintiffs.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that, in 2016,
they received unwanted text messages pitching dermatology products
and services.  The plaintiffs hold Premier Dermatology and
Forefront Dermatology responsible because the defendants allegedly
continued to send unsolicited text messages to the plaintiffs
despite their requests to stop, not allowing them to opt out of
receiving the notifications, for which they may have been charged.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek $500 in statutory
damages, injunctive relief, $1,500 in treble damages and any
further relief this court grants.  They are represented by Jeffrey
M. Salas -- jsalas@salaswang.com -- of Salas Wang LLC in Chicago.
[GN]

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois case
number 1:17-cv-03712


PUTNAM INVESTMENT: Court Dismisses Remaining Claims in ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William G. Young of the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts entered judgment for the Defendants on
all remaining counts in the case captioned, JOHN BROTHERSTON and
JOAN GLANCY, individually and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Putnam Retirement
Plan, Plaintiffs, v. PUTNAM INVESTMENTS, LLC, PUTNAM INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT, LLC, PUNTNAM INVESTOR SERVICES, INC., the PUTNAM
BENEFITS INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, the PUTNAM BENEFITS OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE, and ROBERT REYNOLDS, Defendants, Case No. 17-md-02777-
EMC (D. Mass.).

On November 13, 2015, John Brotherston (Brotherston) and Joan
Glancy (Glancy), individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons and the Putnam Retirement Plan (Plan)
(collectively, the Plaintiffs), brought the class action under
section 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA), codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. Sections 1001-1461,
against the Plan's fiduciaries: Putnam Investments, LLC, Putnam
Investment Management, LLC, Putnam Investor Services, Inc., the
Putnam Benefits Investment Committee, the Putnam Benefits
Oversight Committee, and Putnam's Chief Executive Officer Robert
Reynolds (collectively, the Defendants), for breach of the
fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence in violation of 29 U.S.C.
Section 1104(a) (1) (A)-(B) (count I), prohibited transactions
with a party in interest in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1106(a)
(1) (count II), prohibited transactions with a fiduciary in
violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1106(b) (count III), failure to
monitor in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1109(a) (count IV), and
other equitable relief based on ill-gotten proceeds under 29
U.S.C. Section 1132(a) (3) (count V).

On March 30, 2017, the Court entered judgment for the Defendants
on counts II and III.  A bench trial on the remaining counts
commenced before the Court on April 7, 2017. Upon the conclusion
of the Plaintiffs' final witness, the Defendants moved for
judgment on partial findings pursuant to Rule 52(c) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

In a Findings dated June 19, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/n8sFlW from Leagle.com, Judge Young held that counts
I and IV must fail as matter of law because the Plaintiffs have
failed to establish a prima facie case of loss. In light of the
Plaintiffs' failure to establish loss, the Court further declined
to grant other declaratory or injunctive relief under section
1132(a) (3) (count V).

Braden Campbell, writing for Law360, reports that Judge Young
rejected the workers' remaining claims after a two-week trial,
noting among other things that the workers did not show Putnam
breached its duty of loyalty to them by putting its interests
ahead of theirs.

"The plaintiffs' duty of loyalty claims are reduced almost
exclusively to identifying instances of self-dealing," Judge Young
said.  "However, pointing to self-dealing alone is insufficient
for the plaintiffs to meet their burden of persuasion."

Putnam argued that it fulfilled its fiduciary duty of prudence to
its workers because its investment division closely monitored the
performance of its funds as a matter of business.  But this
ignores that the duty of prudence was owed by the committee put in
charge of the retirement plans and not the company itself, Judge
Young said.

Nevertheless, this second prong of the workers' breach of duties
claim fails because they did not lay out a case that Putnam caused
them losses by mismanaging the funds.  Though the Southern
District of New York has found that investors have a case for a
breach of fiduciary duty when they challenge the "overall
investment strategy" of a fund, Judge Young said investors must
show a specific poor decision.  The workers failed to do so here,
he said.

"Although the plaintiffs contend that they 'are not required to
prove that any individualized investment decision was imprudent
because no individualized investment decisions were made' . . .
this argument lacks legal support," Judge Young said.

The judge tossed the other claims on similar logic, noting that
the workers' ill-gotten proceeds claim "erroneously assumes that
they have made a prima facie showing" and that the failure to
monitor claim likewise requires them to demonstrate losses.

"We are very pleased with the court's decision that the plan was
managed with the best interests of plan participants in mind,"
said Michael Hines -- michael.hines@skadden.com -- of Skadden Arps
Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, who represented Putnam, in a statement.
"As we established early on in this case, the 401(k) plan at issue
is a good plan and well-designed."

A Putnam spokesperson added that the company was pleased with the
decision.

Joan Glancy and John Brotherson are represented by Brandon T.
McDonough, Esq. -- bmcdonough@nka.com -- Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. --
cfengstrom@nka.com -- Jacob T. Schutz, Esq. -- jtschultz@nka.com
-- and -- James H. Kaster, Esq. -- jhkaster@nka.com -- NICHOLS
KASTER, PLLP -- Jason M. Leviton, Esq. -- jason@blockesq.com --
Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq. -- bradley@blockesq.com -- and -- Jacob
A. Walker, Esq. -- jacob@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP

Putnam Investments, LLC, et al. are represented by Eben P. Colby,
Esq. -- eben.colby@skadden.com -- James R. Carroll, Esq. --
james.carroll@skadden.com -- Michael S. Hines, Esq. --
michael.hines@skadden.com -- and Raoul D. Kennedy, Esq. --
raoul.kennedy@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER, & FLOM
LLP


REO CONTRACTORS: Faces "Caldwell" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHERYL CALDWELL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. REO CONTRACTORS, INC., KINDALE
PITTMAN, individually, and HOLLY KIRK, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01552-C (N.D. Tex., June 9, 2017),
alleges that Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay its
workers for all hours of work at the rates required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Further, the case alleges that Plaintiff routinely worked in
excess of 40 hours per week but was not paid overtime for doing
this excessive work. Instead, Defendant misclassified its
employees as exempt from the protections of the FLSA and failed to
pay proper regard to the amount of hours Plaintiff and Class
Members actually worked or guarantee proper payment of the minimum
wage.

Defendant Reo Contractors, Inc. provides general contracting
services for foreclosed properties in Texas and elsewhere.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a salaried, overtime-
exempt employee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Travis Gasper, Esq.
     J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
     J. Forester, Esq.
     Travis Gasper, Esq.
     LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
     1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 749-1400
     Fax: (214) 749-1010
     E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
             forester@l-b-law.com
             gasper@l-b-law.com


RHEEM MANUFACTURING: NJ Court Narrows "Argabright" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LAWRENCE ARGABRIGHT, VICTORIA FECHT, and
LIBRADO MONTANO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant,
Civil No. 15-5243 (JBS/AMD) (D. N.J.), Judge Jerome B. Simandle of
the U.D. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in
part and denied in part the Defendant's motion.

In this putative multi-state class action, the Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendant manufactured defective residential heating,
ventilating, and air conditioning ("HVAC") systems under the Rheem
and Ruud brand names.  They assert the following claims in their
Amended Complaint: breach of express warranty (Count I); breach of
implied warranty of merchantability (Count II); fraudulent
concealment (Count III); negligent misrepresentation (Count IV);
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA") (Count V);
violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA") (Count
VI); violation of New York General Business Law Section 349
("NYGBL") (Count VII); violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act
("ACFA") (Count VIII); unjust enrichment (Count IX); and a claim
for declaratory relief (Count X).

The Defendant has moved to dismiss all claims in the Amended
Complaint, with the exception of the claim for breach of implied
warranty of merchantability as to Plaintiff Argabright.  The
Plaintiffs have submitted a Response in opposition and the
Defendant has submitted a Reply.

The Court finds that even construed liberally, the allegations in
the Plaintiffs' Complaint are insufficient to plausibly make out
their claims for breach of warranty as to Argabright.  However,
the Court denied the Defendant's Motion as to Fecht.  Furthermore,
because Arizona law disapproves of disposing with claims of
unconscionability at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the Court also
denied the Defendant's Motion as to Montano.

The Court also finds that the Fecht has made out a plausible
allegation that the contractors who sold and installed Fecht's and
Montano's HVACs were "Rheem Team Top Contractors" and thereby
acted as agents of the Defendant, which would establish the
required privity.  Of course, the Defendant is free to renew this
argument at a later stage of the proceedings should it believe
that the development of the factual record reveals that the
contractors in question cannot properly be understood as the
Defendant's agents.  For that reason, the Court declined to
dismiss Count II as to Plaintiffs Fecht and Montano.

Pursuant to the law of the case doctrine, Motamed v. Chubb Corp.,
the Court sees no reason to revisit or disturb that ruling, and
declined to dismiss Count V as it relates to the Plaintiffs'
claims for breach of implied warranty.  For the same reasons, the
Court declined to dismiss Count V as it relates to Fecht's claim
of breach of the express warranty and Montano's claim of breach of
warranty on the grounds of unconscionability.

The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims of
fraudulent concealment and negligent misrepresentation because it
found that the allegations in the complaint were insufficient to
show that the Defendant knowingly or negligently misrepresented or
omitted a material fact about a possible defect in their HVAC
units.  Again, the Amended Complaint does not include sufficient
allegations tending to show the requisite element of concealment,
and is devoid of sufficient factual allegations to allow for a
reasonable inference that the Defendant failed to exercise
reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating any
alleged false information.  For those reasons, the Court dismissed
the Plaintiffs' claim of negligent misrepresentation.

The Court also previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims under
the NJCFA, the ACFA, and NYGBL, all of which prohibit deceptive
practices in connection with the sale or advertisement of consumer
goods.  As the Court also already discussed in its earlier opinion
that to the extent that the Plaintiffs rely on a theory that the
Defendant committed consumer fraud through material omission or
failure to warn about a defect, that argument is unavailing.
Furthermore, the Amended Complaint does not address or cure the
Court's previous ruling that the complaint was devoid of any facts
which would create an inference that, at the time of their
purchase, Argabright, Fecht, or Montano were aware of the
allegedly false advertising claims.  Accordingly, Counts VI, VII,
and VIII are dismissed by the Court for failure to state a claim.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment
is insufficiently pled.  It, therefore, dismissed the claim for
unjust enrichment.

As for the Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief, the Court
agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiffs cannot allege facts
from which it appears there is a substantial likelihood that they
will suffer injury in the future, as a party requesting a
declaratory judgment must do.  For this reason, the Court
dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/w4StgA from Leagle.com.

LAWRENCE ARGABRIGHT, Plaintiff, represented by MELANIE H.
MUHLSTOCK, PARKER WAICHMAN LLP.

VICTORIA FECHT, Plaintiff, represented by MELANIE H. MUHLSTOCK,
PARKER WAICHMAN LLP.

LIBRADO MONTANO, Plaintiff, represented by MELANIE H. MUHLSTOCK,
PARKER WAICHMAN LLP.

RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant, represented by AARON VAN
NOSTRAND -- vannostranda@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP &
DAVID JAY -- GREENBERG TAURIG, LLP.


SEARS BRAND: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that an Alameda County business alleges it was unlawfully
contacted by Sears Brand LLC.

Abante Rooter & Plumbing filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated on June 8 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against Sears Brand LLC, doing
business as Sears Home Improvement and Sears Home Services, citing
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that beginning
in 2016, it suffered damages from receiving several solicitation
calls despite being registered on the National Do-Not-Call
Registry.  The plaintiff holds Sears Brand LLC responsible because
the defendant allegedly used an automatic telephone dialing system
to call the plaintiff without having a prior relationship.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory
damages, $1,500 in treble damages, injunctive relief and any other
relief as the court deems just.  It is represented by Joshua
Swigart, Esq. -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- and Yana Hart of
Hyde and Swigart in San Diego. [GN]

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number 4:17-cv-03312-JSW


SEVEN NINETY CO: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Aguirre Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
HEIDI AGUIRRE, JOSUE FLORES, JAVIER AVALOS, ALFREDO GONZALEZ, and
MOES 1 through 1,000, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SEVEN NINETY COMPANY, INC, dba
INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKES, a Nevada Corporation; ROD
MACHPHERSON, and individual; RICHARD SANDNES, an individual; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC664624
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 14, 2017), seeks to recover full amount of
minimum wage and overtime compensation including attorney's fees,
and costs of suit under California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that all members of the class are similarly
situated in that, throughout their employment, they were subject
to Defendants' violations of California labor law, including
failing to pay all earned minimum, regular rate, reporting time,
stand-by, and overtime wages.

Seven Ninety is a mid-sized organization in the restaurants
industry located in Rosemead, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert W. Skripko, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. SKRIPKO, JR, PC
          38 Corporate Park
          Irvine, CA 92606
          Telephone: (949) 476 2000
          Facsimile: (949) 476 2007

               - and -

          Paul J. Dennis, Esq.
          Ethan E. Rasi, Esq.
          DENIS & RASI, PC
          38 Corporate Park
          Irvine, CA 92606
          Telephone: (714) 242 4557
          Facsimile: (213) 443 9601


SLATER AND GORDON: Vows to Fight Babscay Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Slater and Gordon says it
will fight a class action brought against it by one of its
shareholders for allegedly making false financial statements.

The law firm has told the Australian Securities Exchange it has
been served with a class action by Babscay, which alleges Slater
and Gordon's financial statements for the 2013, 2014 and 2015
financial years contained false and/or misleading statements.

Babscay is acting on behalf of shareholders who acquired an
interest in Slater and Gordon shares between August 24, 2012 and
November 19, 2015.

"The allegations focus on the way in which the company recognised
revenue and, in financial year 2015, accounted for acquisitions in
accordance with Australian Accounting Standards," Slater and
Gordon said, stressing it would vigorously defend the claims.

Slater and Gordon's market value has fallen from $2.8 billion in
April 2015, to just $34 million after a disastrous $1.2 billion
acquisition of Quindell's professional services division in the
UK.

In a different set of proceedings, rival law firm Maurice
Blackburn is leading a class action representing thousands of
Slater and Gordon shareholders over disclosure of financial
information between March 2015 and February 2016. [GN]


SPOTLESS GRPOUP: IMF Bentham to Stop Funding Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Simon Evans and Jenny Wiggins, writing for Australian Financial
Review, report that one of the class actions faced by takeover
target Spotless Group from aggrieved shareholders over
announcements made by the company in late 2015 is being
discontinued.

Spotless chairman Garry Hounsell has seized upon the withdrawal as
backing the company's position that it had always been in
compliance with its continuous disclosure obligations.

Mr Hounsell on June 20 reiterated again that Spotless shareholders
should reject the $1.15 per share takeover offer from Downer EDI.
Fresh notices to the ASX on June 20 showed that Downer now holds
37.17 per cent of Spotless.  Downer on June 19 announced that its
takeover bid was now free of all conditions.

"Spotless is at an inflection point and we remain confident
regarding the company's future prospects, particularly as the
business continues to execute to plan," Mr Hounsell said.

He also said that Spotless had undertaken a sale and leaseback of
its Abbotsford laundry facility in Melbourne, which was expected
to deliver net proceeds of $10.5 million.  Settlement would happen
before June 30 and the proceeds would be used to cut debt.

Mr Hounsell said it was pleasing to see the announcement on
June 20 that litigation funder IMF Bentham proposed to stop
funding a shareholder class action by William Roberts Lawyers
announced in January and February this year, and that proceedings
would be discontinued.  IMF said the withdrawal will result in a
loss of $510,000 to the company on that particular foray.

There is still another separate class action being run by Slater &
Gordon which was lodged in May 2017 against Spotless, over similar
allegations surrounding market announcements made by Spotless
between August and December, 2015 prior to a profit downgrade by
the company.

Spotless has said all along that it denies any allegations of
wrongdoing and intended to vigorously defend the proceedings. [GN]


SOLID WOOD: "Boone" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA BOONE and RAY MARRERO, for themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE SOLID WOOD CABINET
COMPANY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04323-KM-JBC
(D.N.J., June 14, 2017), seeks to recover overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiffs bring their FLSA claim as a collective action for
all people who worked for Solid Wood as a designer, salesperson,
or other similarly titled position in any week during the maximum
limitations period.

The Plaintiffs contend that Solid Wood violated the FLSA and the
New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, because it knowingly suffered or
permitted Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated individuals to
work in excess of 40 hours in given workweeks without paying them
at a premium rate for all overtime hours worked.

Solid Wood Cabinet Company is a "factory-direct" retail company,
established in 2002.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Andrew Ficzko, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          604 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 873 4836
          Facsimile: (312) 233 1560


STERLING JEWELERS: "Masten" Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Veronica Masten, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf
of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc.,
an Ohio corporation; Signet Jewelers Limited, Erroneously Sued As
Signet Jewelers, LTD; and Defendant Does 1 through 30, inclusive,
Case No. BC660989, was removed on June 14, 2017 from Los Angeles,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District Of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-04436-DSF-JEM to the proceeding.

Sterling Jewelers is an American specialty jewelry company
headquartered in Akron, Ohio. The company was founded in 1910 by
Henry Shaw, from LeRoy's Jewelers in Lorain, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shadie Latae Berenji, Esq.
          BERENJI LAW FIRM APC
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 708
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 855 3270
          Facsimile: (310) 855 3751
          E-mail: berenji@employeejustice.law

The Defendants are represented by:

          Spencer C Skeen, Esq.
          Timothy L Johnson, Esq.
          OLGLETREE DEAKINS NASH
          SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652 3100
          Facsimile: (858) 652 3101
          E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com
                  tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com


SUREID INC: Faces "Flaig" Lawsuit Alleging WARN Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
FALANA MARIE FLAIG on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SUREID, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00910-BR (D. Ore., June 9, 2017), is an action for collection of
alleged unpaid wages and benefits for sixty (60) calendar days
pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
of 1988.

The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant until she was
terminated as part of, or as a result of a mass layoff ordered by
the Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lawrence R. Cock, Esq.
     CABLE, LANGENBACH, KINERK & BAUER, LLP
     Suite 3500, 1000 Second Avenue Building
     Seattle, WA 98104-1048
     Phone: (206) 292-8800
     Fax: (206) 292-0494
     E-mail: lrc@cablelang.com

        - and -

     Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
     LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
     132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
     New York, NY 10038
     Phone: (212) 581-5005
     Fax: (212) 581-2122

        - and -

     Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
     THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
     210 S. Washington Ave.
     Mobile, AL 36602
     Phone: (251) 433-8100
     Fax: (251) 433-8181

        - and -

     THE NLG MAURICE AND JANE SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND
     SOCIAL JUSTICE
     733 St. Antoine, 3rd Floor
     Detroit, MI 48226
     Phone: (313) 962-6540


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on June 20 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona on behalf of holders of Swift Transportation
Company ("Swift") (NYSE:SWFT) common stock in connection with the
proposed transaction pursuant to which Swift and Bishop Merger
Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub") will be combined with Knight
Transportation, Inc. ("Knight"), announced on April 10, 2017 (the
"Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Swift, its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), and Knight, is captioned Sciabacucchi v.
Swift Transportation Company, Case No. 2:17-cv-01683-JZB (D.
Ariz.).

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 9, 2017, Swift entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Knight.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, shareholders of Swift will receive 0.72 shares
of Knight for each share of Swift common stock (the "Proposed
Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a
registration statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on May 24,
2017.  The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement,
which recommends that Swift 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 Swift's financial projections and potential conflicts
of interest.  The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief
and damages on behalf of holders of Swift common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 21, 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.


TEMPLE ISRAEL: "Orellana" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAUL ORELLANA, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff, v. TEMPLE ISRAEL OF GREAT NECK,
LEDERMAN CATERERS OF GREAT NECK, LTD. and LEON SILVERBERG, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03581-LDW-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Fla., June
14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, unpaid spread-of-
hours premium, liquidated damages and statutory penalties,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the other FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have
had similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are and have
been subjected to Defendants' decisions, policies, plans,
programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules,
all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay them
minimum wage and overtime premium at the rate of one and one half
times the regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per workweek.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181


TIM HORTONS: Franchisees Commence $500MM Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a group of Tim Hortons franchisees have
launched a $500-million class-action lawsuit against the parent
company for mismanagement of the brand, accusing the chain's
owners of making it harder for them to stay in business.

The group of franchisees, who call themselves the Great White
North Franchisee Association, say that ever since the firm
Restaurant Brands bought the iconic coffee and doughnut chain and
merged it with Burger King in 2014 their costs have increased, but
the new owners haven't allowed them to raise prices to recoup
those costs.

They went public with their complaints earlier this year, but
after working with management behind the scenes to try to address
their concerns, they launched the class-action lawsuit on June 19,
seeking $500 million in damages.

"Since its acquisition," the statement of claim reads,
"[Restaurant Brands] has used various strategies to extract more
money out of the Tim Hortons franchise system at the expense of
franchisees."

The suit is on behalf of one franchisee, 1523428 Ontario Inc.,
which owns two Tim Hortons franchises in the Toronto area, but
seeks other plaintiffs to join the court action.

The class-action lawsuit must be certified before proceeding,
which means a judge must decide whether a class action is the
appropriate course of action, from a legal perspective.

"Changes instituted by RBI over the past two years have shaken the
system, threatened the brand and affected the ability of
franchisees to carry on viable business," the group says on its
website.

Marketing money misspent

Among the allegations in the statement of claim is that the parent
company is misusing the millions of dollars that franchisees pay
for marketing.

As per the terms of their franchise agreements, Tim Hortons
franchisees are required to contribute 3.5 per cent of their net
sales every year into a fund used to market the chain
collectively.

Since Restaurant Brands bought the chain, Canadian franchisees
have contributed a total of $700 million to the so-called ad fund.

The statement of claim says that since the RBI takeover,
franchisees have little say in how that ad fund is spent, and they
allege some of the funds in it are being spent on things that
don't help market the chain.

"RBI has funnelled this money to itself, TDL and the individual
defendants at the wrongful expense of the franchisees," the
statement of claim says.

The suit is launched against the corporate entities of Tim Hortons
and Restaurant Brands, but also individual executives including
Tim Hortons president Elias Diaz Sese, and Restaurant Brands CEO
Daniel Schwartz.

For its part, the companies told CBC News in a statement that "it
is very disappointing that a few restaurant owners have opted to
take actions against us when our focus remains on protecting and
enhancing the brand."

"We vehemently disagree with and deny all the allegations that
have been made about our business and the brand. We remain
committed to working together with our restaurant owners to ensure
the incredible Tim Hortons brand continues to be strong for many
years to come," the statement reads.

Tim Hortons' Canada President Sami Siddiqui sent a letter to all
Canadian franchisees on June 19, echoing that tone. "

"We vehemently disagree with and deny all the allegations that
have been made about our business and the brand," Siddiqui said.
"It is very unfortunate that certain owners have chosen to make
these public accusations given that we have offered to let any
owner come in and review the numbers with us, line by line, as we
have done in the past.  As we have discussed many times before,
these types of public accusations will only hurt the brand that
all of you have worked so hard to build." [GN]


TURN KEY: "Ortiz" Suit Sues over Wage and Hour Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
RAMNON ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TURN KEY CONTRACTOR SOLUTIONS, LLC and
CODY LAWRENCE, as an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
03517-SJF-AKT (E.D.N.Y., June 12, 2017), seeks to recover
compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding
$100,000 for violations of state and federal wage and hour laws
arising out of Plaintiff's employment at Turn Key Contractor
Solutions, LLC.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked 60-70 hours per
week for Defendants from March 2016 until November 2016. However
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wage in violation of
Fair Labor Standard Act and New York Labor Law.

Turn key Contractor offers home improvement services in Bohemia,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263 9591


TURNER CONTRACTING: "Outley" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES OUTLEY II, and individual on his own behalf and on behalves
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TURNER
CONTRACTING INC, an Indiana corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
5:17-cv-03465-NC (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wage and liquidated damages under California Labor
Code and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff
and the class timely meal and rest breaks, overtime compensation,
one day rest, and minimum wage for all hours worked.

Turner Contracting is a family owned and operated business with
over a decade of experience specializing in mining and mass
excavation projects.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kikey L. GRombacher, Esq.
          Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 90361
          Telephone: (805) 270 7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270 7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com

               - and -

          Walter L. Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
          5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256 1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256 1006


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Disputes Class Action Over Pricing Model
-----------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that Uber slammed a
proposed class action alleging it breached its contract with
drivers by stiffing them on fares with its so-called upfront
pricing model, telling a California federal judge on June 19 that
the plaintiff has misread the agreement and doesn't have a valid
case.

Uber Technologies Inc. filed a motion to dismiss North Carolina
driver Martin Dulberg's proposed class action alleging that
drivers have been shortchanged on fares -- a percentage of which
they're promised in their driver agreements with the company --
after Uber switched to a so-called upfront pricing model in the
fall of 2016.

"Plaintiff's claims rest on a misreading of the agreement," Uber
said.  "The contract itself is before this court, and its written
terms provide no support for plaintiff's contentions. Adopting
plaintiff's interpretation would alter the bargain that the
parties actually made."

Under that upfront pricing model, the ride-hailing giant charges
passengers a fare before their ride even begins, but Uber bases
that fare on an aggressive and often inflated projection of the
distance and time involved in a particular ride, Mr. Dulberg
alleged.  The driver is entitled to a set percentage of the fare
as laid out in the driver agreements, but Uber pays based on a
calculation of the distance and time actually driven, which can
often be less than what the customer actually paid, allowing Uber
to pocket the difference, according to Mr. Dulberg's complaint.

Uber insists that Mr. Dulberg's suit should be dismissed for
failure to state a claim because his breach of contract
allegations don't square with the actual provisions in his
contract, according to the motion to dismiss.

"Contrary to the mischaracterization of the agreement set forth in
the complaint, the agreement itself does not base driver payments
on 'whatever money passengers pay' or get 'charged' (whether
'upfront' or at the 'end of the ride')," Uber says. "Plaintiff's
contention -- that the 'fare' assessed to riders, or paid by
riders (whether upfront or otherwise), constitutes the 'fare' owed
to drivers -- is irreconcilable with the contract's actual terms."

Uber also said its statement about upfront pricing is a
promotional statement addressed to riders who use the service, not
to drivers.  Furthermore, it does not discuss what portion of the
upfront price will be paid to drivers, and it describes some
components for calculating the upfront price, or "fare," that
differ from the fare calculation that produces the fare found in
the agreement.

Mr. Dulberg, a Raleigh, North Carolina, resident who has been an
UberX driver since May 2014 and an Uber Select driver since
February 2015, launched the proposed class action in February,
claiming Uber drivers are promised that they will be able to
retain 80 percent of the fare charged to passengers for UberX
rides but in fact retain a smaller percentage of the fare.

"Defendants, by charging a greater fare to riders than the
calculation used to determine payment to drivers, have deprived
plaintiff and the class members of the full benefits they are
entitled to under the parties' agreements," Mr. Dulberg alleged in
the complaint.

Mr. Dulberg's attorney, Paul B. Maslo of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC,
said on June 20 that the plaintiff will respond in an upcoming
opposition brief.

Mr. Dulberg is represented by Paul B. Maslo and Andrew Dressel of
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC.

Uber is represented by Jonathan R. Bass -- jrb@coblentzlaw.com --
Susan K. Jamison -- skj@coblentzlaw.com -- Clifford E. Yin --
cyin@coblentzlaw.com -- and Sean P.J. Coyle --
scoyle@coblentzlaw.com -- of Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP.

The case is Dulberg v. Uber Technologies Inc., case number 3:17-
cv-00850, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. [GN]


VIVINT SOLAR: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 2 Claims in "Stadnick"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district
court's dismissal of Plaintiff's Sections 11 and 15 claims and in
the case captioned ROBBY SHAWN STADNICK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
BRENNEN HYATT, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS LIMA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff,
v. VIVINT SOLAR, INC., THE BLACKSTONE GROUP L.P., GREGORY S.
BUTTERFIELD, DANA C. RUSSELL, DAVID F. D'ALESSANDRO, ALEX J. DUNN,
BRUCE McEVOY, TODD R. PEDERSEN, JOSEPH F. TRUSTEY, PETER F.
WALLACE, JOSEPH S. TIBBETTS, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MERRILL LYNCH,
PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES
(USA) LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES
INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BLACKSTONE
ADVISORY PARTNERS L.P., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-65-cv
(2nd Cir.).

Plaintiff-Appellant Robby Shawn Stadnick filed a case arising from
the October 1, 2014 Initial Public Offering (IPO) for shares of
Vivint Solar, Inc., a residential solar energy unit installer.
Stadnick principally argues on appeal that Vivint was obligated to
disclose financial information for the quarter ending one day
before the IPO because Vivint's performance during that quarter
constituted an "extreme departure" under Shaw v. Digital Equipment
Corp., 82 F.3d 1194 (1st Cir. 1996). He also argues that Vivint
misled prospective shareholders regarding the company's
opportunities for expansion in Hawaii by failing to disclose the
potential impact of the state's evolving regulatory regime.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (Forrest, J.) dismissing his securities class action
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
concluding that the "extreme departure" test of Shaw is not the
law of this Circuit and that Vivint's omissions were not material
under the test set forth in DeMaria v. Andersen, 318 F.3d 170 (2d
Cir. 2003), to which we adhere. The Court further conclude that
Vivint did not mislead shareholders regarding the company's
prospects in Hawaii.

On appeal, Stadnick argues that the district court erred in
determining that the second amended complaint failed to state a
claim under Section 11 when it alleged that Vivint failed to
disclose, first, the financial information from the third quarter
of 2014 and, second, the material adverse effect on its business
of the evolving regulatory regime in Hawaii. Stadnick further
argues that, because his Section 11 claims were improperly
dismissed, so too were his claims under Section 15.

In a Decision dated June 21, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/nMeHpR from Leagle.com, the Second Circuit held that
there is no basis to disturb the district court's conclusion that
the percentage drop in Hawaii was not a material fact that needed
to be disclosed and that there is no basis for holding that Vivint
failed to fulfill its affirmative disclosure obligation under Item
303 of Regulation S-K regarding the evolving regulatory regime in
Hawaii.

Robby Shawn Stadnick, Brennen Hyatt and Thomas Lima are
represented by Nicholas Ian Porritt, Esq. -- nporritt@zlk.com --
and -- Adam M. Apton, Esq. -- aapton@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY
LLP

Vivint Solar, Inc., et al. are represented by Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
-- jay.kasner@skadden.com -- Scott D. Musoff, Esq. --
scott.musoff@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
LLP


VWR CORPORATION: Lawrence Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Avantor
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID LAWRENCE, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. VWR CORPORATION, MANUEL A.H. BROCKE-
BENZ, HARRY M. JANSEN KRAEMER, JR., NICHOLAS W. ALEXOS, ROBERT L.
BARCHI, EDWARD A. BLECHSCHMIDT, ROBERT P. DECRESCE, PAMELA FORBES
LIEBERMAN, TIMOTHY P. SULLIVAN, and ROBERT J. ZOLLARS, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02758-WB (E.D. Pa., June 14, 2017),
seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with the shareholder vote on the Proposed
Merger or consummating the Proposed Merger, unless and until the
Company discloses the material information discussed above, which
has been omitted from the Proxy.

This action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated public shareholders of
VWR Corporation against VWR and the members of the Company's board
of directors, for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed merger between VWR,
and Avantor, Inc., a global supplier of ultra-high-purity
materials for the life sciences and advanced technology markets.
The Proposed Merger will be accomplished through acquisition
entities, Vail Acquisition Corp, a Delaware corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Avantor, and New Mountain Capital
L.L.C., a private equity investment firm.

On May 5, 2017, VWR and Avantor jointly announced that they had
reached a definitive Agreement under which Avantor will acquire
VWR for $33.25 in cash per share of VWR common stock, reflecting
an enterprise value of $6.4 billion. The Defendants have violated
the Exchange Act by filing a materially incomplete and misleading
Schedule 14A Preliminary Proxy Statement with the SEC on June 1,
2017. The Board recommends that VWR's shareholders vote in favor
of the Proposed Merger at a forthcoming shareholder special
meeting, and agree to exchange their shares pursuant to the terms
of the Merger Agreement based on, among other things, the factors
examined by the Board to make its recommendation and the opinion
rendered by the Company's financial advisor, Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated ("BofA Merrill Lynch").

While Defendants are touting the fairness of the Merger
Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy, they
have failed to disclose certain material information that is
necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the
Proposed Merger, thereby rendering certain statements in the Proxy
incomplete and misleading.

VWR International is a global laboratory supplier and distributor
of chemicals, life science products, consumables, equipment,
instruments, and furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WORLDVENTURES HOLDINGS: "Yiru" Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Melody Yiru, also known as: Shi
Yiru, an individual, and all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Worldventures Foundation, a Texas corporation;
Worldventures Holdings, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company;
World Ventures, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; Worldventures
Marketing, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; and Wayne
Nugent, an individual; Michael Azcue, an individual; Daniel
Stammen, an individual; and DOES 1-100, Case No. BC659422, was
removed on June 12, 2017 from Los Angeles Superior Court, to the
U.S. District Court for Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:17-cv-04357-PA-KS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson.

The Defendants are enganged in direct selling business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Daren M Schlecter, Esq.
          Law Office of Daren Schlecter
          1925 Century Park East Suite 830
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553 5747
          Facsimile: (310) 553 5487
          E-mail: daren@schlecterlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John Shaeffer, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          1800 Century Park East Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1506
          Telephone: (310) 598 4150
          Facsimile: (310) 556 9828
          E-mail: jshaeffer@foxrothschild.com


ZF CHASSIS: Faces "Smith" Suit in Northern Dist. of Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ZF Chassis Systems
Chicago, LLC.  The case is captioned as Donna Smith, Mejra Sejfic,
Shaundice Lenoir, and LerQuonna Cross, the Plaintiff, v. ZF
Chassis Systems Chicago, LLC, formerly known as: ZF Lemforder
Chicago, LLC, and ZF North America, Inc., formerly known as: ZF
Lemforder Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04463
(N.D. Ill., June 13, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Joan B. Gottschall.

ZF Chassis manufactures auto parts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith L. Hunt, Esq.
          Bradley Edwin Faber, Esq.
          KEITH L. HUNT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          Three First National Plaza
          70 W. Madison No. 2100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 558 1300
          E-mail: khunt@huntassoclaw.com
                  bfaber@huntassoclaw.com


* Justice Dept. Leans Towards Employers on Class Action Waiver
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher J. Stevens, Esq. --
Christopher.Stevens@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis P.C, in
an article for The National Law Review, reports that in a
fascinating turn of events, the United States Department of
Justice ("DOJ") switched sides in a critical pending Supreme Court
case on June 16.  The three consolidated cases -- National Labor
Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Case No. 16-307, Epic Systems
Corp. v. Lewis, Case No. 16-285 and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris,
Case No. 16-300 -- have been closely watched as the Supreme Court
is expected to resolve a growing circuit split over whether an
employment contract that requires an employee to waive his or her
right to bring or participate in a class action violates the
National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA").  The NLRA protects
employees' rights to engage in concerted activity concerning
wages, hour and working conditions.  Employers are increasingly
relying on such waivers, which are an effective way to avoid
costly class action litigation.  Jackson Lewis represents Murphy
Oil before the Supreme Court.

Under the Obama Administration, the government had defended the
NLRB's position that class action waivers violated the NLRA and
were unenforceable.  Now, under President Trump, the DOJ has
reversed course.  In an amicus curiae brief filed on June 16, DOJ
expressly acknowledged that it had "previously filed a petition .
. . on behalf of the NLRB, defending the Board's view" that class
action waivers were unenforceable, but stated that "[a]fter the
change in administration, the [DOJ] reconsidered the issue and has
reached the opposite conclusion."

Of course the change does not guarantee that the Supreme Court
will agree with DOJ.  It does, however, appear to make that
outcome more likely -- especially given the recent appointment of
Justice Gorsuch to the Court, breaking an ideological stalemate.
[GN]


* Plaintiffs' Firms Earn Nearly $1BB from 2016 Securities Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that last year was a
big one for high-dollar settlements in securities class actions
-- and for the plaintiffs lawyers representing investors, who took
in nearly $1 billion in legal fees and expenses in connection with
settlements finalized in 2016.

Settlements in 13 securities class actions that came to points of
resolution in 2016 made it onto an annual list of the top 100
securities settlements of all time, according to a report released
on June 14 by Securities Class Action Services, a division of
Institutional Shareholder Services Inc.  That's a record, ISS
said, "resulting in the largest approved settlement fund of any
single year."

In all, the 13 settlements that made the ISS top 100 list in 2016
add up to about $5.6 billion, with an average of $431.4 million.
And according to an analysis by The American Lawyer based on court
records, plaintiffs firms involved in those deals came away with
fees and expenses totaling about $999.8 million, with an average
fee and expense award of $76.9 million.

Among the high-ranked settlements jumping onto the list in 2016
were the seventh-ranked $1.575 billion settlement in litigation
involving Household International Inc., and the 11th-ranked $1.06
billion settlement in securities litigation against Merck & Co.
Inc. Some of the deals on the ISS top 100 list are the product of
multiple settlements in a particular litigation.

A pair of heavyweight plaintiffs firms in the securities class
action realm led investors to those two highest-ranked settlements
finalized in 2016 -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd served as lead
counsel in the Household International case, resulting in a fee
and expense award totaling $33.6 million, while Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann led the Merck litigation and secured an award
of $221.5 million in fees and expenses.

The Merck case, which dated back to 2003 in New Jersey federal
court, resulted in the highest fee and expense award of the 13
settlements that made the top 100 list in 2016.  The lead firm for
investors in that case, Bernstein Litowitz, also came up the most
often as lead plaintiffs counsel among the group of 13 settlements
finalized in 2016, serving as lead or co-lead counsel in six of
the 13.

"Since [ISS] began compiling and publishing data on securities
litigation recoveries and the law firms prosecuting the cases over
a decade ago, [Bernstein Litowitz] has been at or near the top of
their rankings every year -- often with the highest total
recoveries, the highest settlement average, or both," the firm
said in an announcement noting its place on the ISS list.

Beyond the Merck settlement, two other cases also led to awards of
more than $100 million to plaintiffs lawyers.

In connection with a $486 million settlement of litigation against
Pfizer Inc., which ranked 29th on the ISS list, a federal judge in
Manhattan awarded roughly $156.1 million in fees and expenses.
Grant & Eisenhofer was lead counsel for the investor plaintiffs in
that case.

And a $310 million settlement in litigation against Caremark Rx
Inc. led an Alabama Circuit Court judge to award $126.6 million in
fees and expenses.  That case had lead counsel from three
plaintiffs firms that are smaller than typically seen elsewhere in
the ISS report: Hare Wynn Newell & Newton; Francis Law; and
Somerville.

The ISS list follows a report released earlier this year by
Cornerstone Research, which also tracks securities litigation,
saying that a record number of new securities class actions were
filed last year.  The Cornerstone report, released in late
January, showed that 270 new securities class actions were filed
in 2016, with many of them lodged against biotechnology and health
care companies.


* Trump Administration Protects Arbitration Clauses
---------------------------------------------------
Jeff Spross, writing for The Week, reports that the list of the
Trump administration's sins against working Americans is already
long.  But we will soon be able to add another item: protecting
arbitration clauses.

These are legal mechanisms hidden in tons of worker and consumer
contracts that essentially force people to settle disputes with
businesses in private arbitration, rather than in court or other
collective actions.  They're a poisonous and ubiquitous practice
in the American economy.

An upcoming Supreme Court case, National Labor Relations Board v.
Murphy Oil, is all about whether a company can use arbitration
clauses to force its employees to forego class-action lawsuits and
the like.  In 2012, the NLRB concluded these arbitration clauses
violated labor law, prompting a legal fight that's split various
appeals courts.

President Obama's Justice Department originally backed the NLRB's
position.  But as soon as President Trump took over, the DOJ
switched sides. Conservatives already hold a five-seat majority on
the court, so the Trump team's decision makes a favorable ruling
for arbitration even more likely.

With Trump's signature, the GOP-dominated Congress also killed a
federal regulation squashing arbitration clauses among government
contractors. And rulings by the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau and other agencies, aiming to cut back on the use of
arbitration, are also in jeopardy.

There's a lesson in how we got here.  The history of arbitration
clauses is a textbook example of how decades of careless or just
haphazard decisions, driven by the slow pressure of the profit
motive, can change innocuous policy into a weapon for big
business.

It begins in 1925 with the passage of the Federal Arbitration Act
(FAA).  The law's scope was meant to be quite limited -- lawmakers
explicitly said it was only for "merchants" who were in a dispute.
If two businesses had some sort of contractual disagreement, they
could avoid the expense and inconvenience of taking one another to
court.  Instead, the FAA created a private process where the two
companies could rely on an arbitrator to make legally-binding
decisions.  This is crucial to realize: The FAA was originally
designed for arbitration between two institutions of equal power.

But companies began experimenting with arbitration clauses, and
how far they could push their adoption, in the early 1990s.
Corporate lawyers wanted to cut down on the amount of class-action
lawsuits their clients faced.  They realized they could put
clauses into their consumer and employee contracts that forced
people to essentially waive their rights to sue in a class-action
lawsuit or labor dispute.

At first, courts pushed back, saying the clauses violated state
law or other jurisprudence.  In 2002, Discover tried to use
arbitration as the only route for consumers to push back at unfair
credit card fees, but the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the
case.

At the same time, the Supreme Court itself had opened the door to
broader interpretations when it determined in 1984 that the FAA
established a "national policy favoring arbitration."  The
California Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that arbitration decisions
have power even if they lead to "substantial injustice" and
legally incorrect outcomes.  In 2006, two different appeals court
circuits further insulated arbitration decisions from legal
review.

So the courts were coming around to companies' way of thinking.
Finally, in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that AT&T could
enforce an arbitration clause that was basically identical to what
Discover tried to use in 2002. The best part? The lawyer arguing
Discover's 2002 case was one John Roberts -- the very same John
Roberts who was chief justice when the Supreme Court ruled in
AT&T's favor.

In fact, the conflicts of interest judges face in the modern
arbitration system are appalling.  Many of them enjoy lucrative
side gigs as professional arbitrators.  The salaries for U.S.
district court judges are impressive, but they still pale in
comparison to what people can earn in private legal practice.  And
the private firms that supply most professional arbitration
services recruit heavily among U.S. judges.

Even more perversely, it's the companies facing arbitration that
supply those private arbitration firms with future business.  It's
similar to what occurred in the run-up to the 2008 financial
crisis, when the credit rating agencies that assessed the safety
of mortgage-backed securities were paid by the banks who created
those securities.  Back when arbitration was primarily about
conflicts between two different companies, this wasn't such a big
deal, because both sides were equally likely to employ the firm
again in the future.  But now arbitration is mainly about
conflicts between companies on one side and consumers and workers
on the other.

That creates a fundamental imbalance of power. Class-action
lawsuits and labor law procedures allow consumers and workers to
band together into massive groups.  That way they can collect
damages that are big enough to actually change a company's
behavior and attract the kind of legal talent that can actually
win.  En masse, ordinary people can wield resources and clout at
least somewhat equal to big business.  But arbitration clauses
effectively allow companies to separate people out from the herd.

Individual Americans may get into an arbitration dispute once or
twice in their lifetimes. Companies face them continually, and
wield far more power than their opponent in each individual
arbitration dispute.  Employees and consumers are less likely to
win than when they go to court, and even when they win, the
damages awarded are much smaller.  That makes companies unlikely
to change their behavior even in defeat.

Not surprisingly, arbitration clauses are now ubiquitous in the
U.S. economy.  They apply to credit cards, rental cars, cable,
mobile phones, student loans, nursing homes, and more.  In the
relationships between employers and workers, they're used in
everything from the banking industry to fast food and retail.  The
National Employment Lawyers Association estimated that 30 million
workers labor under the umbrella of arbitration clauses -- and
that was back in 2008.

Between 2010 and 2014, there were around 500 arbitration disputes
involving $2,500 or less, according to an analysis by The New York
Times.  Among Verizon's 125 million customers, it faced 65
arbitrations over that time. Time-Warner dealt with only seven
arbitrations out of 15 million customers.

Far from replacing class-action lawsuits as a viable alternative
to righting corporate wrongs -- as arbitration is often presented
by its defenders -- these clauses are simply stopping people from
pushing back at all. [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  * * *