---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Tuesday, February 21, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 37



                            Headlines

ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Trust Fund Alleges Popranolol Price Fixing
ADVANCED BOOTING: Faces "Alhaddad" Suit in Ga. Over Boot Device
AETNA INC: "Griffin" Seeks Damages for Share Price Drop
AHOLD USA: Falsely Marketed Oat Products, "Hackman" Suit Claims
AIR METHODS: Faces "Byler" Suit for Unreasonable Service Charge

AMERICAN FEDERATION: "Blondell" Suit to Recover Royalties
ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: "Min" Suit Alleges Securities Violations
AUDI AG: "Bull" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672
AUROBINDO PHARMA: Trust Fund Alleges Price Fixing of Glyburide
BASIC INC: Fraud-on-the Market Doctrine Villain in Class Action

BODY & SOUL: Brown Moves Certification of Two Classes Under FLSA
BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: "Holland" Suit Alleges Non-Payment of OT
CARIBBEAN RESTAURANTS: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
CHARTER COMM: "Ewing" Sues Over Unauthorized Telemarketing Calls
COMMERCIAL PROTECTIVE: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers

CUMBERLAND RIVER: Faces "Price" Suit for Unpaid Off-Clock Work
DAVITA INC: Accused of Unlawful Conduct Over Company Stock Price
DELCAR INC: "Ransom" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA, Ind. Law
ENVIRO-AIRE LLC: Faces "Cochran" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
FAMILY DOLLAR: Status Hearing in "Parrot" Suit Today

FREEDOMROADS LLC: Faces "Farnsworth' Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: "Chopp" Sues Over China Oceanwide Merger
GLOBAL EXCHANGE: Del Valle May File Bid for Class Cert. by May 15
GUNTER'S HONEY: Sued in D.C. Over Misleading Product Label
IGUANAS BURRITOZILLA: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Says

JB HUNT TRANSPORT: "Gallups" Labor Suit to Recover Wages, Benefits
JOHN VARVATOS: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Gender Discrimination
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "McBrayer" Suit Assigned to Judge Conrad
K-B HEALTH: Faces "King" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violations
KELLY SERVICES: N.D. Illinois Terminates "Dolemba" Class Suit

KING OF DIAMONDS: Faces "Hopkins" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
KOLTER GROUP: Faces "Civitillo" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
LANNETT CO: Pa. Fund's Suit Alleges Levothyroxine Price-Fixing
MICHIGAN: "Bailey" Suit Tossed for Failure to State Claim
MYLAN INC: Rochester Sues Over Clomipramine Price-Fixing

NASSAU, NY: Faces "Falk" Suit Over Tax Map Certification Fees
NISSAN NORTH: Sued in Cal. Over Defective Panoramic Sunroofs
PEYTON CRAMER: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Bowlin" Suit Says
PIZZERIAS LLC: Faces "Alvarado" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
QUALCOMM INC: "Davis" Suit Alleges Monopoly Over Chipset Market

QUALCOMM INC: Faces "Ewald" Anti-trust Suit in Calif. Over Chipset
RDCW2 INC: "Mola" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Public Reports
ROADRUNNER TRANSPO: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued in Cal. Over Service Warranty Breach

SCHWABE NORTH: Sonner's Class Cert. Bid Taken Under Submission
SL GLOBAL: Faces "Morgan" Lawsuit Alleging Violations of FLSA
SOS SECURITY: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
STATE COLLECTION: Studebaker Seeks to Certify Two TCPA Classes
STILLWATER MINING: Faces "Topf" Suit Over Sibanye Gold Merger

T-MOBILE: Faces "Black" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TEACHERS INVESTMENT: "Haley" Alleges Loan Payment Mismanagement
TRAVELPORT LP: Faces "Williamson" Suit Over Legacy Pension Plan
VINAIO IMPORTS: Faces "Morcelo" Suit Seeking OT Wages
VISITOR'S CONTROL: Certification of Class Sought in "Horton" Suit

WHITEPAGES INC: Faces "Klinger" Suit Over Illegal Advertisements
YALE ENFORCEMENT: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Seeking to Recoup Wages

* Class Action Litigation Funders in Australia Need Regulation
* Courts Issue Varied Rulings in Class Actions Post-Spokeo
* CEO Overconfidence Plays Role in Shareholder Class Action Spike
* Few Clues on Gorsuch's Approach to Class Certification Issues



                            *********


ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Trust Fund Alleges Popranolol Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, MIAMI LODGE 20, INSURANCE TRUST FUND on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
ACTAVIS HOLDCO U.S., INC., BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC, HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MYLAN
INC., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., PAR PHARMACEUTICALS HOLDINGS,
INC., PLIVA, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., UDL
LABORATORIES, INC., and UPSHER-SMITH LABORATORIES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00535 (E.D. Pa., February 6, 2017),
alleges a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
prices of generic propranolol, a beta-blocker, used to treat
various heart and circulatory conditions.

The Defendants are pharmaceutical companies.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq.
     Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
     SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
     35 East State Street
     Media, PA 19063
     Phone: 610-891-9880
     E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com
             nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com


ADVANCED BOOTING: Faces "Alhaddad" Suit in Ga. Over Boot Device
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rim Alhaddad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Advanced Booting Services Inc. and Regency Retail
Partnership LP, Case No. 2017CV285518 (Ga. Super. Ct., February 1,
2017), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants'
practice of collecting money for removal of the boot device
affixed to Ms. Alhaddad's vehicle at Powers Ferry Square at 3714
Roswell Rd, Atlanta GA. 30342.

Advanced Booting Services Inc. operates a parking service company
located at 200 Hannover Park Rd # 120, Atlanta, GA 30350.

Regency Retail Partnership LP owns, operates, and develops
dominant, grocery-anchored retail centers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Fletcher II, Esq.
      FLETCHER LAW FIRM LLC
      PO Box 88925
      Atlanta, GA 30356
      Telephone: (404) 409-5665
      Facsimile: (888)371-1248
      E-mail: jim@JimFletcher.net


AETNA INC: "Griffin" Seeks Damages for Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------
John J. Griffin, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Aetna Inc., Mark T. Bertolini
and Shawn M. Guertin, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00159 (D.
Conn., February 3, 2017), seeks damages with interest, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' and
experts' witness fees and other costs, and such other relief under
the Securities Exchange Act.

Aetna is a health care benefit company serving an estimated 46.3
million individuals nationwide. Through its Health Care business
segment, Aetna offers medical, pharmacy benefit management
services, dental, behavioral health and vision plans on both an
insured basis and an employer-funded basis.

On July 2, 2015, Aetna entered into a definitive agreement to
acquire Humana Inc. a transaction valued at approximately $37
billion. The proposed merger was approved by the companies'
shareholders on October 19, 2015.

Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that the company and its
senior executives attempted to leverage Aetna's participation in
the Public Exchanges for favorable treatment from regulators
regarding the Humana Acquisition; Company threatened to limit its
participation in the Public Exchanges if the Department of Justice
(DOJ) attempted to block the merger; Aetna did not withdraw from
the Public Exchanges in the 17 compliant counties for business
reasons but to follow through on its threat of leaving the
marketplace once the DOJ filed suit and to improve its litigation
position; and that Aetna withdrew from the Public Exchanges that
were profitable for the company.

As a direct result, Aetna's common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices and in January 24, 2017, the stock drop wiped out
an additional $558 million in Company market capitalization.

Griffin purchased Aetna common stock at artificially inflated
prices and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities
law violations.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
      Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CN 06901
      Tel: (203) 992-4523
      Fax: (212) 363-7171
      Email: shopkins@zlk.com
             nkulesa@zlk.com
             stornatore@zlk.com

             - and -

      Michael H. Rosner, Esq.
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 363-7500
      Fax: (212) 363-7171
      Email: mrosner@zlk.com


AHOLD USA: Falsely Marketed Oat Products, "Hackman" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Hackman, on behalf of herself, all other persons similarly
situated v. Ahold USA, Inc. d/b/a Giant Landover, Giant Carlisle,
Stop & Shop New England, Stop & Shop New York Metro, and Peapod,
Case No. 0656 (Col. Super. Ct., February 1, 2017), is brought on
behalf of all individuals and entities in the District of Columbia
who purchased Ahold's "Old Fashioned Oats", that was falsely
marketed as "100% Natural", when in fact the product contains
glyphosate, which is a broad spectrum herbicide.

The Defendants develop, distribute, advertise and sell numerous
products across the United States under its private label brands,
including "Old Fashioned Oats" under its Giant Food Brand.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


         - and -

      Christopher T. Nidel, Esq
      Jonathan B. Nace, Esq.
      NIDEL & NACE, PLLC
      5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 440
      Washington, DC 20015
      Telephone: (202) 478-9677
      E-mail: cluis@nidellaw.com
              ion@nidellaw.com


AIR METHODS: Faces "Byler" Suit for Unreasonable Service Charge
---------------------------------------------------------------
BILLY BYLER (6481 Hunter Rd., Jefferson, Ohio 44047) and DONALD
REID (4085 State Route 534, Rome, Ohio 44085) Plaintiffs vs. AIR
METHODS CORPORATION (7301 South Peoria Street, Englewood, Colorado
80112) Also serve: CT Corporation System c/o Statutory Agent (1300
East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44114) and ROCKY MOUNTAIN
HOLDINGS, LLC (7301 South Peoria Street, Englewood, Colorado
80112) Also serve: CT Corporation System (c/o Statutory Agent,
1300 East Ninth Street Cleveland, Ohio 44114) Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00236-SO (N.D. Ohio, February 6, 2017), is a purported
class action alleging that Defendants charge clients higher prices
for emergency travel to a hospital that bear no reasonable
relationship to the services rendered or what is customarily
charged for the services.

AIR METHODS CORPORATION -- http://www.airmethods.com/-- provides
air medical transport.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James M. Kelley, III, Esq.
     Egan P. Kilbane, Esq.
     ELK & ELK CO. LTD.
     6105 Parkland Blvd., Suite 200
     Mayfield Heights, OH 44124
     Phone: 440-442-6677
     Fax: 440-442-7944
     Email: jkelley@elkandelk.com
            ekilbane@elkandelk.com

        - and -

     Robert J. Dubyak, Esq.
     Christina C. Spallina, Esq.
     DUBYAK NELSON, LLC
     6105 Parkland Blvd, Suite 230
     Mayfield Heights, OH 44124
     Phone: 216-364-0500
     Fax: 216-364-0505
     Email: rdubyak@dubyaknelson.com
            cspallina@dubyaknelson.com

        - and -

     Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
     Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
     KARON, LLC
     700 W. St. Clair Avenue, Suite 204
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: 216-622-1851
     Fax: 216-241-8175
     Email: dkaron@karonllc.com
            bhollowell@karonllc.com


AMERICAN FEDERATION: "Blondell" Suit to Recover Royalties
---------------------------------------------------------
Jon Blondell, Paul Harrington, Timothy Johnson, Stephanie Lowe,
Chastity Marie and Clayton Pritchard, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Bruce
Bouton, Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, Augustino Gagliardi, Raymond M.
Hair, Jr., Jon Joyce and Stefanie Taub, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-00372, (E.D. N.Y., January 23, 2017), seeks equitable,
declaratory, injunctive relief, an accounting of Defendants'
collection and payment of royalties owed to Plaintiffs, damages
payable out of the American Federation of Musicians of the United
States and Canada and the Screen Actors Guild/American Federation
of Television and Radio Artists Intellectual Property Rights
Distribution Fund. in the amount of the undistributed royalties
currently held in the Fund by the Trustees, costs and expenses,
pre-judgment and post-judgment and all such other and further
relief for breach of fiduciary duty for failure to distribute
royalties to plaintiffs and the class and for violation of the
United States Copyright Act.

Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class are non-featured
artists that have played on sound recordings performed on
satellite radio, the web, cable TV music channels, and other
digital services and that have not received the Royalties to which
they are legally entitled.

Defendants all currently serve as trustees of the American
Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada and the
Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television and Radio
Artists Trust Agreement.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kieran M. Corcoran, Esq.
      LACKEY HERSHMAN, L.L.P.
      1325 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (212) 763-8491
      Fax: (212) 763-8304
      Email: kmc@lhlaw.net

             - and -

      Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
      Bruce E. Bagelman, Esq.
      LACKEY HERSHMAN, L.L.P.
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 777
      Dallas, Texas 75219-4259
      Telephone: (214) 560-2201
      Telecopier: (214) 560-2203
      Email: rlm@lhlaw.net
             beb@lhlaw.net

             - and -

      Eric Zukoski, Esq.
      James H. Birch, Esq.
      QUILLING, SELANDER, LOWNDS, WINSLETT AND MOSER, P.C.
      2001 Bryan Street, Suite 1800
      Dallas, Texas 75201
      Tel: (214) 871-2100
      Fax: (214) 871-2111
      Email: ezukoski@qslwm.com
             jbirch@qslwm.com


ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: "Min" Suit Alleges Securities Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
YANBING MIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ARATANA THERAPEUTICS, INC., STEVEN ST.
PETER, and CRAIG A. TOOMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00880
(S.D.N.Y., February 6, 2017), alleges that Defendants violated the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Act by making false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Aratana did not
have manufacturing contracts in place sufficient to support
manufacturing of its pet product ENTYCE at a commercial scale;
(ii) consequently, ENTYCE was not likely to be commercially
available until late 2017; and (iii) accordingly, Aratana had
misled investors with respect to the likely timeline for a
commercial launch of ENTYCE.

Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. is a development-stage
biopharmaceutical company that develops biomedical therapeutics
for animals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Hui M. Chang, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Fax: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
            ahood@pomlaw.com
            hchang@pomlaw.com

        - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 377-1181
     Fax: (312) 377-1184
     Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


AUDI AG: "Bull" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672
---------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lee Bull, Dae Sob Yoon, Jamie
Sheller, and Robin Gutzler, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Audi AG and Audi of
America LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-03885, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco) per MDL Panel for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00268-CRB to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to Hon. Charles R. Breyer.

The Bull suit is being consolidated in MDL No. 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter
diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America,
Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions
Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the northern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

Audi is a German automobile manufacturer that designs, engineers,
produces, markets and distributes luxury vehicles. Audi oversees
worldwide operations from its headquarters in Ingolstadt, Bavaria,
Germany.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan L Bleichner, Esq.
          Chestnut Cambronne PA
          17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339 7300

               - and -

          Mark A DiCello, Esq.
          THE DICELLO LAW FIRM
          7556 Mentor Avenue
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Telephone: (440) 953 8888
          Facsimile: (440) 953 9138
          E-mail: madicello@dicellolaw.com


AUROBINDO PHARMA: Trust Fund Alleges Price Fixing of Glyburide
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, MIAMI LODGE 20, INSURANCE TRUST FUND on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC., CITRON PHARMA, LLC, HERITAGE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., JEFFREY A.
GLAZER, and JASON T. MALEK, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00549-CMR
(E.D. Pa., February 6, 2017), alleges that Defendants' conspiracy
to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices of Glyburide has
caused, and continues to cause, consumers and third-party payors
to pay supracompetitive prices for Glyburide, an oral anti-
diabetic medication.

The Defendants are pharmaceutical companies.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
     Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
     SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
     35 East State Street
     Media, PA 19063
     Phone: 610-891-9880
     Email: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com
            nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com


BASIC INC: Fraud-on-the Market Doctrine Villain in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Greene, Esq. -- greened@lanepowell.com -- of Lane Powell
PC, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the villain in the
fight against securities class actions is the fraud-on-the-market
presumption of reliance established by the U.S. Supreme Court in
1988 in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988).  Without
Basic, the thinking goes, a plaintiff could not maintain a
securities class action, and without securities class actions,
executives could speak their minds without worrying so much about
securities law liability.  In the current environment, the risk of
further attacks on Basic seems high. (A general class action
reform bill, the "Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of
2017," has already been introduced in the House.

But Basic ballasts the system of securities-law enforcement by
protecting investors, while providing companies with predictable
procedures and finality upon settlement.  We have a lead plaintiff
and class representative who prosecutes a claim that defendants
can settle with a broad class-wide release.  Because the private
plaintiffs' bar is doing its job, the SEC stays away in most
cases.  Honest executives have nothing to fear with the current
system -- they routinely get through securities litigation without
any real reputational or personal financial risk.

On the other hand, without Basic, plaintiffs' lawyers would still
file securities litigation.  In place of class actions, each
plaintiffs' firm would file an individual or multi-plaintiff
collective action, resulting in multiple separate actions in
courts around the country.  These would be difficult to manage,
expensive to defend, and impossible to settle with finality until
the statute of limitations expires.  SEC enforcement would become
more frequent.  Companies and their D&O insurers and brokers would
be unable to predict and properly insure against the risk of a
disclosure problem.

"Moreover, I have never understood the supposed benefits of
abolishing Basic.  Although it is possible that the frequency of
securities litigation would decline, I doubt it would.  A
disclosure problem that would trigger a securities class action
today would result in at least several non-class securities
actions in a post-Basic system," Mr. Greene said.

And any decrease in frequency would come at a high cost -- in
addition to the increased cost of defending and resolving those
cases that are filed, investors and the economy would suffer from
more securities fraud resulting from the diminished deterrence
that class actions provide.  Even an executive who detests
securities class actions pictures prominent plaintiffs' lawyers
when he or she decides whether to omit an important fact.

So, to those who bash Basic, be careful what you wish for.

A Brief History of the Fraud-on-the-Market Doctrine

The fraud-on-the-market doctrine concerns the reliance element of
a Section 10(b) claim.  Absent some way to harmonize individual
issues of reliance, class treatment of a securities class action
is not possible; individual issues overwhelm common ones,
precluding certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3).  In Basic, the Supreme Court provided a solution: a
rebuttable presumption of reliance based on the fraud-on-the-
market theory, which provides that a security traded on an
efficient market reflects all public material information.
Purchasers (or sellers) rely on the integrity of the market price,
and thus on a material misrepresentation.  Decisions following
Basic have established three conditions to its application: market
efficiency, a public misrepresentation, and a purchase (or sale)
between the misrepresentation and the disclosure of the "truth."

Over the years, defendants have argued that, absent a showing by
plaintiffs that the challenged statements were material, or upon a
showing by defendants that they were not, the presumption is not
applicable or has been rebutted.  And, in a twist on such
arguments, defendants sometimes argued that the absence of loss
causation rebutted the presumption. In Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v.
Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. 804 (2011), the Supreme Court
unanimously rejected the latter argument, finding that loss
causation is not a condition of the presumption of reliance.  But
the Court explicitly left the door open for the argument that
plaintiffs must prove materiality for the presumption of reliance
to apply.

Later, the Court granted certiorari in Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret.
Plans and Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013), to review the Ninth
Circuit's decision that plaintiffs are not required to prove
materiality for the presumption to apply, and that the district
court is not required to allow defendants to present evidence
rebutting the applicability of the presumption before certifying a
class.  In a majority opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, and
joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Breyer, Alito,
Sotomayor, and Kagan, the Amgen Court concluded that proof of
materiality was not necessary to demonstrate, as Rule 23(b)(3)
requires, that questions of law or fact common to the class will
"predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members."

As Amgen was being litigated in the Supreme Court, the parties in
Halliburton were briefing the plaintiffs' class certification
motion on remand.  The district court certified a class, prior to
the Supreme Court's decision in Amgen.  Halliburton sought and
obtained Rule 23(f) certification from the Fifth Circuit, which
affirmed, after the Supreme Court decided Amgen.  The Halliburton
case ended up before the Supreme Court once again, this time with
the viability of Basic squarely presented.  The Court rejected
Halliburton's argument that Basic is inconsistent with modern
economic theory, under which market efficiency is not a binary
"yes or no" issue.  Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.,
134 S. Ct. 2398 (2014).  Thus, Basic survived the Halliburton
battle.

What Would Securities Litigation Look Like without Basic?

"Our current securities class action system is straightforward and
predictable.  Like any other action, a securities class action
starts with the filing of a complaint by a plaintiff.  But after
that, the procedure for these actions is unique.  The Reform Act
mandates that the first plaintiff to file a securities class
action publish a press release giving notice of the lawsuit and
advising class members that they can attempt to be the "lead
plaintiff" by filing a motion with the court within 60 days of the
press release.  Additional plaintiffs will often file their own
complaints in advance of the deadline, or they may simply file a
motion to become lead plaintiff at the deadline,"
Mr. Greene said.

The Reform Act provides that the "presumptively most adequate lead
plaintiff" is the one who "has the largest financial interest in
the relief sought by the class" and otherwise meets the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
which governs class actions.  The Reform Act's standards for lead
plaintiff selection have caused plaintiffs' firms to pursue
institutional investors and pension funds as plaintiffs, since
they are more likely to be able to show the financial interest
necessary to be designated as lead plaintiffs.  But as I have
chronicled, in recent years, smaller plaintiffs' firms have won
lead-plaintiff contests with retail investors as lead plaintiffs,
primarily in securities class actions against smaller companies.
About half of all securities class actions are filed against
smaller companies by these smaller plaintiffs' firms.

This deeper and more diverse new roster of plaintiffs' firms means
that securities litigation won't just go away if they can't file
securities class actions.  The larger plaintiffs' firms have
strong client relationships with the institutional investors the
Reform Act incentivized them to develop.  Claims by the retail
investors that the Reform Act sought to replace have made a
resurgence through relationships with smaller plaintiffs' firms.
Together, these plaintiffs and plaintiffs' firms fully cover the
securities litigation landscape.  These firms are competitive with
one another. One will rush to file a case, and if one files,
others will too.  They are specialized securities lawyers, and
they aren't going to become baristas or bartenders if Basic is
abolished.  They will seek out cases to file.

So the plaintiffs' bar would adjust, just as they have adjusted to
limited federal-court jurisdiction under Morrison.  And if the
post-Morrison framework is any indication of what we would face
post-Basic, look out -- Morrison has caused the proliferation of
unbelievably expensive litigation around the world, without the
ability to effectively coordinate or settle it for a reasonable
amount with certain releases.

In a post-Basic world, the plaintiffs' firms with institutional
investor clients would likely file large individual and non-class
collective actions.  Smaller plaintiffs' firms would also file
individual and non-class collective actions.  The damages in cases
filed by smaller firms would tend to be smaller, but the
litigation burdens would be similar.

Non-class securities actions would be no less expensive to defend
than today's class actions, since they would involve litigation of
the same core merits issues.  In fact, non-class litigation would
be even more expensive in certain respects because, for example,
there would be multiple damages analyses and vastly more complex
case management.  And if securities class action opt-out
litigation experience is indicative of the settlement value of
such cases, they would tend to settle for a larger percentage of
damages than today's securities class actions.

In a new non-class era of securities litigation, the settlement
logistics would be vastly more difficult.  It's hard enough to
mediate with one plaintiffs' firm and one lead plaintiff.  Imagine
mediation with a dozen or more plaintiffs' firms and even more
plaintiffs.  We often object to lead-plaintiff groups because of
the difficulty of dealing with a group of plaintiffs instead of
just one.  In a world without securities class actions, the
adversary would be far, far worse -- a collection of plaintiffs
and plaintiffs' firms with no set of rules for getting along.

Even when settlement could be achieved, it wouldn't preclude suits
by other purchasers during the period of inflation, because there
would be no due process procedure to bind them, as there is when
there's a certified class with notice and an opportunity to object
or opt out.  Indeed, there likely would develop a trend of random
follow-up suits by even smaller plaintiffs' firms after the larger
cases have settled.  There would be no peace absent the expiration
of the statute of limitations.

These unmanageable and unpredictable economics would disrupt D&O
insurance purchasing decisions and cost. Under the current system,
D&O insurers and brokers can reliably predict the risk a
particular company faces based on its size and other
characteristics.  A company can thus purchase a D&O insurance
program that fits its risk profile.

Compounding the uncertainty of all of this would be the role of
SEC and other government enforcement.  Even with the current U.S.
administration's relatively hands-off regulatory approach, the job
of the human beings who work at the SEC is to investigate and
enforce the securities laws.  They aren't going to not do their
jobs just because government regulation has been eased in the
bigger picture.  And they will step in to fill the void left by
the inability of plaintiffs to bring securities class actions.
Experienced defense counsel can predict how plaintiffs' firms will
litigate and resolve a case, but they have much less ability to
predict how an enforcement person with whom he or she may never
have dealt will approach a case.

Conclusion

Executives who do their best to tell the truth really have nothing
to fear under the securities laws.  The law gives them plenty of
protection, and the predictability of the current system allows
them to understand their risk and resolve litigation with
certainty.  It would be a mistake to try to abolish securities
class actions.  Abandoning Basic would backfire -- badly.


BODY & SOUL: Brown Moves Certification of Two Classes Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MARGARITE SAMPSON BROWN, on
behalf of herself and all those similarly situated v. BODY & SOUL
SERVICES, INC., DERENDA FLOWERS AND SHEILA GREEN, Case No. 3:16-
cv-00824-RGJ-KLH (W.D. La.), asks the Court to conditionally
certify two proposed classes under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and authorize notice to allow potential members of the FLSA
Collective Classes to opt in to preserve their rights.

Ms. Brown specifically moves the Court to enter an order
conditionally certifying these two classes:

     1. All persons in the United States, who, since June 2013,
        previously worked or currently work for Defendants as
        home health caregivers, but were not paid for all hours
        worked for Defendants due to Defendants' refusal to pay
        them for travel time, mandatory work meetings and for any
        hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day, regardless of
        how long they actually worked, thereby depriving them of
        the federally mandated minimum wage for each hour worked
        and federally mandated overtime for all hours worked in
        excess of 40 per week. This class will be referred to as
        the "Unpaid Work Time Class"; and

     2. All workers who, since June 2013, previously worked or
        currently work for Defendants as home health caregivers
        and worked in excess of 40 hours per week, received late
        overtime pay from Defendants, but were not paid
        liquidated damages in addition to that overtime pay,
        despite the fact that such liquidated damages were due
        and owing, in direct violation of the FLSA. This class
        will be referred to as the "Late Payment Class."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ikf5f9yh

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 599-5953
          Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
                  mjackson@jackson-law.net


BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: "Holland" Suit Alleges Non-Payment of OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
HELEN HOLLAND, Individually, on behalf of herself and on behalf of
all other similarly situated current and former employees,
Plaintiffs, v. BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, and BOJANGLES', INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00050 (W.D.N.C., February 6, 2017),
alleges that Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff, and those
similarly situated employees of Defendants, for all overtime hours
worked in excess of 40 per week in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS, INC. operates restaurants.  The Plaintiff
works as assistant unit director.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher R. Strianese, Esq.
     STRIANESE HUKERT LLP
     401 North Tryon St., 10th Fl.
     Charlotte, NC 28202
     Phone: (704) 998-2577
     E-mail: chris@strilaw.com

        - and -

     Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
     James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
     J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
     Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
     JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
     262 German Oak Drive
     Memphis, TN 38018
     Phone: (901) 754-8001
     Fax: (901) 759-1745
     E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
             jholt@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com
             pjackson@jsyc.com


CARIBBEAN RESTAURANTS: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesulia Vega Rivera, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Caribbean Restaurants, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-01147
(D.P.R., February 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jesulia Vega Rivera was employed as a crew member and shift
manager for Defendant at their place of business located at
Carretera #30, Interseccion Carretera #198, Las Piedras, Puerto
Rico.

Caribbean Restaurants, LLC operates a global chain of hamburger
and fast food restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andres W. Lopez, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDRES W. LOPEZ, P.S.C.
      Post Office Box 13909
      San Juan, PR 00908
      Telephone: (787) 294-9508
      E-mail: andres@awllaw.com

         - and -

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 N. Orange Avenue, 16th Floor
      Post Office Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3341
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


CHARTER COMM: "Ewing" Sues Over Unauthorized Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anton Ewing, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v.  Charter Communications Holding Company,
LLC., a Delaware Corporation, currently dba SPECTRUM, previously
dba Time Warner Cable, Does 1-10, ABC Corporations 1-10, ZYZ,
LLC's 1-10 Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00222, (S.D. Cal.,
February 3, 2017), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and other
available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff complains of receiving multiple calls from Defendants
and their agents with a pre-recorded message that was dialled by
an automatic telephone dialling system. Ewing never granted them
permission to solicit through telemarketing.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dante T. Pride, Esq.
     THE PRIDE LAW FIRM
     2831 Camino Del Rio S., Ste. 104
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Telephone: 619-516-8166
     Fax: 619-785-3414
     Email: dpride@pridelawfirm.com


COMMERCIAL PROTECTIVE: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Lara, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. Commercial Protective Services,
Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC648921 (Cal.
Super. Ct., February 1, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages and the legally required meal
and rest periods.

Commercial Protective Services, Inc. operates a residential and
commercial security services company in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
      Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
      Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
      BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP
      2255 Calle Clara
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858)551-1223
      Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
      E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com
              kyle@bamlawca.com
              aj@bamlawca.com


CUMBERLAND RIVER: Faces "Price" Suit for Unpaid Off-Clock Work
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLEY PRICE, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. CUMBERLAND RIVER HOSPITAL,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00010 (M.D. Tenn., February 6,
2017), alleges that Plaintiffs worked off-the-clock without
receiving compensation for all of the hours worked in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

CUMBERLAND RIVER HOSPITAL, INC. --
http://cumberlandriverhospital.com/-- offers emergency and acute
care services, geriatric psychiatric care and home health care.
Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a licensed practical nurse.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael L. Russell, Esq.
     Emily Emmons, Esq.
     GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
     341 Cool Springs Blvd, Suite 230
     Franklin, TN 37067
     Phone: (615) 354-1144
     Email: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com
     Email: eemmons@gilbertfirm.com


DAVITA INC: Accused of Unlawful Conduct Over Company Stock Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Georgia, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DaVita Inc.,
Kent J. Thiry, and James K. Hilger, Case No. 1:17-cv-00304-CBS (D.
Col., February 1, 2017), arises out of the fraudulent and illegal
scheme by DaVita and its senior executives to artificially inflate
DaVita's stock price by steering patients with government
subsidized health insurance into private health insurance plans to
maximize its own profits.

DaVita Inc. provides kidney dialysis services for patients
suffering from chronic kidney failure or end-stage renal disease.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
      THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
      600 17th Street, Suite 2800
      South Denver, CO 80202
      Telephone: (303) 861-3003
      Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
      E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
      THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
      Post-Montgomery Ctr.
      One Montgomery Street, Ste. 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (303) 861-3003
      Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
      E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Maya Saxena, Esq.
      Joseph E. White III, Esq.
      Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
      SAXENA WHITE P.A.
      5200 Town Center Circle Suite 601
      Boca Raton, FL 33486
      Telephone: (561) 394-3399
      Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
      E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
              jwhite@saxenawhite.com
              lhooker@saxenawhite.com

         - and -

      Steven B. Singer, Esq.
      4 West Red Oak Lane, Suite 312
      White Plains, NY 10604
      Telephone: (914) 437-8551
      Facsimile: (888) 631-3611
      E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com


DELCAR INC: "Ransom" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA, Ind. Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
ASTRO RANSOM and JAMES RUSH, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DELCAR, INC. d/b/a ROCK
TRANSPORT, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00386-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind.,
February 6, 2017), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Indiana state law for Defendant's alleged failure to pay
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees overtime and
regular wages.

Delcar, Inc. is a dump truck haulage company in Indianapolis,
Indiana. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons are
current and former employees of Defendant who drove dump trucks on
local daily runs out of Defendant's Indianapolis, Indiana
facility.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
     Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
     GIBBONS LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
     3091 E. 98th St.
     Indianapolis, IN 46280
     Phone: (317) 706-1100
     Fax: (317) 623-8503
     E-mail: rob@gibbonslegalgroup.com
             phil@gibbonslegalgroup.com


ENVIRO-AIRE LLC: Faces "Cochran" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW COCHRAN, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated Who Consent to Their Inclusion in a Collective
Action, Plaintiff, v. ENVIRO-AIRE LLC and KRIS MARSEGLIA,
Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00077-UA-CM (M.D. Fla.,
February 6, 2017), alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay their employees overtime pay at a
rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of
pay for all hours worked over forty in a workweek as well as
failing to pay their employees the applicable minimum wage rate
for all hours worked up to forty (40) each workweek.

Plaintiff is a salesperson.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph Odato, Esq.
     Dennis A. Creed, III, Esq.
     CREED LAW GROUP, PLLC D/B/A CREED & PINKARD
     13043 West Linebaugh Avenue
     Tampa, FL 33626
     Phone: (813) 444-4332
     Fax: (813) 441-6121
     Email: jodato@creedlawgroup.com
     Email: dcreed@creedlawgroup.com


FAMILY DOLLAR: Status Hearing in "Parrot" Suit Today
----------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on February 1, 2017, in the case
styled Jennifer M Parrot v. Family Dollar, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-00222 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Jorge L. Alonso.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification and request for
      status conference is denied without prejudice;

   -- Plaintiff's application to appear pro hac vice is granted;

   -- Attorney Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq., is given leave to file
      an appearance on behalf of Plaintiff;

   -- Defendants have until February 16, 2017, to answer, move,
      or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint;

   -- Status hearing is set for today, February 21, 2017, at 9:30
      a.m.; and

   -- Parties are directed to file a joint status report before
      the next status hearing.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KZwBPP6t


FREEDOMROADS LLC: Faces "Farnsworth' Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Farnsworth, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. Freedomroads, LLC, CWI Inc.,
Keven Hicks, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC649034
(Cal. Super. Ct., February 1, 2017), arises out of the Defendants'
unlawful practice of not paying all overtime premium wages due for
all hours worked and failing to provide accurate wage statements.

Mark Farnsworth was employed by the Defendants as a service
advisor in Valencia, California until May of 2016.

The Defendants are retailers of RVs, RV accessories and RV-related
services, with over 115 "SuperCenters" nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.D. Henderson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF J.D. HENDERSON
      215 North Marengo Avenue, Suite 322
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (626) 529-5891
      E-mail: JDLAW@charter.net

         - and -

      Asaf Agazanof, Esq.
      ASAF LAW APC
      11150 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 1080
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (424) 254-8870


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: "Chopp" Sues Over China Oceanwide Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
ESTHER CHOPP, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC., WILLIAM H.
BOLINDER, G. KENT CONRAD, MELINA E. HIGGINS, THOMAS J. MCINERNEY,
DAVID M. MOFFETT, THOMAS E. MOLONEY, JAMES A. PARKE, and JAMES S.
RIEPE, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00125-UNA (D. Del., February
6, 2017), alleges that Genworth's board, in violation of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act, has hamstrung its ability to consider
competing, better merger offers other than that of China Oceanwide
Holdings Group Co., Ltd. by agreeing to provisions in the Merger
Agreement that prohibit it from soliciting any such other offers.
The total transaction value is approximately $2.7 billion.

GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC. is an underwriter and issuer of long term
care insurance and specializes in life and mortgage insurance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
     Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
     GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
     440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 983-1300

        - and -

     Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Phone: (302) 295-5310
     Fax: (302) 654-7530
     E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
             bdl@rl-legal.com
             gms@rl-legal.com


GLOBAL EXCHANGE: Del Valle May File Bid for Class Cert. by May 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. David O. Carter denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and motion to remand filed in the lawsuit captioned
MICHELE DEL VALLE v. GLOBAL EXCHANGE VACATION CLUB; RESORT
VACATIONS, INC.; GLOBAL VACATIONS MARKETING CORP., Case No. 8:16-
cv-02149-DOC-JCG (C.D. Cal.).

On December 2, 2016, Defendants Global Exchange Vacation Club,
Resort Vacations, Inc., and Global Vacations Marketing Corp.
removed the action to federal court.  The gravamen of Plaintiff's
First Amended Complaint is that the Defendants violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by hiring two telemarketing
companies, who used an automatic telephone dialing system to call
the Plaintiff's cellular phone numbers without her express
consent, and for the purpose of marketing the Defendants'
timeshares.

On December 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the Motion for Class
Certification seeking to certify this class:

     All persons within the United State to whom Intervoice
     Technologies ["IVT"] and Marketing Solutions, International
     ["MSI"] have placed a call to said persons' cellular
     telephone (without their express prior consent and not for
     emergency purposes) through the use of an automatic
     telephone dialing system for the purpose of marketing
     Defendants' timeshares from September 15, 2010 to the
     present.

In his order, Judge Carter concludes, among other things, that the
prerequisites of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure are not satisfied.  He adds that based on her pleadings
in state court, the Plaintiff has adequately established Article
III standing and the Defendants did not improperly remove the
case.  The Court, thus, denies the Motion to Remand.

Judge Carter, however, rules that should the Plaintiff wish to
file a new Motion for Class Certification, she shall do so on or
before May 15, 2017.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Oelwsy4R


GUNTER'S HONEY: Sued in D.C. Over Misleading Product Label
----------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Hackman, on behalf of herself, all other persons similarly
situated v. Gunter's Honey, Case No. 0655 (D.D.C, February 1,
2017), is brought on behalf of all individuals and entities in the
District of Columbia who purchased any Gunter's Honey product,
that was falsely marketed by the Defendant as "100% Natural", when
in fact it contains glyphosate, which is a broad spectrum
herbicide.

Gunter's Honey develops, distributes, advertises and sells honey
at retail locations throughout the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


         - and -

      Christopher T. Nidel, Esq
      Jonathan B. Nace, Esq.
      NIDEL & NACE, PLLC
      5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 440
      Washington, DC 20015
      Telephone: (202) 478-9677
      E-mail: cluis@nidellaw.com
              ion@nidellaw.com


IGUANAS BURRITOZILLA: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Flores-Ruiz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Iguanas Burritozilla, Corp., a California
Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 17CV305863
(Cal. Super. Ct., February 1, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay straight-time and overtime wages at
the lawful rate of pay for all work performed; failure to provide
duty-free meal breaks; failure to provide duty-free rest periods;
failure to pay all owed wages each and every pay period; failure
to pay all owed wages upon termination or resignation of
employment; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
and,  requiring employees to incur necessary business expenditures
without reimbursement, as mandated under the California Labor
Code.

Francisco Flores-Ruiz was employed by the Defendant at multiple
restaurant locations as a meat cutter, cook and manager.

Iguanas Burritozilla, Corp. operates a chain of 5 fast-food
Mexican food restaurants in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander I. Dychter, Esq.
      DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
      1010 Second Ave., Suite 1835
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 487-0777
      Facsimile: (619) 330-1827
      E-mail:  alex@dychterlaw.com

         - and -

       Walter L. Haines, Esq.
       UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
       5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
       Huntington Beach, CA 92649
       Telephone: (562) 256-1047
       Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
       E-mail:  admin@uelglaw.com


JB HUNT TRANSPORT: "Gallups" Labor Suit to Recover Wages, Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Gallups, Plaintiff, v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00187, (N.D. Ala., February 3, 2017), seeks to
recover any and all unpaid compensation (including but not limited
to salary, sales incentives, commissions, bonuses, vacation and
sick time) owed to Plaintiff and all employees and former
employees of Defendant who are similarly situated, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

From December 2015 to the end of his employment, Plaintiff worked
as a Night Supervisor in Birmingham, Alabama. Plaintiff worked
alone and most nights worked over 12 hour shifts.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Allen Schreiber, Esq.
      Lauren E. Miles, Esq.
      BURKE HARVEY, LLC
      3535 Grandview Parkway, Suite 100
      Birmingham, AL 35243
      Phone: (205) 930-9091
      Fax: (205) 930-9054
      Email: aschreiber@burkeharvey.com
             lmiles@burkeharvey.com


JOHN VARVATOS: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Gender Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tessa Knox, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-
00772 (S.D.N.Y., February 1, 2017), seeks to recover damages from
JV for intentional discrimination in compensation on the basis of
sex.

John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc. operates a retail store located at
54 Newtown Lane, East Hampton, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Dunnegan, Esq.
      Richard Weiss, Esq.
      DUNNEGAN & SCILEPPI LLC
      350 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 332-8300
      E-mail: wd@dunnegan.com
              rw@dunnegan.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "McBrayer" Suit Assigned to Judge Conrad
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned DEE MCBRAYER and TIMOTHY MCBRAYER, Plaintiffs,
v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation; ETHICON INC., a
New Jersey corporation; ETHICON WOMEN'S HEALTH & UROLOGY, a
division of Ethicon, Inc., Defendants, Case Number 2:12-cv-00779,
which became a member civil action of IN RE: ETHICON, INC., PELVIC
REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2327, has
been assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr. and
Magistrate Judge David Keesler, according to a case docket dated
January 20, 2017.

Earlier, the case was transferred from the U.S District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia to the U.S District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina.

Defendant Johnson & Johnson is a corporation, and according to its
website produces medical devices and diagnostics products.

The Plaintiff(s) are represented by:

     Amanda Robinson, Esq.
     Daniel S. Robinson, Esq.
     Karen Menzies, Esq.
     Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
     Shannon Lukei, Esq.
     Danielle Michelle Mayer, Esq.
     ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS
     19 Corporate Plaza Drive
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Phone: (949) 720-1288
     Fax: (949) 720-1292

        - and -

     Kimberly W. White, Esq.
     WILSON LAW, P.A.
     1111 Haynes Street, Suite 103
     Raleigh, NC 27604
     Phone: (919) 890-0180
     Fax: (919) 882-1758
     E-mail: kim@wilsonlawpa.com

The Defendant(s) are represented by:

     Aaron N. Arthur, Esq.
     THOMAS COMBS & SPANN
     PO Box 3824
     Charleston, WV 25338
     Phone: (304) 414-1800
     Fax: (304) 414-1801

        - and -

     Christy D. Jones, Esq.
     BUTLER SNOW LLP
     1040 Highland Colony Pkwy, Suite 1400
     Ridgeland, MS 39157
     Phone: (601) 948-5711
     Fax: (601) 985-4500
     E-mail: christy.jones@butlersnow.com

        - and -

     Daniel R. Higginbotham, Esq.
     David B. Thomas, Esq.
     Philip J. Combs, Esq.
     Susan M. Robinson, Esq.
     THOMAS COMBS & SPANN
     300 Summers Street, Suite 1380 (25301)
     P.O. Box 3824
     Charleston, WV 25338
     Phone: (304) 414-1800
     Fax: (304) 414-1801
     E-mail: dhigginbotham@tcspllc.com
     E-mail: pcombs@tcspllc.com

        - and -

     Kari L. Sutherland, Esq.
     BUTLER SNOW
     PO Box 1138
     Oxford, MS 38655
     Phone: (901) 680-7354
     Fax: (901) 680-7201

        - and -

     Laura H. Dixon, Esq.
     BUTLER SNOW
     P.O. Box 6010
     Ridgeland, MS 39158-6010
     Phone: (601) 985-4584
     Fax: (601) 985-4500
     E-mail: laura.dixon@butlersnow.com

        - and -

     William M. Gage, Esq.
     BUTLER SNOW
     PO Box 6010
     Ridgeland, MS 39158
     Phone: (601) 985-4561
     Fax: (601) 985-4500


K-B HEALTH: Faces "King" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA S. KING, CINDY WILLIAMS ANDELIZABETH JENNIFER GROCE, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. K-B HEALTH TECHNOLOGY, INC. ANDWANDA BARRETT,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00026-WCO (N.D. Ga., February 6,
2017), alleges that Defendants (a) failed to pay Plaintiffs for
their travel time between their first and last jobs of the day,
(b) failed to include such travel time as work time in determining
if Plaintiffs worked overtime in a given workweek, thus truncating
their actual work time, and (c) paid Plaintiffs either "straight-
time" or no time for all recorded hours of work in excess of forty
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a company base in North Georgia that provides
home health care services to individuals throughout a thirteen
county area.

The Plaintiff is an employee. Defendants employ more than one
hundred employees, most of whom are non-licensed, non-certified
Home Health Aides but some of whom were Certified Nursing
Assistants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John F. Beasley, Jr., Esq.
     JF BEASLEY, LLC
     31 North Main Street
     P.O. Box 309
     Watkinsville, GA 30677
     Phone: 706-769-4410
     Fax: 706-769-4471
     E-mail: jfbeasley@jfbeasleylaw.com

        - and -

     Mitchell D. Benjamin, Esq.
     DELONG, CALDWELL, BRIDGERS FITZPATRICK, BENJAMIN LLC
     3100 Centennial Tower 101 Marietta Street
     NW Atlanta, GA 30303
     Phone: 404.979.3150
     Fax: 770.859.0754
     E-mail: benjamin@dcbflegal.com
             georgiawagelawyers.com


KELLY SERVICES: N.D. Illinois Terminates "Dolemba" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on February 1, 2017, in the case
entitled Herminia Dolemba v. Kelly Services, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-04971 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Sara L. Ellis.

The minute entry states that the:

   -- Court grants Kelly's motion to dismiss;

   -- Court dismisses the Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim
      (Count I) and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
      Practices Act ("ICFA") claim (Count II) with prejudice;

   -- Court denies Dolemba's motions for class certification as
      moot; and

   -- case is terminated.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jm90fsul


KING OF DIAMONDS: Faces "Hopkins" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Enrique Camacho Hopkins, Misael Rigoberto Menocal Caceres,
Jonnatan Trevino Hernandez, and Paul Luque, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. King of Diamonds
Miami "LLC" a/k/a Club Kod, Movement Events LLC, Jeffrey Vasilas,
and Elliot Kunstlinger, Case No. 1:17-cv-20415-KMW (S.D. Fla.,
February 1, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as construction workers
from January 11, 2016, through January 14, 2017.

The Defendants own and operate a gentlemen's club in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


KOLTER GROUP: Faces "Civitillo" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
LORI ANN CIVITILLO, for herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. THE KOLTER GROUP LLC, KOLTER TOWER REALTY LLC,
ROBERT JULIEN, individually and JOHN CSAPO, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-80139-KAM (S.D. Fla., February 6,
2017), alleges that that Plaintiff performed services and labor
for Defendants for which Defendants made no provision to pay
Plaintiff or any similarly situated employee compensation to which
they were lawfully entitled for all of the hours worked in excess
of forty within a work week in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant is a Florida limited liability company in the business
of real estate development in general and in the sale of new
condominiums in particular.  The Plaintiff is a licensed real
estate salesperson whose license is registered with Kolter Tower
Broker.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esq.
     Lisa M. Kohring, Esq.
     SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES
     625 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 600
     West Palm Beach, FL 33401
     Phone: (561) 659-3300
     Fax: (561) 693-4540
     E-mail: steve@schwarzberglaw.com
             mail@schwarzberglaw.com
             lkohring@schwarzberglaw.com
             mail@schwarzberglaw.com


LANNETT CO: Pa. Fund's Suit Alleges Levothyroxine Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Lannett Company, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sandoz,
Inc., Defendants, Case 2:17-cv-00544-CMR (E.D. Pa., February 6,
2017, accuses Defendants of engaging in a conspiracy to fix,
maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of generic Levothyroxine
drug products.

Defendants are pharmaceutical companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
     Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
     3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
     Newtown, PA 18940
     Phone: 215 867 2399
     Fax: 267 685 0676
     E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
             lverderame@edelson-law.com

        - and -

     Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
     GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C.
     8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
     161 Washington Street
     Conshohocken, PA 19428
     Phone: 484 342 0700
     Fax: 484 580 8747
     E-mail: scarlato@lawgsp.com


MICHIGAN: "Bailey" Suit Tossed for Failure to State Claim
----------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Robert J. Jonker entered an opinion for the
dismissal of the lawsuit styled JERRY DOWELL BAILEY, JR. v.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-26
(W.D. Mich.).

"Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, the Court determines that Plaintiff's action will be
dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(c),"
Judge Jonker wrote.

"The Court must next decide whether an appeal of this action would
be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(a)(3).  See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th
Cir. 1997).  For the same reasons that the Court dismisses the
action, the Court discerns no good-faith basis for an appeal.
Should Plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court will assess the
$505.00 appellate filing fee pursuant to Section 1915(b)(1), see
McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11, unless Plaintiff is barred from
proceeding in forma pauperis, e.g., by the "three-strikes" rule of
Section 1915(g).  If he is barred, he will be required to pay the
$505.00 appellate filing fee in one lump sum," Judge Jonker added.

The Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the Baraga Maximum
Correctional Facility (AMF).  In his pro se complaint, the
Plaintiff sues the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC);
Director Heidi Washington; Blue Cross Blue Shield; Corizon Health
Services; the MDOC Hearings Division; Hearing Officers Thomas O.
Mohrman and Unknown O'Brien; and unknown parties.

Mr. Bailey's complaint concerns the restitution that he was
ordered to pay as a sanction for two separate Class I misconduct
findings of guilt.  The first incident occurred on November 2,
2013, while he was incarcerated at the Carson City Correctional
Facility in Carson City, Michigan.  He was involved in a fight
involving at least two other inmates.  He received "several lumps
around his facial area."  The health services nurse thought the
Plaintiff's jaw was broken.  Despite Plaintiff's assurance that he
was fine and against Plaintiff's wishes, he was taken to Carson
City Hospital and given an examination, IV drugs, and multiple CT
scans.  The scan confirmed Plaintiff's jaw was not broken and he
was sent back to the facility.

A copy of the Opinion is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/BQv4IS from Leagle.com.


MYLAN INC: Rochester Sues Over Clomipramine Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------
ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MYLAN INC., MYLAN
PHARMACEUTICALS INC., SANDOZ, INC., TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES
LTD., and TARO PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-00560-CMR (E.D. Pa., February 6, 2017), is a civil
antitrust action seeking treble damages arising out of the
Defendants' alleged unlawful scheme to fix, maintain, and
stabilize the prices of generic clomipramine hydrochloride.

The Defendants are pharmaceutical companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     David F. Sorensen, Esq.
     Nick Urban, Esq.
     Zachary D. Caplan, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: 215 875 3000
     Fax: 215 875 4604
     E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
             nurban@bm.net
             zcaplan@bm.net

        - and -

     Peter Kohn, Esq.
     Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
     101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
     Jenkintown, PA 19046
     Phone: 215 277 5770
     Fax: 215 277 5771
     E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
             jlukens@faruqilaw.com

        - and -

     Barry S. Taus, Esq.
     Kevin Landau, Esq.
     Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
     TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
     80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
     New York, NY 10038
     Phone: 212 931 0704
     E-mail: btaus@tcllaw.com
             klandau@tcllaw.com
              atamoshunas@tcllaw.com


NASSAU, NY: Faces "Falk" Suit Over Tax Map Certification Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey P. Falk, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Nassau County and Nassau County Department of
Assessments, Case No. 600868/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 27,
2017), arises from the Defendants' practice of charging excessive
fees and an unlawful tax requiring that a tax map certification
letter be purchased and filed with certain real property documents
presented for recording at the Nassau County Clerk, including
deeds, mortgages or satisfactions, or any modifications or
consolidations of the foregoing.

Nassau County is a County in New York State.

Nassau County Department of Assessments is a Nassau County agency
in Nassau County charged with developing fair and equitable
assessments for all residential and commercial properties in
Nassau County on an annual basis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
      Wade C. Wilkinson, Esq.
      MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
      260 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 448-1100
      E-mail: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com
              wwilkinson@mclaughlinstern.com


NISSAN NORTH: Sued in Cal. Over Defective Panoramic Sunroofs
------------------------------------------------------------
Sherida Johnson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Nissan North America, Inc. and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00517 (N.D. Cal., February 1, 2017), is brought
on behalf of all California purchasers and lessees of Nissan 2008
present Rogue, Maxima, Sentra, Pathfinder, and Altima models;
2009-present Murano models; and 2011-present Juke models with
defective factory-installed panoramic sunroofs that are prone to
unexpected and dangerous shattering.

The Defendants manufacture, market, and distribute mass produced
automobiles in the United States under the Nissan brand name.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Crystal Foley, Esq.
      SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
      100 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1350
      Los Angeles, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 322-3555
      Facsimile: (310) 322-3655
      E-mail: cfoley@simmonsfirm.com

         - and -

      Paul J. Hanly Jr., Esq.
      Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
      SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
      112 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016-7416
      Telephone: (212) 784-6400
      Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
      E-mail: phanly@simmonsfirm.com
              mbreit@simmonsfirm.com

         - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
      Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
      Lisa A. White, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      First Tennessee Plaza
      800 S. gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Telephone: (865) 247-0080
      Facsimile: (865) 533-0049
      E-mail: greg@gregcolelaw.com
              mark@gregcolelaw.com
              adam@gregcolelaw.com
              lisa@gregcolelaw.com


PEYTON CRAMER: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Bowlin" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Bowlin, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Peyton Cramer Infiniti, d/b/a Autonation Infiniti
South Bay, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC648831
(Cal. Super. Ct., January 31, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide all timely meal and rest period,
failure to pay for all hours worked, including minimum wage,
straight time, and overtime pay, failure to timely pay all wages
to terminated employees, and failure to furnish accurate
statements and maintain required records, in accordance with
California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a car dealership business in
Torrance, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
      Daniel Brown, Esq.
      RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
      22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200
      Torrance, CA 90505
      Telephone: (310) 961-9600
      Facsimile: (310) 961-9094
      E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com
              daniel@rastegarlawgroup.com


PIZZERIAS LLC: Faces "Alvarado" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
GEIKER J. ALVARADO, RENZO O. SANCHEZ, and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. PIZZERIAS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-20471-KMW (S.D. Fla., February 6,
2017), seeks to recover money damages for alleged unpaid minimum
and overtime wages and retaliatory discharge under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant is a Pizza restaurant.  Defendant employs delivery
drivers just like Mr. Alvarado.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
     SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
     20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 503-5131
     Fax: (888) 270-5549
     E-mail: Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


QUALCOMM INC: "Davis" Suit Alleges Monopoly Over Chipset Market
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Davis, and Ericsson Broadbent on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Qualcomm
Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-
00604 (N.D. Cal., February 6, 2017), alleges an anticompetitive
conduct by Defendant in acquiring and maintaining its monopoly
over the modem chipset market and abusing the intellectual
property rights underlying this technology, and charging an
excessive and unlawful royalty on cellular phones or devices
incorporating such patents.

Qualcomm is a developer of cellular technology.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Allan Steyer, Esq.
     D. Scott Macrae, Esq.
     Jill M. Manning, Esq.
     STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
     One California Street, Suite 300
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 421-3400
     Fax: (415) 421-2234
     E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com
             smacrae@steyerlaw.com
             jmanning@steyerlaw.com

        - and -

     Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
     Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Phone: (415) 421-7100
     Fax: (415) 421-7105
     E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
             kbates@schneiderwallace.com


QUALCOMM INC: Faces "Ewald" Anti-trust Suit in Calif. Over Chipset
------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Ewald, Tom Parkin, Brian Depperschmidt, Kyle Weber and
Brandon Steele, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Qualcomm Incorporated, Defendant, Case No.
5:17-cv-00565, (N.D. Cal., February 3, 2017), seeks to recover
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, including
reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from unjust enrichment and
violation of the California state consumer protection statutes,
state antitrust and restraint of trade laws, unfair competition
law, and violation of the Cartwright Act and Sherman Act.

Qualcomm is a developer of cellular technology, such as the Code
Division Multiple Access (CDMA) standard on which network carriers
rely upon. It is the dominant producer of CDMA chipsets and holds
the largest number of Standard Essential Patents for CDMA
technology and it incorporated into virtually every relevant
cellular standard in the last several years.

Plaintiff alleges that Qualcomm has not adhered to fair,
reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms, but has instead taken
advantage of the standard-setting process to acquire and maintain
monopoly control of the modem chipset market by refusing to
license and/or impose onerous restrictions on licenses of its
patents to competing chipset makers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
      Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      Bruce J. Wecker, Esq.
      Samantha J. Stein, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      600 Montgomery St., Suite 3200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 633-1908
      Fax: (415) 358-4980
      Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
             clebsock@hausfeld.com
             bsweeney@hausfeld.com
             bwecker@hausfeld.com
             sstein@hausfeld.com

             - and -

      Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
      Washington, DC 20006
      Tel: (202)-540-7200
      Fax: (202)-540-7201
      Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com

             - and -

Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
      ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
      3620 East Layton Avenue
      Cudahy, WI 53110
      Tel: (414) 482-8000
      Fax: (414) 482-8001
      Email: sademi@ademilaw.com


RDCW2 INC: "Mola" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Mola, on behalf of herself and other employees and
former employees similarly situated v. RDCW2, Inc. d/b/a "Rubber
Ducky" and Paolo A. Weston, Case No. 9:17-cv-80125-RLR (S.D. Fla.,
February 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, and an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages; and to obtain
declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a car wash center and provide vehicle-
cleaning services for customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Hanna, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      600 N. Pine Island Rd., Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: MHanna@forthepeople.com


REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Public Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Baran Polat, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Regulus Therapeutics Inc., Paul C. Grint, and Joseph
P. Hagan, Case No. 3:17-cv-00182-BTM-RBB (S.D. Cal., January 31,
2017), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that patients treated with RG-
101 were at increased risk of contracting jaundice; consequently,
the Company had overstated RG-101's approval prospects and
commercial viability; and as a result of the foregoing, Regulus'
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Regulus Therapeutics Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that
focuses on the discovery and development of drugs that target
microRNAs to treat and prevent various diseases, including
hepatitis C infections, cardiovascular, fibrosis, oncology, immune
inflammatory, and metabolic diseases.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      468 North Camden Drive
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (818) 532-6499
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Hui M. Chang, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              ahood@pomlaw.com
              hchang@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


ROADRUNNER TRANSPO: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Strougo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Roadrunner Transportation Systems Inc., Mark A.
Diblasi, and Peter R. Armbruster, Case No. 2:17-cv-00147-PP (E.D.
Wis., February 1, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Roadrunner Transportation Systems Inc. provides asset-light
transportation and logistics services that purports to offer a
comprehensive suite of global supply chain solutions, including
truckload logistics, customized and expedited less-than-truckload,
intermodal solutions, freight consolidation, inventory management,
expedited services, air freight, international freight forwarding,
customs brokerage, and transportation management solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              ahood@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail:  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued in Cal. Over Service Warranty Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Tulipani, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Does One
through, One Hunred, inclusive, Case No. 3:17-cv-00513 (N.D. Cal.,
February 1, 2017), is brought on behalf of all California
consumers who purchased a Samsung television with a wholesale
price to the retailer of one hundred dollars or more and an
express warranty, and within seven years of the date of
manufacture of the television, notified Samsung or its authorized
service and repair facility that the television was in need of
repair and for whom Samsung failed to make available sufficient
service literature or functional parts to effect the repair.

Headquartered in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, Samsung Electronics
America, Inc. supplies consumer electronics and digital products
in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael F. Ram, Esq.
      Susan S. Brown, Esq.
      RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
      101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 433-4949
      Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
      E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com
              sbrown@rocklawcal.com


SCHWABE NORTH: Sonner's Class Cert. Bid Taken Under Submission
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Virginia A. Phillips entered a civil minutes in the
lawsuit titled Kathleen Sonner v. Schwabe North America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 5:15-cv-01358-VAP-SP (C.D. Cal.), regarding the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment or partial summary
judgment, and the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

"Matter called.  Counsel make their appearances.  Court issues a
tentative ruling, hears oral argument and takes the matter under
submission," according to the Civil Minutes.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DgBQUg5m


SL GLOBAL: Faces "Morgan" Lawsuit Alleging Violations of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MORGAN, individually and for others similarly situated v.
SL GLOBAL INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-00368 (S.D. Tex.,
February 6, 2017), alleges that Defendant did not pay John Morgan
overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Instead,
Defendant paid Morgan a set amount for each day (or half-day)
worked, with no overtime pay if he worked more than 40 in a
workweek.

SL Global Investments, LLC d/b/a Field Personnel Resources (FPR)
offers contract staffing for all facets of the energy industry;
specializing in field personnel for exploration, appraisal and
development drilling activities on US land.  Morgan is an MWD hand
employed by FPR.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     David I. Moulton, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
             dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


SOS SECURITY: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
---------------------------------------------------------
Jason Bell, on behalf of himself and the class of all others
similarly situated v. SOS Security, LLC and Does 1 through 50,
Case No. RG17847734 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 31, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, meal and rest break
premiums, unpaid reimbursements, applicable penalties, reasonable
attorneys' fees, and costs of suit according to the mandate of the
California Labor Code.

SOS Security, LLC provides security services throughout the United
States, including numerous locations in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      William L. Marder, Esq.
      POLARIS LAW GROUP
      501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
      Hollister, CA 95023
      Telephone: (831) 531-4214
      Facsimile: (831) 634-033

         - and -

      Edward W. Choi, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
      515 S. Figueroa St, Suite 1250
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 381-1515
      Facsimile: (213) 465-488


STATE COLLECTION: Studebaker Seeks to Certify Two TCPA Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Studebaker asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the lawsuit titled ANGEL STUDEBAKER, on behalf of herself and the
class members described below v. STATE COLLECTION SERVICE, INC.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00841 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against the
Defendant.

The Plaintiff defines two classes as:

     Class A, corresponding with Count I, consists of (a) all
     individuals with Illinois addresses, (b) who accessed the
     website ezpay.statecol.com (c) or who were charged a fee for
     paying by credit or debit card (d) at any time during a
     period beginning one year prior to the filing of this action
     and ending 21 days after the filing of this action; and

     Class B, corresponding with Count II, consists of (a) all
     individuals with Illinois telephone numbers (based on the
     area code) (b) who answered calls from SCS (c) which played
     a recorded or computer-generated message (c) where SCS did
     not identify itself and state that the call was for
     collection purposes (d) which call was made at any time
     during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of
     this action and ending 21 days after the filing of this
     action.

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fgb8Tlxa

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Sarah M. Barnes, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, L.L.C.
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  fgreene@edcombs.com
                  sbarnes@edcombs.com


STILLWATER MINING: Faces "Topf" Suit Over Sibanye Gold Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory R. Topf, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Stillwater Mining Company, Brian D.
Schweitzer, Michael J. McMullen, George M. Bee, Patrice E. Merrin,
Lawrence Peter O'Hagan, Michael S. Parrett, Gary A. Sugar, Thor US
Holdco Inc., and Thor Mergco Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00299 (D.
Colo., January 31, 2017), is brought on behalf of all public
stockholders of Stillwater Mining Company, to enjoin the proposed
sale of the Company to Sibanye Gold Limited, Thor US Holdco Inc.,
and Thor Mergco Inc., pursuant to which Sibanye will acquire all
outstanding shares of Stillwater with the Company's stockholders
receiving $18.00 per share in cash.

Stillwater Mining Company is engaged in the development,
extraction, processing, smelting and refining of palladium,
platinum and associated metals (PGMs) produced by mining a
geological formation in south-central Montana known as the J-M
Reef and recycling spent catalytic converters and other industrial
sources.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
      THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
      600 17th Street, Suite 2800
      South Denver, CO 80202
      Telephone: (303) 861-3003
      Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
      E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
      THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
      Post-Montgomery Ctr.
      One Montgomery Street, Ste. 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (303) 861-3003
      Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
      E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      Ashling M. Soares, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      E-mail: srowley@zlk.com
              asoares@zlk.com


T-MOBILE: Faces "Black" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Black, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. RG17847705 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
January 27, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay Field Technicians' overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. provides wireless voice, messaging, and data
services in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amab Banerjee, Esq.
      Brandon Breuillette, Esq.
      Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
      CAPSTONE LAW APC
      1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 556-4811
      Facsimile: (310)943-0396
      E-mail: Arnab.Banerjee@capstonelawyers.com
              Brandon.Brouillette@capstonelawyers.com
              Ruhandy.Glezakos@capstonelawyers.com


TEACHERS INVESTMENT: "Haley" Alleges Loan Payment Mismanagement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Haley, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Teachers Investment and Annuity
Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00855, (S.D. N.Y.,
February 3, 2017), seeks to recover money unlawfully taken from
her retirement account in the Washington University Retirement
Savings Plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

Plaintiff borrowed money from her retirement account on four
separate occasions. She has completely repaid two of the loans,
plus interest, and is currently repaying the other two loans. All
of the interest she paid in connection with those loans should
have been credited to her account, however, Defendant did not
credit the full amount of paid interest to her account but instead
credited a smaller amount of interest to her account and kept the
remainder.

Defendant is a life and annuity insurance company organized under
the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of
business in New York, New York. Defendant provides an array of
financial services for employee benefit plans. Defendant provides
these services to the Washington University Plan..

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John J. Nestico, Esq.
      Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
      Michael McKay, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      8501 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
      Scottsdale, AZ 85253
      Telephone: (480) 428-0145
      Facsimile: (866) 505-8036
      Email: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com
             gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com
             mmckay@schneiderwallace.com

             - and -

      Todd Schneider, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
      Emeryville, CA 94608
      Telephone: (415) 421-7100
      Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
      Email: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com

             - and -

      Todd S. Collins, Esq.
      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Ellen T. Noteware, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365
      Email: tcollins@bm.net
             scarson@bm.net
             enoteware@bm.net


TRAVELPORT LP: Faces "Williamson" Suit Over Legacy Pension Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Henderson Williamson, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Travelport, LP and Galileo & Worldspan U.S.
Legacy Pension Plan, Case No. 1:17-cv-00406-WSD (N.D. Ga.,
February 1, 2017), is brought on behalf of all persons who reside
in the United States, who are vested participants in the
Defendants' pension benefit under the Legacy Pension Plan, are
eligible to begin and have begun receiving pension benefits, have
had their pension benefits inappropriately reduced with regard to
Final Average Compensation and Months of Benefit Service and had
their pension benefits inappropriately reduced due to the
Defendants' failure to keep appropriate pay records substantiating
Final Average Compensation.

Travelport, LP provides online transaction processing and
information technology services to the travel industry worldwide.

Galileo & Worldspan U.S. Legacy Pension Plan is an ERISA-governed
employee pension plan sponsored by Travelport, LP, and
administered by Travelport in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nancy B.  Pridgen, Esq.
      PATEL BURKHALTER LAW GROUP
      4045 Orchard Road, Building 400
      Atlanta, GA 30080
      Telephone: (404) 551-5884
      Facsimile: (678) 812-3654
      E-mail: npridgen@patelburkhalter.com

         - and -

      Douglas N.  Campbell, Esq.
      DOUGLAS CAMPBELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      4776 East Conway Drive, N.W.
      Atlanta, GA 30327
      Telephone: (404) 943-1354
      Facsimile: (404) 550-2856
      E-mail: dougcampbell@mindspring.com


VINAIO IMPORTS: Faces "Morcelo" Suit Seeking OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Ramon Elias Morcelo and Michael Minaya Perez, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
vs. Vinaio Imports Ltd., and Joan Altes, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00868 (S.D.N.Y., February 6, 2017), claims that Plaintiffs
are entitled to alleged unpaid wages from Defendants for overtime
work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants owned and operated a wine distribution business in New
York.  Plaintiffs were employed as driver and wine distributor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Samuel, Esq.
     SAMUEL & STEIN
     38 West 32nd St., Suite 1110
     New York, NY 10001
     Phone: 212 563 9884


VISITOR'S CONTROL: Certification of Class Sought in "Horton" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled John D. Horton v. Visitor's
Control Center, Case No. 5:16-cv-01260-D (W.D. Okla.), moves for
certification of this class:

     All persons who have applied in the last five years for a
     visitor's pass at any U.S. Department of Defense (Army, Air
     Force, Navy and Marine Corps) installation and have:

     * Had their identification card (e.g. passport, driver's
       license, etc.) stolen by Department of Defense police or
       their surrogates;

     * Had Department of Defense police or their surrogates make
       unlawful disclosures to third parties in violation of the
       Privacy Act;

     * Had their pass denied without due process of law (i.e.
       never being presented with the evidence used against them
       and the "judge" also acting as the prosecutor while not
       being a member of the bar).

Mr. Horton also moves to be appointed representative of the Class,
and for the appointment of qualified attorneys as Class Counsel
pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DEMxUpi7


WHITEPAGES INC: Faces "Klinger" Suit Over Illegal Advertisements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Klinger, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Whitepages, Inc. d/b/a whitepages.com, Case
No. 2017-CH-01555 (Ill. Cir. Ct., February 1, 2017), is an action
for damages as a result of the Defendant's practice of using
Illinois residents' full names in its paid advertisements without
their consent for its commercial gain.

Whitepages, Inc. is an online service that sells reports about
individuals to consumers willing to pay for them.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan Sullivan, Esq.
      KOZONIS & ASSOCIATES, LTD
      4849 N. Milwaukee Ave, Suite 300
      Chicago, IL 60630
      Telephone: (773) 545-9607
      Facsimile: (773)496-8617
      E-mail: rsullivan@kozonislaw.com


YALE ENFORCEMENT: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Seeking to Recoup Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
IBIS GONZALEZ on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. YALE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES, INC., an Illinois
Corporation, and RICK YALE, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-20465-UU (S.D. Fla., February 6, 2017), alleges that
Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to compensate Plaintiff
and the other similarly situated employees with time and one-half
wages for all of their actual overtime hours worked, instead
accepting the benefits of the work performed by Plaintiff and the
others similarly situated to him without paying the overtime
compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant provides security services at multiple locations across
the United States.  Plaintiff is a security employee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Keith M. Stern, Esq.
     Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
     One Flagler
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: (305) 901-1379
     Fax: (561) 288-9031
     E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
     E-mail: hsolis@workingforyou.com


* Class Action Litigation Funders in Australia Need Regulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Legg, writing for The Conversation, reports that access to
funding for litigation has become a critical component of class
action cases in Australia.  This is because it provides the
necessary financing for this form of expensive and complex
litigation.

Yet its unregulated nature may expose consumers to the risk of the
funder becoming insolvent or simply failing to pay legal fees --
or, if a class action is lost, the defendant's costs.

To create regulations that cover this, the courts and regulators
need to pay attention to unsuccessful class actions, where the
funder is required to honour obligations to claimants to pay legal
fees and the defendant's costs.

But, currently, the only guidance, such as the Federal Court's
recent judgments and the Victorian attorney-general's referral of
the issue to the Victorian Law Reform Commission, focuses on a
successful class action where the funder is actually receiving its
fee.

Two important regulatory pillars -- licensing and capital adequacy
-- are missing.  This is despite the Productivity Commission
recommending in 2014 that both be introduced.

The lack of a licensing regime means anyone or any entity can fund
litigation in Australia -- except for lawyers, as contingency fees
are illegal.  Also, without capital adequacy requirements, there
is no protection for claimants (or defendants) to ensure the
funder has sufficient resources to be able to pay legal fees and
meet any adverse costs order.

This creates the potential for inadequately resourced funders to
litigate for profit but avoid the costs if unsuccessful.
Currently, funders can protect themselves by being based offshore
and/or by using subsidiaries with limited financial resources to
undertake funding obligations.

There is only partial protection against a funder with inadequate
capital at the moment.  This involves a court order for "security
for costs".  This requires the funder to take steps to make funds
or assets available at the beginning of litigation to pay the
defendant's costs in the event the litigation fails.

However, it is common practice that the amount of security a court
requires to be posted is substantially lower than the costs the
defendant actually incurs.  So, the claimant bringing the case may
be still liable for those costs.

How does litigation funding work?

In a typical litigation funding arrangement, the funder will enter
into an agreement with one or more potential claimants.  The
funder agrees to pay the litigation costs -- such as lawyers' fees
and expert witness fees -- and promises the claimant will pay the
defendant's costs if the claim fails.

Litigation funding removes all of the costs exposure a claimant
may have.  In return, if the claim is successful, the funder will
receive a fee.  This is typically a specified percentage of any
funds recovered by the claimants either by way of settlement or
judgment.  The funder will also be reimbursed the litigation
costs.

The Federal Court has taken significant steps to reassert that
court access is primarily for the people who have been harmed.  It
says it has the power to supervise litigation funding charges in
class actions.

In the recent shareholder class actions against insurance giant
QBE and Newcrest Mining, the court recognised that the funder's
fee is usually the largest single deduction from what the
claimants manage to recover in funded class actions.

Many claimants are at a disadvantage in negotiating litigation
funding agreements because they have small claims and need the
funding more than the funder needs them to be part of the class
action.

The Federal Court aims to prevent excessive or disproportionate
charges to claimants.  This means funders are subject to the same
scrutiny that already exists for lawyers and their fees.

The court's supervision of funding charges will mean funders will
need to justify the fees charged.  Therefore, a fee must reflect
the real risks the funder assumes in facilitating access for the
claimants to justice and the recoveries achieved.

Examples of near-disasters

The failure to regulate litigation funders is becoming more
problematic.  This is because more funders, particularly from
overseas, are entering the market.  There have been class action
failures, which may become more common as more funders start to
chase profits in Australia.

Class actions over bank fees and equine influenza are two recent
examples of litigation that failed.

The bank fees class action was a highly publicised attempt to seek
repayment of overdraft and other bank fees to customers. This
failed when the fees were found not to be illegal.

The case involved a number of hearings and multiple appeals, which
led to a large liability for costs.  Fortunately for the claimants
(and the defendants), an Australian-listed corporation with a
healthy balance sheet funded the class action.

The equine influenza class action dealt with claims against the
federal government for failing to prevent the virus escaping from
a quarantine station, which led to the infection of thousands of
horses.

Partway through the class action, the overseas funder became
bankrupt amid allegations its parent company was engaged in
fraudulent activities.  The class action settled for no
compensation; each side bore its own costs.  Justice Foster
observed the settlement meant the lead claimant avoided:

. . . a very substantial adverse costs order being made against
them.

Lawyers acting for the plaintiff reportedly had A$11 million in
unpaid fees.  The litigation funder would have been liable to
protect the claimants from adverse costs orders and pay the legal
fees had it not collapsed.  The settlement's terms averted a near-
disaster for the lead claimant.

Oversight of litigation funders in victorious class actions has
begun. But more action is required to regulate losing litigation
funders to protect claimants and defendants.


* Courts Issue Varied Rulings in Class Actions Post-Spokeo
----------------------------------------------------------
Devin Chwastyk, Esq. -- dchwastyk@mcneeslaw.com -- of McNees
Wallace & Nurick LLC, in an article for JDSupra, reports that
federal courts have varied widely in their interpretation of
standing for plaintiffs in consumer protection class actions since
last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Spokeo v. Robins, __
U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (May 16, 2016).

The 'Spokeo' Ruling

In Spokeo, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed standing under the
"case and controversy" requirement of Article III of the U.S.
Constitution and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections
1681, et seq.  Plaintiff Thomas Robins, on behalf of a putative
class, alleged that the defendant, an online "people search"
engine and aggregator of personal information, had violated the
FCRA by including inaccurate information in his online profile.

The court's decision attempted to clarify the Article III
constitutional requirement that a civil plaintiff allege an
"injury-in-fact" that is both "concrete and particularized" in
order to establish federal jurisdiction over a case.  The court's
decision focused particularly on the appropriate application of
the "concreteness" prong of this test.

Initially, the court noted that a cognizable injury must be
concrete but need not be "tangible."  Here, the court referenced
constitutional claims, such as free speech cases, over which
federal courts have traditionally asserted standing despite the
absence of tangible injuries.  The court also found that the "risk
of a real harm" can satisfy the requirement of concreteness even
without allegations of immediate harm, i.e., in cases of slander
per se.

Examining the FCRA, Judge Samuel Alito's 6-2 majority opinion
further held that Congress "is well positioned to identify
intangible harms that meet minimum Article III requirements."  The
court held, nevertheless, that a mere statutory violation is
insufficient to create federal jurisdiction in the absence of any
concrete harm.

The Supreme Court then remanded the case to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to make a determination of whether
the plaintiff in Spokeo had adequately alleged a concrete injury.
In December, the Ninth Circuit heard arguments in the remanded
case.  Counsel for the parties, despite the Supreme Court's
guidance, continued the debate over whether the statutory
violation alleged by Robins was sufficient to show a concrete
injury entitling him to standing in federal court.

The Aftermath of 'Spokeo'

If the Spokeo holding recounted above seems to you less than a
model of clarity, your response is akin to that of counsel and
courts who have struggled to apply the Supreme Court's reasoning
in the wake of the decision.

The obliqueness of the decision suggests the court merely kicked
the can down the road to allow lower courts and litigants
additional opportunities to develop appropriate theories for
standing in consumer class actions.

Unsurprisingly, the results of court decisions applying Spokeo to
date have been nearly as mixed as the varied reactions to the
decision.  Around the country, defendants to consumer class
actions subsequently have succeeded arguing that Spokeo raises the
bar for plaintiffs.  For example, In Myers v. Nicolet Restaurant
of De Pere, __ F.3d. __, No. 16-2075 (7th Cir.
Dec. 13, 2016), the Seventh Circuit threw out a claim that failure
to truncate payment card expiration dates on payment receipts
provided standing to assert a violation of the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681(c)(g)(1).  The
court found that the exposure merely of an expiration date did not
increase the risk of identity theft or cause other actual harm of
the type that Congress intended FACTA to address, see also Hancock
v. Urban Outfitters , 830 F.3d 511 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (requests for
disclosure of zip codes did not create standing under District of
Columbia consumer protection laws); Braitberg v. Charter
Communications , 836 F.3d 925, 926 (8th Cir. 2016), (without
allegation of data breach, the defendant's retention of the
customers' personally identifiable information did not provide
standing to assert violation of the federal Cable Communications
Policy Act).

By contrast, rulings by local federal courts interpreting Spokeo
have been relatively favorable to plaintiffs.  Those decisions
have been guided by the Third Circuit's opinion in In re
Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litigation, 827 F.3d 262 (3d Cir.
2016), which interpreted Spokeo to mean that "what a plaintiff
cannot do is treat a bare procedural violation that may result in
no harm as an Article III injury-in-fact."  The court stated, "in
some cases an injury-in-fact may exist solely by virtue of
statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates
standing."  The Third Circuit therefore permitted privacy claims
to proceed on behalf of a plaintiff class of children whose
internet browsing habits had been collected by the defendants.

In Hartman v. Medicredit , __ F.Supp.2d __, No. 15-1596 (W.D.Pa.
Dec. 20, 2016), the plaintiff alleged on behalf of a putative
class that the defendant's mailing of collection letters that
included personally identifiable information on the outside of the
envelopes had violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. Applying Nickelodeon , the court
refused to dismiss the claim for lack of standing, finding that
debtors have a substantive right to be free from harmful debt-
collection practices, and so a violation of the FDCPA constitutes
a concrete injury, see also Blaha v. First Nat'l Collection
Bureau, Inc. , __ F.Supp.2d __, No. 16-2791 (D.N.J. Nov. 10,
2016).

The Future of Standing

The further development of the "concrete harm" analysis set forth
in Spokeo will be determinative of the viability going forward of
consumer protection lawsuits, including individual claims and
class action lawsuits.  Certainly, lawyers on both sides of such
cases will continue to contest the proper application of that
case, until and unless the Supreme Court takes the opportunity in
the future to clarify its ruling.

The application of Spokeo may determine whether federal plaintiffs
need only allege a bare violation of a consumer protection
statute, or must allege some actual financial loss to proceed in
federal court.  This issue is particularly relevant in consumer
protection class actions, where the award of even modest statutory
damages to a putative class, together with attorney's fees,
creates strong incentives for defendants to settle cases that
survive dismissal and certification proceedings.  Meanwhile,
defense counsel are pressing the same analysis in nonstatutory
cases, including data breach class actions, where plaintiffs
allege that they face some risk of future injury, such as identity
theft, but do not allege present financial harm, as in Galaria v.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance , __ F.3d ___, No. 15-3386 (6th Cir.
Sept. 12, 2016), (reversing dismissal of data breach class action
and finding Spokeo standing based on the plaintiff's
nonspeculative allegations of continuing risk of fraud).

An attorney representing Robins in his continuing lawsuit against
Spokeo has opined that the Supreme Court's decision will lead
lower courts to dismiss weaker privacy claims, but will have
little impact on the viability of stronger cases.

To that point, perhaps the most cogent interpretation of Spokeo to
date is from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
That court interpreted the Supreme Court's decision as instructing
"that an alleged procedural violation can by itself manifest
concrete injury where Congress conferred the procedural right to
protect a plaintiff's concrete interests," but "a plaintiff may
fail to demonstrate concrete injury where violation of the
procedure at issue presents no material risk of harm to that
underlying interest," as in Strubel v. Comenity Bank , 842 F.3d
181 (2d Cir. 2016).

This interpretation would have federal courts continue to open
their doors to substantive claims that advance the policy
interests underlying consumer protection statutes, while limiting
the success of suits rooted in purely technical violations, which
may be filed largely in pursuit of potential awards of fees to the
plaintiffs' counsel.

Importantly, the Spokeo "concreteness" analysis speaks only to a
plaintiff's standing to bring a claim in federal court.
Accordingly, claims that may not survive a Spokeo analysis in
federal court nonetheless still can be brought in state court,
subject to jurisdictional limitations set by state laws, as in
Dittman v. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center , __ A.2d
__, No. 971-WDA-2015 (Pa. Super. Jan. 12) (affirming dismissal of
negligence claims in data breach class action based upon
Pennsylvania's economic loss doctrine). See also Medellin v. Ikea
U.S.A. West , __ F.Supp.2d. __, No. 15-55174 (9th Cir. Jan. 13).

Under this reasoning, the plaintiffs can use Spokeo to defeat
defendant's removal efforts, or even to avoid adverse federal
rulings by seeking remand to state court for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction.  In Medellin, the defendant removed a
California consumer protection law claim to federal court.  After
the district court decertified the class, the plaintiff appealed
and, creatively, conceded that there had been no allegation of
cognizable harm under Spokeo but only of bare procedural
violations.  The Ninth Circuit vacated the decertification ruling,
holding the district court instead should have dismissed the case
for lack of Article III standing, as held in Mocek v. Allsaints
USA , __ F.Supp.2d. __, No. 16-C-8484 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 7, 2016)
(remanding to state court and awarding attorney fees to the
plaintiff after the defendant removed case from state court and
then argued the federal court lacked Article III jurisdiction).


* CEO Overconfidence Plays Role in Shareholder Class Action Spike
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Humphery-Jenner, Suman Banerjee, and Vikram Nanda, writing
for The Conversation, report that there's been several high
profile class actions launched by unhappy shareholders against the
companies they invest in (otherwise known as securities class
actions) lately in Australia.  The common theme is a claim these
companies have not been straight with investors, issuing falsely
optimistic information or concealing negative information.

If it's proved to be true, this sort of conduct does indeed damage
market confidence and harms shareholders.  The issue is then how
shareholders and boards might mitigate the risk of these class
actions occurring.  This comes down to what types of executive
(and board) characteristics are associated with the risk of
litigation and what actions accentuate this risk.

To further understand what is driving these class actions we
looked at a set of nearly 1,400 securities class actions targeted
against US listed companies.  We wanted to see how much of a role
chief executive overconfidence played in these actions, after
controlling for other corporate factors.


We found that overconfident chief executives seem more prone to
overstate their firms' prospects or conceal negative information
in the erroneously overconfident belief that future performance
can make up for past failures.

One of the most recent examples of a company accused of misleading
shareholders in Australia is a class action against infant formula
maker Bellamy's Organics.

Bellamy's chief executive was recently stood down after the
company's share price fell more than 50%.  Similar action has also
been launched against Murray Goulburn, Slater & Gordon, and
Newcrest.

Securities class actions are also more common in the United
States. For example, 270 were initiated in 2016.  In Australia,
class actions are arguably one of the fastest growing areas of
litigation, albeit from a rather low base.

When do securities class actions usually occur?

The general rules governing these sorts of class actions are
similar in the US and in Australia.  Someone can sue if they have
suffered a loss as a result of the defendant making a false
statement that alters share prices, when the defendant knew it was
false or was reckless.

Defendant Company
Bellamy's

Claim
Alleged breaches of continuous disclosure obligations between
April 14, 2016 and December 9, 2016, culminating in its price
falling nearly 50% and its market capitalisation falling more than
$500 million.

Law Firm
Maurice Blackburn

Defendant Company
Murray Goulburn

Claim
It's alleged Murray Goulburn misled investors about its likely
revenue in its Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) issued on
July 2, 2015.  It forecast net profit after tax (NPAT) of $85.8
million.  Murray Goulburn downgraded this to $63 million on
February 29, 2016.  The company noted Chinese regulators had
tightened regulations and denied an impact on profitability.  On
April 27, 2016, the company downgraded NPAT forecasts to $39-42
million.  The share price fell more than 40%.

Law Firm
Slater & Gordon

Defendant Company
Slater & Gordon

Claim
The class action alleges Slater & Gordon's management misled
investors about its profitability and about the risks involved in
its acquisition of Quindell in April 2015.  In December 2015 the
company withdrew its 2016 profit guidance, which it had reaffirmed
in November 2015.  It reported a net loss of $1.02 billion in
2016, attributable in part to an $879.5 million impairment charge.
It restated its 2015 profit from $82 million to $62 million.
Law Firm
Maurice Blackburn

Defendant Company
Newcrest

Claim
It's alleged Newcrest misled investors about production and
profit.  It downgraded production forecasts, wrote-off all
goodwill and impaired the value of its mining operations. The case
settled out of court for $36 million.

Law Firm
Slater & Gordon

Securities class actions typically follow large falls in share
prices.  They usually involve alleged breaches of listed
companies' obligations to inform the market of information that
might have a material impact on its share price.  Often this
involves concealing negative information, such as declines in
sales or profitability.  Such obligations exist in Australia,
Canada, and the US, for example.

These class actions can also coincide with regulatory
investigations.

What's behind the surge in class actions?

An increase in the amount of litigation funding options for these
class actions, coupled with encouragement from regulators, has
spurred the amount of class actions.

Litigation funding helps to facilitate securities class actions.
Individual shareholders in a class action will recover only small
damages, which will be insufficient to pay for their litigation
costs and class members do not want to be personally liable for
costs.  So litigation funding agencies step in by offering to pay
the legal costs in return for a share of the winnings if the class
action is successful.

The number of cases funded has increased recently.  Bentham IMF, a
listed funder, has seen strong growth in the number of cases
funded.  JustKapital has also seen strong growth since its listing
by reverse merger in 2015.  It announced that it acquired a
portfolio of five cases in July 2016.

Litigation funding has also become more profitable for the
companies involved.  IMF Bentham, one of the largest litigation
funders, claims to have recovered more than $2 billion in damages
with a 90% success rate.  Litigation Capital Management, Bentham
IMF, and JustKapital Litigation Partners have been successful
enough to list on the Australian Securities Exchange and perform
strongly in 2016.

Regulators in Australia have been relatively encouraging to
litigants.  For example, the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission (ASIC) and the US Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) can pursue companies for civil penalties for failing to
disclose.  This also enables class actions, because it helps
litigants to prove their case, or tip-off litigants about conduct
that could give rise to a case.

For example, in 2016 ASIC announced that it would investigate
whether Slater & Gordon deliberately manipulated financial
reports.  Such a finding would help litigants establish that
Slater & Gordon misled the market.

What companies should do to avoid a class action

The evidence suggests that lax governance and poor oversight can
drive securities class actions.  This is especially the case in
the presence of overconfident chief executives.

A key example is the case against property developer Centro, where
directors allegedly failed to properly familiarise themselves with
the company's books, and financial statements were issued without
the directors' scrutiny.  This resulted in a class action with a
$200 million settlement.  The regulator, ASIC, is investigating
whether Slater & Gordon deliberately falsified books.

Our research shows overconfident chief executives tend to
overestimate their own abilities and the performance of their
companies.  Because of this, they overinvest, overestimating the
returns and underestimating the risks, of projects.  This
manifests, for example, in overconfident chief executives doing
worse takeovers.

The issue is then what shareholders and company boards can do to
reduce the risk of such distortions.  Increased regulatory
scrutiny can help, but regulators lack resources to proactively
prevent disclosure lapses and typically respond after wrongdoing
becomes apparent.

One clear remedy for companies is to improve corporate governance.
Improved governance and appropriate compensation schemes for
executives, can help to manage overconfident chief executives.
They can help to align overconfident chief executives' interests
with those of their companies, and greater board independence can
both restrain their actions and force them consider outside
perspectives that can attenuate their overconfident beliefs.

Board independence can also help. However, independent directors
must themselves be encouraged and incentivised to monitor firms:
in the Centro case, independent directors had not done so.  One
such avenue would be through compensation schemes tied to the
company's performance over an extended period of time.

With improved governance, and structuring incentives to align
directors' and executives' interests with those of shareholders,
companies may avoid damaging and costly securities class actions
in the future.


* Few Clues on Gorsuch's Approach to Class Certification Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy M. Creelan, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
for two decades leading up to Justice Antonin Scalia's death, the
U.S. Supreme Court's class certification jurisprudence took shape
as a dialogue between Justices Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg over
the commonality and predominance requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) and (b)(3), respectively.  In broad
strokes, Ginsburg favored granting significant discretion to
district judges to determine whether, based on the unique facts
and pragmatic concerns of each case, a class action was the
appropriate vehicle for resolution.  By contrast, Scalia favored
requiring putative class plaintiffs to meet an ever-increasing set
of "bright line" rules in order to have a class certified.
Fundamentally, this debate reflected their views on the
desirability of class actions as a means of dispute resolution.
With Scalia's passing, the court has hinted that it will embrace
Ginsburg's pragmatic approach in future cases.  But, as discussed
below, a surprisingly few clues indicate whether President Trump's
nominee to replace Scalia, Judge Neil Gorsuch of the U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, will follow in Scalia's
footsteps in this area.

Ginsburg's Pragmatism

Since its inception in 1938 and critical revisions in 1966, FRCP
23 has set forth the requirements for class certification.  Among
the most significant of these requirements, "commonality" requires
that there be "questions of law or fact common to the class" and
applies to all class actions. FRCP 23(a)(2).  To be certified
under Rule 23(b)(3), a putative class plaintiff must further show
that those questions of law or fact common to the class
"predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members." FRCP 23(b)(3).

In her first major opinion on predominance for the court's
majority, Amchem Products v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 594 (1997),
Ginsburg held that district judges should assess whether the
proposed class was "sufficiently cohesive" to warrant
certification under Rule 23(b)(3).  The court affirmed the U.S
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's reversal of the district
court's certification of a massive settlement class that would
have resolved hundreds of thousands of present and future tort
claims against asbestos manufacturers.  In ruling that such a
class was not sufficiently "cohesive," Ginsburg found that the
plaintiffs "were exposed to different asbestos-containing
products, for different amounts of time, in different ways, and
over different periods." Id. at 609.  Although the majority found
the district court's basis for certification insufficient given
the extraordinarily complex array of claims involved, Ginsburg's
opinion reaffirmed the substantial discretion lower courts could
exercise in making such an assessment. Indeed, the "cohesiveness"
test could not be considered a "bright line" by any measure.

Scalia's Heightened Rule

In Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes , 564 U.S. 338, 343 (2011), a putative
class of 1.5 million current and former employees of Wal-Mart
brought a Title VII claim alleging gender discrimination in pay
and promotions.  In support of commonality, the plaintiffs relied
in large part on representative evidence of disparate impact at
the aggregate regional and national levels. Id. at 356. In the
majority opinion, Scalia rejected this "Trial by Formula" approach
for several reasons. Id. at 367. First, given that
Wal-Mart's policy was to give discretion to store managers in
allocating promotions, regional and national statistics did not
establish that individual store managers exercised this discretion
improperly or in the same manner. Id. at 355-56.  Thus, plaintiffs
failed to show that they suffered the same type of injury under
Title VII, whether intentional discrimination or a uniform pay and
promotion policy that resulted in a disparate impact. Id. at 349-
50.  Second, the use of representative evidence to satisfy
certification requirements would violate Wal-Mart's right to
litigate its defenses to individual claims as it was entitled to
do under the burden-shifting framework of Title VII. Id. at 367.
In essence, Scalia newly established a rule that, as part of the
"rigorous analysis" conducted at the certification stage, the
putative plaintiffs present proof of common answers across the
proposed class, and not just common questions of law or fact. Id.
at 350-51.  By contrast, Ginsburg wrote in partial dissent that
the district court acted within its discretion in reviewing the
available statistical or representative evidence -- in light of
human nature -- and finding an inference of discrimination
sufficient to satisfy the commonality requirement. Id. at 371-72.

Impact of 'Wal-Mart' Forestalled

Two years later, in Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust
Funds, Ginsburg attempted to cabin the impact of Wal-Mart from
spreading into the predominance inquiry under 23(b)(3). See 133
S.Ct. 1184 (2013).  The putative plaintiff class in Amgen
consisted of investors alleging securities fraud by invoking the
fraud-on-the-market theory under Basic v. Levinson. Id. at 1188.
Writing for the majority affirming certification, Ginsburg held
that proof of materiality common to all members of the class is
not a prerequisite to certification. Id. at 1188-89.  Rather, the
mere fact that materiality is susceptible to common proof -- since
it is judged according to an objective "reasonable investor"
standard -- is a strong indicator that common issues predominate,
regardless of whether such proof is ultimately favorable to the
plaintiffs. Id. at 1191, 1195.  In dissent, Scalia argued that
classwide proof of materiality is required at the class
certification stage under Basic; otherwise all market-purchase and
market-sale class actions would be certified regardless of the
precise nature of the alleged misrepresentation. Id. at 1205-06.
By asserting that district courts must evaluate the merits of
plaintiff's fraud-on-the-market proof when evaluating
predominance, Scalia attempted unsuccessfully to impose a higher
burden on plaintiffs at the certification stage.

Scalia's Final Effort

Within months of Amgen, Scalia issued the majority opinion in
Comcast v. Behrend , 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), which involved a
putative class of customers alleging anticompetitive conduct by
Comcast.  The district court certified the class based upon a
damages model submitted by the putative plaintiffs' expert that
calculated damages attributable to four different theories of
antitrust injury. Id. at 1430-32.  But the court simultaneously
ruled that only one of the four theories would be cognizable as a
basis for such damages. Id.  The Third Circuit affirmed. Id. at
1431.  Reversing the lower courts, Scalia held that the mismatch
between plaintiffs' court-approved injury theory and its damages
analysis meant that the latter did not "measure only those damages
attributable" to the accepted theory. Id. at 1433.  Thus,
plaintiffs' damages "model f[ell] far short of establishing that
damages [were] capable of measurement on a classwide basis," and
"[q]uestions of individual damage calculations  . . . inevitably
overwhelm[ed] questions common to the class." Id.  The plain text
of Scalia's majority opinion heightened the predominance
requirement significantly to require that damages be susceptible
to classwide proof in class actions, and that such proof be
presented at the class certification stage rather than merely at
trial or on summary judgment.

In dissent, Ginsburg retorted that the predominance requirement
"scarcely demands commonality as to all questions." Id. at 1436.
In particular, "when adjudication of questions of liability common
to the class will achieve economies of time and expense, the
predominance standard is generally satisfied even if damages are
not provable in the aggregate." Id. at 1437.  Once again, these
two justices articulated very different conceptions of both the
putative plaintiff's burden at class certification and the trial
court's discretion to certify a class even absent a full
evidentiary showing of uniform proof common to the class.  Most
lower courts, including those in this circuit, have since read
Comcast much as Ginsburg did by simply requiring a congruity
between a putative plaintiff's theory of liability or injury and
its damages analysis.

Ginsburg Garners a Majority

Shortly after Scalia passed away, the court embraced Ginsburg's
pragmatic approach to a district court's discretion to consider
"representative" and statistical evidence to demonstrate
predominance.  In Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo , 136 S.Ct. 1036, 1039
(2016), a plaintiff class of workers at a pork processing plant
brought an action alleging that Tyson violated state law and the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to compensate employees
for time spent "donning and doffing" protective equipment.  In
order to prove damages, plaintiffs relied on an expert analysis of
the average time a representative sample of the workers spent
donning and doffing. Id. at 1043.  Rejecting the "bright line"
rules of Wal-Mart and Comcast, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for
the majority that "[w]hether and when statistical evidence can be
used to establish classwide liability will depend on the purpose
for which the evidence is being introduced and on 'the elements of
the underlying cause of action . . . .'" Id. at 1040.  Where Tyson
had violated its statutory duty to maintain proper records of time
worked by employees, and in light of the remedial nature of the
FLSA, Kennedy held that representative evidence could properly be
used to satisfy the predominance requirement. Id. at 1047-48.  In
fact, Kennedy clarified that "Wal-Mart does not stand for the
broad proposition that a representative sample is an impermissible
means of establishing classwide liability." Id. at 1048.  Echoing
Ginsburg, Kennedy further stated that the relevance of any
evidence to predominance is contextual, and an "action may be
considered proper under Rule 23(b)(3) even though other important
matters will have to be tried separately, such as damages or some
affirmative defenses peculiar to some individual class members."
Id. at 1045.  Without Scalia on the court, the era of heightened
"bright line" evidentiary hurdles facing putative plaintiffs at
class certification appeared briefly to have ended.

Certification Under Gorsuch?

Few concrete indications suggest how a Justice Gorsuch would
approach commonality and predominance.  None of the opinions he
authored or joined while serving on the Tenth Circuit directly
grappled with these certification requirements.

The only class action certification case in which Judge Gorsuch
authored the court's majority opinion involved a putative class of
county jail inmates suing for injunctive relief for alleged Eighth
Amendment violations. See Shook v. Bd. of Cty. Commissioners of
Cty. of El Paso , 543 F.3d 597 (10th Cir. 2008) (Gorsuch, J.). In
Shook, Gorsuch affirmed the denial of class certification on the
basis that the class was not susceptible as a whole to uniform
injunctive relief as required by Rule 23(b)(2) because "the class
members' injuries must be sufficiently similar that they can be
addressed in an single injunction that need not differentiate
between class members." Id. at 604. Rule 23(b)(2)'s requirements
are distinct from those of commonality and predominance in Rule
23(a) and (b)(3).  Gorsuch did emphasize in Shook the importance
of the discretion afforded to district courts in reaching class
certification decisions, but it would be speculation to read much
into such verbiage outside of the specific context of predominance
or commonality. Id. at 603.  At most, Shook suggests that Gorsuch
would take seriously the certification requirements of Rule 23.

As a practicing attorney in 2005, Gorsuch complained in an article
on securities fraud cases that "economic incentives unique to
securities litigation encourage class action lawyers to bring
meritless claims and prompt corporate defendants to pay dearly to
settle such claims."  It may be fair to assume that he shares with
Scalia a concern that the class action mechanism may be abused.
In addition, the fact that Gorsuch never served on a district
court might suggest a preference for the kind of "bright line"
rules embraced by Scalia rather than the more deferential, fact-
based approach found in Tyson Foods.  For the most part, however,
this is one area in which Gorsuch's record provides few clues.



                            *********

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 Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *