CAR_Public/170410.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Monday, April 10, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 71



                            Headlines

AAA CAB: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment Against Drivers
ALL TEMPORARIES: "Vongkhamchanh" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
ALLERGAN INC: Seventh Circuit Dismisses No-Injury Class Action
ANADARKO E&P: "Thompson" Sues Over "Underpayment" of Royalties
ARBY'S: Valley Federal Credit Union Files Data Breach Suit

ARMADIO CABINETS: Faces "Ortega" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
BREX INC: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over Unpaid Wages
CANADA: RCMP Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Passes
CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: Class Action Dismissed Without Prejudice
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Averts Unpaid Overtime Class Action

CK RICHTON: "Sanchez-Lagunes" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
CLARENCE DAVIDS: Workers' Suit Granted Class Certification
DIAMOND FOODS: California Court Dismisses "McGee" Suit
DIOCESE OF BUNBURY: Glover Sex Abuse Class Action Mulled
DIRECT HEATING: Faces "Pozo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: PERS Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa.
ENERGY RECOVERY: Securities Class Settlement Has Prelim. OK
ENSIGN UNITED: "Salazar" Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
ETHICON: Canadian Patients Launch Class Action Over Recalled Mesh
EXPRESS COURIER: Suggs et al. Sue Alleging Violation of FLSA

FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Mustang Overheating Issue
GALILEE MEMORIAL: Appeals Court Grants Suit Class Action Status
GRUBHUB: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages
HARTE-HANKS DIRECT: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
HOME DEPOT: Financial Institutions May Get Settlement Payout

INVENTURE FOODS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
IOVATE HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in "Kline"
JELLY BELLY: "Gomez" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
JOHNVINCE FOODS: Deal Concludes Dwindling Franchise Class Actions
KENGARD MANOR: Residents Mull Class Action Over Apartment Fire

LMI AEROSPACE: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action
LIFECARE SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Solicitation Calls
MEAD JOHNSON: Faces "Walters" Securities Suit Over Reckitt Merger
METALDYNE PERFORMANCE: Faces Shareholder Class Action
MLS PLAYERS: Court Dismisses Class Action Over RSTP Rules

MORRIS AUTO: Snap Parking's Suit Proceeds Without Arbitration
MYLAN INC: Pa. Fund Alleges Price-Fixing of Albuterol Sulfate
NATIONWIDE BUSINESS: "Cunningham" Case Dismissed
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: MAO-MSO Seeks Medical Expense Reimbursement
NATURE'S WAY: Class Action Over Made In USA Label Can Proceed

NATURMED INC: Can File Cross-Claim Against Bactolac
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: July 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
NEW YORK: Port Authority Faces Class Action Over Gay Men Arrest
NORTHERN CHILDREN'S: Faces "Pratt" Suit Under FLSA, Penn. Laws
ONTARIO: Top Court Certifies Crown Wards' Class Action

PAYPAL: Settles Class Action Over Account Closures for $4 Million
PRECISION DRILLING: "Montez" Hits Misclassification, No OT Pay
RADIO RENTALS: Customer Sues Over "Rent, Try $1 Buy" Scheme
RADIO RENTALS: Class Action May Drag on for Years, Parent Says
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: PERS Hits Overpriced Shares

SCHWARTZ: Negligence Claim Certified as Global Class Action
SIGNET JEWELERS: May 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
SP AUSNET: Black Saturday Survivors Get $418.5MM Compensation
SUTHERLAND MORTGAGE: "Rapp" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
TAURUS PROCESSING: "Milosch" Sues Over Telemarketing Calls

THEBERGE DEVELOPMENTS: Ottawa Condo Owners File $3MM Class Action
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Claimant Objection Could Complicate Settlement
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Hears Arguments on Settlement Objection
U.S. CONCRETE: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas
U.S. PHYSICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action

UNIQUE BEVERAGE: Sued Over Misleading Coconut Water Label
VOLKSWAGEN: Proposed Settlement Not in Consumers' Best Interest
WALGREENS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Price Scheme
WELLS FARGO: Settles Class Action Over Unauthorized Accounts
ZOCDOC INC: "Geismann" Case Not Moot, 2nd Circ. Says

* Employers Seek Clarity on Mandatory Arbitration Agreement Issue
* House Passes Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017
* Law Firms Mull Class Action Over Play-to-Play Audition
* New Law May Unlock Class Action Litigation in Poland
* Robinson+Cole Attorney Shares Thoughts on H.R. 985 Bill


                            *********


AAA CAB: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment Against Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
an order denying the motion for partial summary judgment of the
Appellants and granting the summary judgment in favor of the
Appellees on all claims in the appeals case captioned, IVAN
PENTCHEV IONTCHEV; YAW BOATENG; ABRAHAM DENG, On Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. AAA CAB SERVICE, INC., DBA AAA Sedan, DBA AAA
Yellow Cab Company, DBA Aguila's, DBA Checker, DBA Courier, DBA
Fiesta, DBA Neal's, DBA TLC, DBA Yellow, an Arizona corporation;
H&M ENTERPRISES, INC., an Arizona corporation; YELLOW CAB COMPANY,
an Arizona corporation; MIR MASOOD SHAMSA, husband; AHOU SHAMSA,
wife; HOSSEIN DIBAZAR, husband; LEILA DIBAZAR, wife; JACK GILMET,
husband; JANE DOE GILMET, wife, Defendants-Appellees, No. 15-15789
(9th Cir.).

The issue of the case is about whether the Appellees properly
classified the drivers as independent contractors instead of
employees. This led to the Appellants' allegations against the
Appellees for their failure to pay timely and minimum wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sec.
206, and Arizona law, Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) Secs. 23-351, 23-
363.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that the Drivers were not economically
dependent upon the Appellees. Rather, as a matter of economic
reality, they were in business for themselves when they leased
their taxicabs from AAA Cab and utilized them to earn a profit.
Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court, when
it properly held that, as a matter of law, the Drivers were not
employees under the FLSA and Arizona law.

The Ninth Circuit said each party shall bear its own costs on
appeal.

A copy of the Court's Order dated March 27, 2017 is available at
https://goo.gl/Tvxewd from Leagle.com.


ALL TEMPORARIES: "Vongkhamchanh" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
ARIENE VONGKHAMCHANH, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. ALL TEMPORARIES
MIDWEST, INC., Defendant, Case 0:17-cv-00976 (D. Minn., March 30,
2017), alleges that Defendant has suffered and permitted Plaintiff
to regularly work more than 40 or 48 hours in certain workweeks
without being properly compensated in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is an agency that provides health care staffing services
in nursing homes.  Plaintiff has been employed by All Temporaries
Midwest, Inc. as an hourly or non-salaried health care worker,
specifically as a Certified Nurse Assistant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
     4600 IDS Center
     80 South Eighth St.
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 256-3200
     Fax: (612) 215-6870
     E-mail: fisher@nka.com

        - and -

     Philip Bohrer, Esq.
     Scott E. Brady, Esq.
     BOHRER BRADY, LLC
     8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
     Baton Rouge, LA 70809
     Phone: (225) 925-5297
     Fax: (225) 231-7000
     E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
             scott@bohrerbrady.com


ALLERGAN INC: Seventh Circuit Dismisses No-Injury Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Lammi at Forbes reports that in creating the federal
judicial branch, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution did not
intend that courts would right every possible wrong. Article III
authorizes federal courts to resolve "Cases" and "Controversies."
The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted that power to mean that
civil-litigation plaintiffs must prove they suffered an "injury in
fact," which is concrete and particularized, and not speculative.
We've discussed Article III standing jurisprudence here in
numerous contexts, most frequently in consumer class actions
targeting food labels or data-security breaches, areas where the
ever-amorphous concept of "economic harm" is often alleged. A
March 6, 2017 Seventh Circuit decision, Eike v. Allergan, Inc. et
al., shot down an especially outlandish attempt to expand standing
based on an alleged economic injury.

Ms. Eike purportedly represents thousands of other users of eye
drops that treat glaucoma. The plaintiffs argue that the size of
each individual drop violates state consumer-protection laws.
The plaintiffs don't claim physical injury; they don't argue that
the drops are ineffective; and they don't assert the companies
misled purchasers about the dose size. The complaint simply
accuses the drops of being needlessly large, and argues that
smaller-sized drops would be more effective and cost less. The
plaintiffs seek monetary damages as well as injunctive relief--a
court order requiring manufacturers to alter their FDA-approved
packaging and drug-delivery method.

In an August 15, 2016 order, Judge Staci M. Yandle of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois certified the
suit as a class action without bothering to scrutinize the
plaintiffs' concocted theory of harm. The nine drug-company
defendants appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

Only one month after oral argument in the case, the Seventh
Circuit reversed Judge Yandle in an opinion written by Judge
Richard Posner. In five pages of meandering yet persuasive legal
reasoning, Judge Posner deployed an unusual analogy and cited only
two court decisions in  holding that Eike lacked Article III
standing to sue.

Judge Posner summarized the plaintiffs' theory of harm as one
"based simply on dissatisfaction with a product ... or with its
price." From there, he analogized the case to cat breeders who
suggest to purchasers of pedigreed cats that they "feed the cats
kibble during the day and Fancy Feast at night and buy a fountain
for each cat because cats prefer to drink out of a fountain." Cat
buyers unhappy with the price of the food or the fountain, Judge
Posner posited, could not sue the breeder if it "made no
representation [or] concealed no information."

In response to the plaintiffs' assertion that smaller eye drops
would be more effective, the court noted the drop contained a tiny
amount of active pharmaceutical ingredient. A smaller drop would
thus deliver less medicine, rendering it less effective. Judge
Posner did not directly address the plaintiffs' argument that a
smaller drop would be less expensive.* [GN]


ANADARKO E&P: "Thompson" Sues Over "Underpayment" of Royalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
TYRONE J. THOMPSON, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. ANADARKO E&P ONSHORE, LLC; ANADARKO
PETROLEUM CORPORATION; ANADARKO E&P COMPANY, LP; MITSUI E&P USA,
LLC; and STATOIL USA ONSHORE PROPERTIES, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 4:17-cv-00557-MEM (M.D. Pa., March 30, 2017), alleges
underpayment of royalties and/or the materially confusing and
inaccurate reporting of royalty payments by Defendants on natural
gas produced under common oil and gas leases entered by Plaintiff
and similarly situated proposed Class members in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania.

Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC provides drilling services. The company
owns and operates gathering, saltwater disposal, compression and
dehydration facilities in Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
     LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
     510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Phone: (215) 592-1500
     Fax: (215) 592-4663
     E-mail: CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com

        - and -

     Michelle R. O'Brien, Esq.
     THE O'BRIEN LAW GROUP LLC
     4099 Birney Avenue
     Moosic, PA 18507
     Phone: (570) 209-7901
     Fax: (570) 309-0147
     E-mail: mobrien@theobrienlawgroup.com

        - and -

     Larry D. Moffett, Esq.
     DANIEL COKER HORTON & BELL, P.A.
     265 North Lamar Boulevard, Suite R
     P.O. Box 1396
     Oxford, MS 38655
     Phone: (662) 232-8979
     Fax: (662) 232-8940
     E-mail: lmoffett@danielcoker.com

        - and -

     John W. ("Don") Barrett, Esq.
     BARRETT LAW GROUP
     Post Office Drawer 927
     Lexington, MS 39095
     Phone: (662) 834-2488
     Fax: (662) 834-2628
     E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com

        - and -

     Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
     Washington, DC 20016
     Phone: (202) 789-3960
     Fax: (202) 789-1813
     E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com

        - and -

     Alexandra C. Warren, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     507 C Street, NE
     Washington, DC 20002
     Phone: (202) 789-3960
     Fax: (202) 789-1813
     E-mail: awarren@cuneolaw.com

        - and -

     David S. Stellings, Esq.
     Daniel Seltz, Esq.
     LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10013-1413
     Phone: (212) 355-9500
     Fax: (212) 355-9592
     E-mail: dstellings@lchb.com
             dseltz@lchb.com


ARBY'S: Valley Federal Credit Union Files Data Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Dillon Kato, writing for Missoulian, reports that a Montana credit
union is leading a class action lawsuit against the parent company
of fast food chain Arby's, saying the company did not do enough to
protect customers from and notify them of a 2016 data breach.

Valley Federal Credit Union of Montana -- which has branches in
Billings, Columbus and Roundup -- filed the lawsuit in late
February in U.S. District Court in Georgia where Arby's Restaurant
Group Inc. is headquartered.

According to the credit union's complaint, computer hackers were
able to use software to break into point-of-sale systems at Arby's
locations around the country sometime around October.

The data breach allegedly included the debit and credit card
numbers of customers being stolen.

The credit union said Arby's was unaware of the breach until Brian
Krebs, a prominent computer security writer, reached out to the
company after being told about the breach by several financial
institutions in early February.

Later in February, Arby's issued a statement to Krebs
acknowledging that the security breach had occurred. Arby's did
not comment on how many locations were affected, exactly how long
the malware was on their systems or how many cards were stolen.

Valley Federal Credit Union said they and other banks were forced
to cancel and reissue cards involved in the breach, and that they
had to reimburse customers for fraudulent purchases made on cards
that were stolen.

"This information was compromised because of Arby's acts and
omissions and its overall failure to properly protect the payment
card data of its customers," the credit union says in its lawsuit.
"Despite the well-publicized and ever-growing threat of cyber
breaches involving payment card networks and systems, Arby's
failed to ensure that it maintained adequate data security
measures which likely would have prevented the data breach or led
to its earlier discovery."

The Montana credit union also alleges that Arby's had not
transitioned its stores over to using EMV chip technology by the
October 2015 deadline, and that they are liable for damages from
data breaches using the older magnetic stripe technology.

The lawsuit is asking a federal judge to certify it as a class
action case, with Valley Federal Credit Union saying any financial
institution that issued cards used to make purchases at Arby's
while the malware was on its system should be able to join the
suit.

Neither Arby's, the credit union or its attorney Kenneth Canfield
returned a request for comment.


ARMADIO CABINETS: Faces "Ortega" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Ortega, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
persons, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Armadio Cabinets, Inc.,
and Mateusz Fafara, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02426 (N.D. Ill.,
March 30, 2017), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for Defendants' failure to
pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Armadio Cabinets, Inc. is a cabinet maker.  Plaintiff worked for
Defendants as a sander and finisher. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Raisa Alicea., Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Phone: 312-800-1017
     E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


BREX INC: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Madison Record, reports that
a technician has filed a class-action lawsuit against an
automotive repair shop for allegedly failing to compensate them
for overtime work.

Tom Reed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint on March 20 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois against Brex Inc., doing
business as Carx, John Keeley and Kevin Floyd, alleging they
violated the Fair Labor Standards and Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that between
August 2015 and December 2016, technicians were required to clock
out prior to completing repairs or maintenance work, preventing
them from receiving actual pay for all hours worked.

As a result, he claims he and other technicians were not
compensated for all hours worked, including overtime pay for work
performed in excess of the 40-hour work weeks.

The plaintiff alleges the defendants failed to pay regular and
overtime wages for unrecorded work and failed to pay overtime
premiums for recorded overtime work.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment for
compensatory damages, pre and post-judgment interest and such
other relief as the court deems fair and equitable.

He is represented by Mark Potashnick -- markp@wp-attorneys.com --
of Weinhaus and Potashnick in St. Louis and Jack R. Daugherty of
Law Office of Jack Daugherty, PC in Alton.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case
number 3:17-cv-00292


CANADA: RCMP Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Passes
------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Crawford, writing for CBC News, reports that March 29 was
the deadline for female Mounties to decide if they want to opt out
of a historic sexual harassment class action lawsuit.

Any woman who has worked as a public servant, civilian or regular
member of the RCMP is eligible to file a claim under the
negotiated settlement to compensate for on-the-job harassment and
abuse.

RCMP Const. Agata Purcell said she's sticking with the class
action because she doesn't want to subject her family to the
challenges of going it alone with an individual lawsuit.

"I hope that by identifying myself as another person involved in
this fiasco, I'm able to persuade someone . . . who is sitting on
the fence and debating whether they should pursue it or not," she
told CBC News from New Brunswick, where she is stationed.

Ms. Purcell alleges she was subjected to continuous sexual
harassment during her first five years on the job when she worked
in B.C.'s Lower Mainland.  It started almost 10 years ago, when
she was two months into her new job and still in training.

Ms. Purcell recounted how a senior officer approached her and
demanded she disclose to him the details of any intimate
relationships so he could protect her from appearing -- as he put
it -- "the town bicycle."

"You don't know what the rules are. You don't know what the norm
is.  You don't know if this is a thing that just happens as part
of your training process, right? It's really hard to evaluate at
the time.  You go with the flow because you really have a desire
to prove yourself," she recalled.

Harassment continued for years

Yet the harassment, sexualized comments and eventual taunting
about getting engaged to another Mountie continued for five years.

"A supervisor, a sergeant at the time and on duty, had seen me
walking my dog.  He came out of his way to approach me, to talk to
me and to let me know my taste in men was similar to my taste in
dogs because my dog was 'f---ing ugly.' It's upsetting.  It's
demeaning.  It's degrading and it's hard to deal with.  Just one
of many incidents," she said, her voice quavering with emotion.

After reporting the harassment, Purcell said she was told it was
being dealt with but that she would not be told the outcome.

In the end, she and her husband were posted to a new detachment
and, ever since, Purcell reports they've worked in supportive
environments, free of harassment.

Compensation levels vary by abuse

Thousands of women make up the class-action sexual harassment
lawsuit against the RCMP, which was certified in January.  The
settlement is expected to formally receive court approval at the
end of May.

The federal government has set aside $100 million to compensate
the women.  CBC News has obtained a copy of the negotiated
compensation schedule:

Level 1 - $10,000

Culpable conduct includes: sexualized comments and jokes,
inappropriate questioning regarding complainant's personal life.
Effect on victim includes: anxiety, loss of self-esteem, feelings
of discomfort.

Level 2 - $35,000

Culpable conduct includes: exposure to pornography, bullying,
simulating sexual intercourse or masturbation, sexual touching.
Effect on victim includes: physical wound, loss of confidence in
others, panic attacks, feelings of rage.

Level 3 - $70,000

Culpable conduct includes: gender-based putdowns, persistent
kissing or touching, exposure of genitals to complainant,
persistent exposure to pornography.

Effect on victim includes: severe anxiety, mild drug or alcohol
abuse, loss of desire to communicate feelings of love or desire.

Level 4 - $100,000

Culpable conduct includes: touching of complainant's genitals,
forcing oneself on victim physically, exposure to violent
pornography.

Effect on victim includes: severe stress affecting health, post-
traumatic stress, drug or alcohol abuse, absenteeism.

Level 5 - $150,000

Culpable conduct includes: persistent intimidation, bullying or
aggression, forcing complainant to perform non-penetrative sex
acts, assigning menial tasks.

Effect on victim includes: obsessional tendencies, suicidal
thoughts, wound leaving a permanent mark.

Level 6 - $220,000

Culpable conduct includes: forcing complainant to engage in
penetrative sex acts, acts to denigrate and affect career
development, acts meant to cause emotional stress.

Effect on victim: chronic psychiatric condition, personality
problems, severe post-traumatic stress.

"We're talking about criminal acts here.  That some of these women
have been sexually assaulted and molested.  That was one of the
biggest things for me. How do you put a price on that?" asked
Purcell.

The document notes that amounts were calculated by analyzing
decisions from human rights tribunals and the courts, along with
analysis from professionals on the impact of the culpable conduct.

"We must also be alive to the fact that not all people react the
same way to a traumatizing event," reads the document.

Settlement offers protections

Megan McPhee, a lawyer with Kim Orr Barristers and class counsel
to the plaintiffs, said anyone who wants to pursue their own
lawsuit had until the end of day on March 29 to opt out.

But Ms. McPhee feels the settlement offers unique protections.

"It's completely confidential.  It's determined by an outside
administrator, and the RCMP doesn't respond.  They don't get to
learn who's filing a claim," she said.

Some women have told CBC News they're holding back because they
believe the class action could cause them to lose benefits they're
receiving from Veterans Affairs Canada.

"We've been able to negotiate that the receipt of a VAC pension
does not preclude a woman from filing a claim," said Ms. McPhee.

Purcell said she doesn't care about the money.  For her, it's
about finally getting closure.

"I've come to terms with the fact that it's OK to speak openly
about being a victim.  That has been the biggest part of it -- is
not wanting to talk about it . . . not wanting to classify myself
as a victim to the harassment."

As for another lawsuit in the works for male employees of the RCMP
who allege workplace bullying and harassment, Ms. McPhee said her
firm intends to proceed soon.


CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: Class Action Dismissed Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Perriello at Mass Device reports Cardiovascular
Systems escaped a purported class-action lawsuit brought over
allegations that it ran an off-label promotion and kickbacks
scheme, but the reprieve could be short-lived because the case was
dismissed without prejudice.

St. Paul, Minn.-based CSI paid CAD8 million to settle a federal
False Claims Act suit in July 2016 that accused CSI of inducing
physicians to use its products by offering free, all-expense-paid
training programs "followed by explicit demands by CSI employees
that attendees use CSI products on future patients," giving away
product for free, 3rd-party referral channel marketing, and "sham
Speaker Bureau payments for high-prescribers and others whom CSI
sought to cultivate," according to the complaint.

Plaintiff Travis Thams worked for CSI as a district sales manager
from 2012 to 2013, according to the suit.

The lawsuit also accused the company of running an off-label
promotion scheme to push sales of its unapproved 4 French
catheter. It alleges that CSI also promoted its devices for use in
areas of the body it's not approved for, such as the coronary
arteries, and for conditions such as chronic total occlusion for
which it is not approved.

The class-action suit, seeking to represent shareholders who
bought CSII stock between Sept. 12, 2011, and Jan. 21, 2016,
alleged that the company and its management misled investors about
the alleged scheme, which caused a sharp drop in the company's
share price.

Judge Donovan Frank of the U.S. District Court for Minnesota
dismissed the suit with leave to amend, ruling that the plaintiffs
failed to prove their allegations, in part because of their
reliance on confidential witnesses.

"Because plaintiffs' claim is predicated on illegal conduct,
plaintiffs must plead facts that, if true, would constitute
illegal conduct. Here, plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead
that CSI was engaged in illegal conduct. The court therefore
dismisses plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice and grants their
request for leave to amend the complaint," Frank wrote. "Allowing
shareholders to sue based on conclusory allegations that a company
has engaged in widespread illegal conduct without adequately
pleading facts that demonstrate illegal conduct would just allow
strike suits by another name."

The plaintiffs' reliance on confidential witnesses failed to
adequately specify their roles or how they came into their
information, the judge wrote.

"Here, plaintiffs, for the most part, have failed to adequately
plead the confidential witnesses' roles or how they came into
possession of the information. In particular, plaintiffs have
failed to allege the job duties for the confidential witnesses. As
a result, the court disregards the statements of those
confidential witnesses for whom plaintiffs did not provide a
description of the witnesses' job duties," Frank wrote.
"Additionally, plaintiffs' confidential witnesses, at times,
merely relay office gossip. For example, [confidential witness 3]
'heard' about allegedly illegal sales practices. Similarly, vague
allegations from witnesses that CSI had implemented 'shady'
practices or that CSI was a 'different place' after [vice
president of sales Jim] Breidenstein left are not detailed enough
to be reliable. Thus, the court also disregards the confidential
witnesses' statements to the extent they are vague or based on
2nd-hand knowledge." [GN]


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Averts Unpaid Overtime Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a federal judge on March 29 granted a bid by
Chipotle Mexican Grill to undo a class action lawsuit by manager
trainees in six states who say they were unlawfully denied
overtime pay.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter in Manhattan said the former
Chipotle "apprentices" from New York, Illinois and four other
states had varying duties depending on where they worked and could
not show they were all eligible for overtime pay.

The plaintiffs in the 2012 lawsuit said that when they worked in
the temporary, salaried positions training to manage new
restaurants, they often performed basic tasks that could be
assigned to hourly workers.  That entitled them to overtime pay
under state wage laws, the workers said.

Judge Carter's decision blocks the seven workers who filed the
lawsuit from representing a class of more than 500 people, which
could end the case altogether.

The company's victory on March 29 came as it faced a larger 2014
lawsuit filed in federal court in Colorado by 10,000 hourly
workers who say they were required to work off the clock for no
pay.  A U.S. appeals court in Colorado on March 27 rejected
Chipotle's bid to undo the nationwide class of workers in that
case.

Denver-based Chipotle, which operates more than 2,000 U.S.
restaurants, did not immediately respond to a request for comment
on the March 29 ruling.  Nor did lawyers for the plaintiffs.

Unlike most other fast food chains that operate on a franchise
model, Chipotle owns its restaurants and is responsible for wages
and other employment decisions.

Salaried workers like the Chipotle apprentices are automatically
eligible for overtime pay under federal law if they earn less than
$23,660.  Employees who earn more must be paid overtime if they do
not have management or administrative duties.

Last year, a federal judge blocked a controversial Obama
administration rule that would have doubled the salary threshold
to about $47,500 and extended overtime pay to more than 4 million
workers.

The U.S. Department of Labor appealed the judge's ruling, but it
is unclear whether the administration of President Donald Trump
will pursue the case.

Trump's nominee for U.S. labor secretary, R. Alexander Acosta,
told a U.S. Senate panel that he had not made a decision about how
to proceed on the rule, but was concerned about its impact on
businesses and workers.


CK RICHTON: "Sanchez-Lagunes" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Sanchez-Lagunes, on behalf of himself and all other
Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. CK
Richton Park, Inc. and Constantine Kanavos, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-02504, (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation for all hours worked by Plaintiff in excess of forty
hours per week, statutory interest damages in the amount of two
percent per month of the amount of underpayments, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs incurred in filing and prosecuting this
action, and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

CK Richton Park, Inc., an Illinois corporation, operates a
restaurant at 3941 Sauk Trail in Richton Park, Illinois, where
Plaintiff worked as a food preparer and dishwasher. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
     Nicholas P. Cholis, Esq.
     NOLAN LAW OFFICE
     53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Tel: (312) 322-1100
     Fax: (312) 322-1106
     Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com
            ncholis@nolanwagelaw.com


CLARENCE DAVIDS: Workers' Suit Granted Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Jones, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
group of current and former workers at a Matteson-based
landscaping contractor was recently granted class certification on
claims that the company took improper deductions from workers'
paychecks for uniforms.

U.S. District Court Judge John Z. Lee granted the plaintiffs' case
in a lawsuit brought in Chicago federal court alleging Clarence
Davids and Company recovered the cost of uniforms by taking
deductions from employee paychecks without written authorization,
as required by the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The suit was originally filed in 2015 by four former workers who
performed maintenance and landscaping work for the company.

The defendant acknowledged that, over time, it had several
different policies regarding uniform deductions and, at some
point, employees were not required to fill out forms accepting
this deduction, according to the ruling.

In 2013, the company started having all employees fill out
standard forms for the deductions, the defendant said.

The plaintiffs allege the forms required for returning, new and
seasonal employees in 2013 caused a level of confusion and thus
were not representative of the guidelines outlined in by the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.  The main issues before
the court centered on which employees qualified to be included in
the class and time period during which they were employed by the
company.

In the ruling, Lee said the plaintiffs met the burden for class
certification for their claims pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides the initial requirements
of all federal class-action suits.

The defendant argued that not all of the proposed members of the
class action shared a common claim and therefore did not meet the
"commonality" prerequisite of Rule 23.

Lee rejected that claim, finding the different claims presented
would only play a part in determining the potential amount of
damages awarded to the individuals in question, and does not
absolve the company of liability.

"As the Seventh Circuit (U.S. Court of Appeals) has made clear,
the fact that 'individualized remedies and damages may have to be
determined for each plaintiff or perhaps for subclasses of
plaintiffs . . . does not prevent certification the class,'" the
judge said.

The plaintiffs are represented by the Billhorn Law Firm and the
Farmworker and Landscaper Advocacy Project.  The defendant is
represented by Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


DIAMOND FOODS: California Court Dismisses "McGee" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACQUELYN McGEE, Plaintiff, v. DIAMOND FOODS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-2446 JAH (DHB), (S.D. Cal.), Judge John
A. Houston of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

The case involves the Plaintiff filing a class action against the
Defendant, asserting claims for unfair and unlawful business
practices.

The Court agreed that the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
fails to state a claim because the Plaintiff has no injury in fact
and still lacks Article III standing. Therefore, the Court
dismisses the entire action with prejudice.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2017 is available at
https://goo.gl/ZwcKox from Leagle.com.

Jacquelyn McGee, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory S. Weston --
greg@westonfirm.com -- The Weston Firm.

Jacquelyn McGee, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew C. Hamilton, The
Weston Firm & David Elliot.

Diamond Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda Leigh Groves
-- agroves@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Sean D. Meenan --
smeenan@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn & Shawn Rieko Obi --
sobi@winston.com -- Winston & Stawn LLP.


DIOCESE OF BUNBURY: Glover Sex Abuse Class Action Mulled
--------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Loney, writing for ABC, reports that lawyers are preparing
a class action against the Catholic Diocese of Bunbury on behalf
of three people who say they were sexually abused by a high-
profile priest in the southern WA town of Esperance in the 1960s
and '70s.

Father Kevin Glover, who died in the late 1990s, was the parish
priest in Esperance but is understood to have worked at parishes
throughout the South West.

It is alleged the offences took place at Our Lady of Star of the
Sea church in Esperance, and also while he was visiting sick
children at the Esperance District Hospital.

Jason Parkinson, from the law firm Porters, said although Glover
was never convicted, it was time for people to speak up.

"We've been asking for witnesses, who may know something about
Glover's activities, to come forward and help, and sadly, it's my
experience that while we're acting for three people, this means
there'll be dozens of victims," he said.

Mr Parkinson said Father Glover had been well-respected and well-
loved within the community, and had access to vulnerable children,
including young patients at the Esperance Hospital.

He said that when the Catholic Church became aware of Father
Glover's offending against children, they moved him to the Solomon
Islands.

Mr Parkinson said the impact of Father Glover's actions on his
clients -- two men and a woman -- has been long lasting.

"When you sexually assault a child, you give them a psychiatric
injury which lasts a lifetime," he said.

"To have someone of the same gender, someone in the position of
authority, someone with some voodoo relationship with God,
sexually assaulting you, would give you a psychiatric injury that
lasts until the day you die, quite sadly.

"That is depression, post-traumatic stress and everything which
goes with that."

Mr Parkinson said he was preparing to launch a claim in the WA
Supreme Court, but it was likely the case would be hamstrung by
the existing statute of limitations for sexual abuse civil claims.

"The new Labor Party (Government) has said they're going to get
rid of the statute of limitations in child abuse cases, that will
be of great assistance to victims, because the statute of
limitations only helps the paedophiles, and it helps the Church,"
he said.

The current Bishop of Bunbury Gerard Holohan, was travelling late
yesterday, but said through a spokesperson that Father Glover had
died before Bishop Holohan came to the diocese, and would not
comment further.


DIRECT HEATING: Faces "Pozo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maykol Pozo and Michael Butler, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Direct Heating & Cooling, Inc. and
Mitzie Fox-Lerner, Case No. 2:17-cv-00170-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., March
27, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs performed heating and cooling maintenance work as
technicians for the Defendants.

The Defendants operate a Heating and Air Conditioning repair
company in Cape Coral, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maria R. Alaimo, Esq.
      VILES & BECKMAN, LLC
      6350 Presidential Court, Suite A
      Fort Myers, FL 33919
      Telephone: (239) 334-3933
      Facsimile: (239) 334-7105
      E-mail: Maria@vilesandbeckman.com


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: PERS Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Public Employees' Retirement System Of
Mississippi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Endo International PLC,, Rajiv Kanishka
Liyanaarchchie De Silva, Suketu P. Upadhyay, Daniel A. Rudio,
Roger H. Kimmel, Shane M. Cooke, John J. Delucca, Arthur J.
Higgins, Nancy J. Hutson, Michael Hyatt, William P. Montague, Jill
D. Smith, William F. Spengler, Goldman, Sachs & Co., J .P. Morgan
Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities
Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Citigroup Global Markets, LLC,
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., TD
Securities (USA) LLC, and Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA) Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2017-02081 (Pa. Com. Pleas, February 28,
2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on March 31, 2017 under Case No. 2:17-cv-
01466.

Endo develops, manufactures, and distributes pharmaceutical
products and devices worldwide. Endo's revenue relies in part on
favorable arrangements with companies that manage prescription
drug benefits for members of health plans.  However, it but made
false and/or misleading statements with respect to the migraine
therapy Frova, and included questionable incentives intended to
increase sales revenues to such companies. Because of this,
company stock price fell $11.32 per share, or 42.57%, in two days
of trading.

Plaintiff is a pension plan who purchased Endo common stock and
lost substantially.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark S. Goldman, Esq.
     GOLDMAN SCARLATO PENNY, PC.
     161 Washington Street
     Conshohocken, PA 19428
     Tel: (484) 341-0700
     Email: goldman@lawgsp.corn

            - and -

     Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
     Serena Howell, Esq.
     Thomas Watson, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Tel: (212) 907-0700
     Email: jgardner@labaton.com
            shallowe11@1abaton.corn
            twatson@labaton.com

            - and -

     Scott A. Edelman, Esq.
     Jed M. Schwartz, Esq.
     Grant R. Mainland, Esq.
     MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY MCCLOY LLP
     28 Liberty Street
     New York, NY 10005
     Telephone: (212) 530-5000
     Email: sedelman@mi1bank.com
            jschwartz@milbank.com
            gmainland@milbank.com

Defendant is represented by:

     J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Esq.
     Laura H. McNally, Esq.
     MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
     1701 Market Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: (215) 963-5000
     Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
     Email: gordon.cooney@morganlewis.com
            lauramcnally@morganlewiscom

            - and -

     Miles N. Ruthberg, Esq.
     James E. Brandt, Esq.
     Jeff G. Hammel, Esq.
     LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
     885 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Telephone: (212) 906-1200
     Facsimile: (212) 751-4864
     Email: miles.ruthberg@lw.com
            james.brandt@lw.com
            jeff.hammel@1w.com


ENERGY RECOVERY: Securities Class Settlement Has Prelim. OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE ENERGY RECOVERY INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 15-cv-00265-EMC (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Edward M.
Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California conditionally granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of class action settlement.

The Court is prepared to unconditionally grant the motion if the
parties are able to agree on:

     (a) providing for a reminder postcard if the response rate is
low (the parties should specify a threshold);

     (b) providing for the same timing for a response to the class
notice -- i.e., claims, objections, and opt-outs are all due on
the same day;

     (c) allowing a class member to respond to the notice by fax
or e-mail (e.g., PDF) in addition to mail; and

     (d) disclosing the dollar amounts for claim administration
fees ($120,000-$135,000) and the incentive fee for Lead Plaintiff
($5,000) for both the long and summary notices.

A copy of the Court's Order dated March 27, 2017 is available at
https://goo.gl/KVYyDl from Leagle.com.

Joseph Sabatino, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Laurence M.
Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Henry Low, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas Ian Porritt, Levi
and Korsinsky, pro hac vice, Adam Marc Apton, Levi Korsinsky, LLP,
pro hac vice & Mark Punzalan -- markp@punzalanlaw.com -- Punzalan
Law, P.C.

Thomas C. Mowdy, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Jeremy A.
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Thomas Rooney, et al., Defendants, represented by David Malcolm
Furbush -- david.furbush@pillsburylaw.com -- Pillsbury Winthrop
Shaw Pittman LLP & James M. Lindfelt -- james.lindfelt@gmail.com -
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

David Barnes -- cbaker@bakerlp.com -- Movant, represented by
Christopher David Baker, Baker Curtis & Schwartz, P.C.


ENSIGN UNITED: "Salazar" Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Marco Salazar, on behalf of himself individually, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ensign United States Drilling
Inc. and Express Payroll Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00991,
(S.D. Tex., March 31, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, post-judgment
interest on all amounts and all such other and further relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ensign United States Drilling Inc. manufactures drilling rigs for
customers in the oil and gas industry. Express Payroll Inc.
provides drilling services for its customers throughout the oil
and gas industry.

Ensign United States Drilling Inc. retained Express Payroll Inc.
to assist in building land rigs where Marco Salazar worked as a
welder. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Taft L. Foley II, Esq.
      THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
      3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
      Houston, TX 77054
      Phone: (832) 778-8182
      Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
      Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


ETHICON: Canadian Patients Launch Class Action Over Recalled Mesh
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Coorsh, writing for CTVNews.ca, reports that some Canadian
hernia surgery patients have launched a class-action lawsuit
against the maker of a now-recalled surgical mesh, claiming they
weren't warned of its dangers.

Patients are speaking out about a surgical device called
Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh, which was used in Canada up
until last year, when it was recalled and pulled from the market
over concerns about higher rates of complications.

The mesh is made by Ethicon, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. It
became available on the Canadian market in September, 2010.

In June 2016, Health Canada issued a recall for Physiomesh after
the manufacturers learned that the recurrence and reoperation
rates after hernia repair using the mesh were higher than the
average rates of other meshes.

Ethicon said, at the time of the recall, the higher rates were "a
multifactorial issue" including possible product characteristics
and patient factors, but the company hadn't been able "to fully
characterize these factors."

Now, a group of people who had the mesh surgically implanted are
speaking out, saying they believe their pain and health problems
are linked to the product.

According to the class action's statement of claim, the plaintiffs
allege that there is a "design defect" in the Physiomesh that
causes it to contract, tear, or migrate, leading to such injuries
as perforations, abscess and adhesion formations, infections, and
the need for further surgery.

One of the complainants who filed the class-action is 34-year-old
Colleen Copland.  Doctors used the plastic mesh on a hole in her
abdomen following routine hernia surgery.  Ms. Copland has since
learned her mesh "stretched out," causing her hernia to recur and
become more painful than ever.

"The pain is always there," Ms. Copland told CTV News.  "It feels
like my insides are going to explode."

She added: "If I cough or sneeze I have to hold my stomach.  It is
a horrible pain, to be honest."

Not long after Ms. Copland's surgery in February 2016, she learned
the mesh was recalled and taken off the market.

Jaqueline Deschenes of Laval, Que. also suffered ongoing pain
after her hernia surgery, during which she also received the mesh
implant.  She told CTV News, in French, that a surgeon told her
the product was not good and they weren't using it anymore.
Ms. Deschenes had the mesh removed in January 2015.  But the pain
has never left.  She said she feels something "like a mass" inside
her all the time.

Ms. Deschenes has also joined a class-action lawsuit against
Johnson & Johnson, claiming she wasn't warned of the dangers.
"It is our understanding that there are more people out there and
there's probably more people that are experiencing these kinds of
side effects," says lawyer Jill McCartney, who is representing
plaintiffs.

She added there are likely others who have had their hernias "come
back with a greater severity" and likely are experiencing pain and
discomfort.

In a statement, the Johnson & Johnson unit that produced the mesh
wrote: "At Ethicon, our first priority is to our customers and
their patients, and that includes the safe and effective use of
our products.  Ethicon will defend itself against lawsuits
concerning the use of our hernia mesh products."

As many as 30,000 Canadians may have received this brand of mesh.
Dr. John Morrison, a Chatham, Ont.-based surgeon who specializes
in mesh removal said what happens with recalled hernia mesh after
it's been implanted in patients depends on the patient's symptoms.

"Unfortunately, there is not a whole lot to do for patients that
have it, and my advice for patients is to leave it alone and if
they have any problems with it, then it will have to be dealt with
at that time," Dr. Morrison said in an interview with CTV News.

Ms. Copland said she wonders how the mesh was approved for use in
the first place and is now awaiting surgery to remove it at the
Shouldice Hernia Centre, which specializes in usually mesh-free
hernia repairs.

"I think there should be more testing on these products and not so
quick to get them onto the market if they're not ready," he said.
Ms. Copland is currently awaiting a second surgery to remove the
mesh.

There have been other problems with hernia mesh. A class action
lawsuit was launched over the Kugel mesh, which allegedly caused
complications, including bowel perforations.


EXPRESS COURIER: Suggs et al. Sue Alleging Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
JANICE SUGGS, CHRIS AVERETTE, JOSHUA BURRUS, TRACI CALBERT,
KENNETH CHAMPION, NICHOLAS CORNWELL, JACOBY CURRY, ALAN HODGE,
PHILIP HULETT, NATHANIEL JACKSON, TYRONE JOHNSON, ADRIEL JOHNSON,
MICHAEL JOHNSON, JAMES JONES, JASON LOFTIS, DARYL OWENS, BRENDA
PAGE-DOVER, JAMIL PRIDE, DONALD RELIFORD, DARWIN ROBERSON,
DEANGELO SMITH, TONY SMITH, JERRYL TODD, JOSEPH WALKER, RYAN
WERTZ, SHERYL WHITE, CALVIN WILLIAMS, BART WISHOUN and SHAUN
YOUNGER, Each Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated vs. EXPRESS COURIER INTERNATIONAL, INC., and DEFENDANTS
EMP LSO HOLDING CORPORATION, Case No. 1:17-cv-00275 (W.D. Tex.,
March 30, 2017), alleges that the proposed class is entitled to
(i) minimum wages for the first 40 hours worked each week; (ii)
overtime premiums for all hours worked for Defendant in excess of
40 hours in any week; and (iii) reimbursement for vehicle-related
expenses.

The proposed class is composed of individuals who (a) worked for
Express Courier International, Inc., as a "driver," "courier," or
"owner-operator."

Express Courier International, Inc. provides same-day logistics,
courier, and warehousing solutions to healthcare, financial
services, office products, pharmaceuticals, auto parts,
manufactured goods, and other businesses in the Southeast. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AK 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Fax: (888) 787-2040
     E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Mustang Overheating Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
nationwide class action over a pricey Ford Mustang was filed in
Miami federal court, adding to the district's blossoming
reputation as an attractive jurisdiction for automotive defect
cases.

The lawsuit, filed by Coral Gables firm Grossman Roth Yaffa Cohen
and well-known Seattle plaintiffs lawyer Steve Berman, claims the
2016 Shelby GT350 Mustang can dangerously overheat at high speeds
-- a big problem for a car designed for racing.

The alleged defect hasn't caused any injuries yet, but plaintiffs
lawyers say there have been close calls, including a highway
driver who narrowly avoided a head-on collision when his Shelby
Mustang overheated while he was trying to pass a semi truck.

"If it overheats, it goes into 'limp mode' -- it's sort of like
going into a fetal position," said Stuart Grossman, the Grossman
Roth co-founder who filed the suit.  "You don't quite know what to
do, because you'll be stepping on the gas and you're not going to
get a response."

The named plaintiffs, led by Baptist Health surgeon
George Tershakovec of Homestead, say they each paid about $57,000
for the car.  The 2017 model of the car includes external coolers
that address the transmission and rear differentials' tendency to
overheat, according to the complaint.  Ford "belatedly and
inconspicuously admitted the defect" by advising owners of the
2016 model to pay $7,000 to add coolers, plaintiffs counsel said.
"But we're not sure that the aftermarket repair works because it's
sort of an external device that they're offering to put on the
transmission, as opposed to something built-in, as in the newer
cars," Mr. Grossman said.

With at least 3,500 of the vehicles sold, the cost of repairs for
the plaintiffs class would be about $24.5 million.  But if
discovery shows the repair doesn't fix the alleged defect,
Grossman said the economic loss to the plaintiffs would be much
larger, since the value of their cars would be dramatically
diminished.

The economic loss theory has been hotly debated in the Southern
District of Florida in high-profile automotive cases, most notably
the Takata air bag multidistrict litigation before U.S. District
Judge Federico Moreno.  Plaintiffs lawyers in that case argue
millions of Americans whose vehicles had the recalled air bags are
owed money -- not because they were physically injured but because
they were misled into overpaying for their cars. (Personal injury
cases were consolidated separately.)

Judge Moreno let the litigants know he was closely watching a case
a few miles up the road before Fort Lauderdale-based U.S. District
Judge William Dimitrouleas.  The case, which alleged some Ford
Explorers leaked exhaust into the passenger cabin, sought to
establish a new model for calculating economic damages in
automotive defect cases.

The case settled in October before a jury could accept or reject
the method, called conjoint analysis, but it's since begun to
spread throughout the country.  With the Shelby Mustang case, Ford
may see it pop up again -- and the motor company will be making
its arguments to a judge who knows the legal issues well.

"We were fortunate enough to draw Judge Federico Moreno,"
Mr. Grossman said.  "Of all the judges to get, look who we got. .
. . He understands economic loss maybe better than any other
district court judge. So we feel like it was certainly an
appropriate jurisdiction."

Ford offered no response to the allegations about the 2016 Shelby
GT350 Mustang.

"Ford is committed to providing our customers with top-quality
vehicles," company spokesperson Brad Carroll said in an email.
"However, we do not comment on pending litigation."

Mr. Grossman said anger about the alleged defect is spreading
through online forums.  Those who love the cult car joke that its
namesake, the late Texan automotive designer and racer Carroll
Shelby, might have resolved the issue in a less civilized manner
than a lawsuit.

"He was really a perfectionist, and he died a short time ago [in
2012]," Mr. Grossman said.  "And as one of the blog writers said,
if he were alive now he would have to stick his cowboy boot up
somebody's rear end at Ford."


GALILEE MEMORIAL: Appeals Court Grants Suit Class Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clay Bailey at The Commercial Appeal reports families of loved
ones buried at troubled Galilee Memorial Gardens have enough
common ground to grant class-action status to their complaint
against 35 funeral homes, the state Court of Appeals said in a
ruling filed.

The action upheld a local Chancery Court decision that funeral
homes were responsible for assuring proper disposal of a
relative's remains as part of their contract with the family
members, including burial, the appeals court said.

"This is an important ruling that means that all of the families
impacted by this tragedy can stand together in seeking justice,"
said Kathryn Barnett of Morgan and Morgan, who along with Howard
Manis of The Cochran Firm, is representing families in the action.
The appeals court decision upholds a previous ruling by Shelby
County Chancellor Jim Kyle.

The cemetery on Ellis Road in Bartlett has faced scrutiny for
questionable practices and eventually was closed by court order in
January 2014. Owner Jemar Lambert faced criminal charges for
improper handling of bodies and encroaching on adjacent property -
- owned by a trust; not the cemetery -- for burials. Witnesses
said they saw Galilee employees put multiple bodies in the same
grave and even crush caskets to create more space for several
burials in the same spot. Cemetery records were in such disarray,
officials could not determine where bodies were buried.

The actions sent the case down separate criminal and civil paths.
Lambert eventually received a 10-year suspended sentence and 10
years probation after entering an Alford Plea  in March 2015.
That left civil cases and the pursuit of class-action status
against Galilee and funeral homes involved with burials at
Galilee.

Meanwhile, the cemetery remains closed and officials acknowledge
they will never know which bodies are buried in what graves.
"It is undisputed," the appeals court stated, "that there are at
least 1,288 deceased individuals in the purported class, some of
whom are part of the lawsuit and some of whom are not."

The families affected are pursuing action against the funeral
homes, saying their contract with the businesses included proper
handling of the bodies, and contending the funeral homes did not
uphold that part of the agreement by delivering the remains to
Galilee, which did not have a license from the state to operate
between 2011 and 2014.

The appeals court said whether the agreement with the funeral
homes was written, verbal or informal, "the respective (families)
came away from the meeting with the respective defendant funeral
homes with the understanding that there would be proper
disposition of the decedent's remains." [GN]


GRUBHUB: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
consumer recently filed a class action lawsuit against Grubhub for
alleged violations of telephone harassment statutes.

Victoria Flores filed the lawsuit on March 27 in Cook County
Circuit Court alleging the food delivery service sent several
unsolicited text messages to her.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges she, in February
2016, received several automated text messages after registering
on the website to order food.  The plaintiff holds the defendant
responsible for allegedly sending automated text messages to her
cellphone without consent, which the lawsuit alleges violated the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks injunction,
actual and statutory damages, court costs and any further relief
the court grants.  She is represented by Jay Edelson and Benjamin
H. Richman of Edelson PC in Chicago.

Cook County Circuit Court case number 2017CH01106


HARTE-HANKS DIRECT: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado at Northern California Record reports a Fullerton
woman has filed a class action against marketing materials
producers over allegations of labor code violations.

Silvia Valdez filed a complaint on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated on March 23 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Southern Division against
Harte-Hanks Direct Marketing/Fullerton Inc., Harte-Hanks Direct
Inc. and Does 1-10 citing the Fair Labor Standards Act and other
counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she was
employed as a production worker. The plaintiff holds Harte-Hanks
Direct Marketing/Fullerton Inc., Harte-Hanks Direct Inc. and Does
1-10 responsible because the defendants allegedly failed to
provide adequate meal and rest periods and failed to pay adequate
overtime wages.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensatory
damages, interest, statutory penalties, restitution, general
damages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, all legal fees
and any other relief as the court deems just. She is represented
by James R. Hawkins -- james@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- and Gregory
Mauro -- greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- of James Hawkins APLC in
Irvine.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Southern Division Case number 8:17-cv-00525-DOC-KES [GN]


HOME DEPOT: Financial Institutions May Get Settlement Payout
------------------------------------------------------------
Shelby Liesch Esq. -- SLiesch@blg.com -- and Robert Dawkins, Esq.
-- RDawkins@blg.com -- of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, in an article
for Mondaq, report that financial Institutions rarely wear the
"plaintiff hat" when it comes to class action proceedings.
However, 50 financial institutions in the US found themselves on
the other side of the negotiating table in 2014 when they launched
25 class actions against Home Depot in response to the massive
breach of the retailer's payment data systems, which compromised
56 million credit and debit cards.  These individual actions were
eventually consolidated into a single complaint.

In a proposed settlement submitted for preliminary approval to the
Georgia federal court on March 8, 2017, Home Depot has agreed to
implement new data security measures going forward and pay $25
million into a non-revisionary fund for distribution to financial
institutions that have not already released their claims.  In
addition, certain financial institutions who were persuaded to
release their claims against Home Depot after receiving misleading
communications from the retailer would also receive up to $2.25
million.

The privacy breach occurred when cyber hackers installed malware
onto Home Depot's self-checkout kiosks around the US in order to
obtain customers' personal financial information, including full
names, card numbers and other security credentials.  The hackers
sold this sensitive information to thieves over the internet,
resulting in a massive number of fraudulent transactions.  While
consumers impacted by the breach launched a separate class action
to recover their personal losses, the financial institutions
sought to recover the substantial costs they incurred when they
were forced to cancel and reissue compromised cards, reimburse
customers for any fraudulent charges and other out of pocket
expenses.

If the settlement is approved, eligible financial institutions
that file a claim to the fund will receive a fixed payment of
approximately $2 per compromised card without having to submit
documentation to prove their actual loss.  Class members that are
able to submit proof of losses will be eligible for a supplemental
award of up to 60% of their documented losses arising from the
data breach.

With the increasing threat posed by cyberattacks, increasing
expectations and duties on holders of personal information to
implement reasonable cyber security protections and incident
response plans, outsourcing of services to common third party
suppliers, and use of cloud storage, there may be increasing
opportunities for financial institutions to sit at the plaintiff
side of the class action table.


INVENTURE FOODS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on March 29 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of persons and entities that acquired Inventure Foods,
Inc. ("Inventure Foods" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SNAK)
securities between March 3, 2016, and March 16, 2017, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice, to serve
as lead plaintiff.  Please contact Lesley Portnoy at 888-773-9224
or 310-201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this
matter.

On March 9, 2017, the Company disclosed that it would not be able
to timely file its annual report on Form 10-K for its fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016 and that it expected to file a
notification of late filing on Form 12b-25 with the SEC to obtain
a 15-day extension of the filing deadline for the Form 10-K.  The
Company claimed it needed additional time to complete certain
intangible asset and goodwill impairment tests, and that, as a
result, the Company's independent registered public accounting
firm had not completed its audit of the Company's financial
statements and the assessment of the Company's internal control
over financial reporting.

Then, on March 16, 2017, the Company filed the notice of late
filing on Form 12b-25.  Therein, the Company disclosed that it
anticipated that its statements of operations contained in its
2016 annual report would differ materially from those reported for
its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2015 in its press release filed
with the SEC on March 3, 2016.  On this news, the price of
Inventure Foods common stock fell $0.13 per share, or 2.5%, to
close at $4.91 per share on March 17, 2017, on unusually heavy
trading volume.  The stock price continued to decline in the
following trading days, falling $0.48 per share (9.7%) on March
20, 2017, and $0.41 per share (9.2%) on March 21, 2017, to close
at $4.02 per share on March 21, 2017.

The filed complaint alleges claims under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  According to the complaint, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose: (1) that the Company lacked adequate internal
controls over accounting and financial reporting; (2) that, as a
result, the Company's statements of operations in its fiscal year
2015 results press release contained incorrect figures; and (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
Inventure Foods's business, operations, and prospects, were false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of Inventure Foods during Class Period,
you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this
notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff.  To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067,
at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or
visit our website at www.glancylaw.com


IOVATE HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in "Kline"
----------------------------------------------
In the case, RONALD PATRICK KLINE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. IOVATE
HEALTH SCIENCES U.S.A., INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-02387
(S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California granted the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims with respect to California False
Advertising Law (FAL) claim, California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act (CLRA) claim, California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and
the negligent misrepresentation claims, and denied the Defendant's
motion in all other claims.

The Court ordered the Plaintiffs that, if they wish to file a
second amended complaint (SAC), they must do so no later than
April 20, 2017. The Defendant is further ordered to file a
response, if any, to the second amended complaint within the time
set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3).

According to the complaint, Iovate intentionally packages its
products in opaque containers comprised of more than 40% empty
space to mislead consumers.

The Court ruled that the Plaintiff's FAL and CLRA claims were time
barred, while the UCL claim did not allege the required
particularity. Likewise, the Plaintiff's negligent
misrepresentation claim is dismissed for failure to allege
sufficient facts.

A copy of the Court's Order dated March 27, 2017 is available at
https://goo.gl/ff3A88 from Leagle.com.

Ronald Patrick Kline, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Abbas
Kazerounian, Kazerounian Law Group, APC.

Ronald Patrick Kline, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua
Swigart -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart, Naomi
B. Spector, KamberLaw LLP & Jason A. Ibey, Kazerouni Law Group,
APC.

Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A. Inc., Defendant, represented by
David W. Reid, Newport Trial Group, Scott J. Ferrell, Newport
Trial Group & Richard H. Hikida --
rhikida@pacifictrialattorneys.com -- Newport Trial Group.


JELLY BELLY: "Gomez" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Jessica Gomez, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jelly Belly
Candy Company and Does 1-25, Inclusive, Case No. CIVDS 1703007
filed on March 24, 2017, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (Eastern Division -
Riverside) on March 27, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 5:17-cv-00575-CAS-FFM to the proceeding.

Headquartered in Fairfield, California, Jelly Belly Candy Company
manufactures Jelly Belly jelly beans and other candy. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas Wolfe Kohler, Esq.
      Ryan M. Ferrell, Esq.
      APEX TRIAL LAW
      4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 438-0033
      Facsimile: (949) 299-0133
      E-mail: tkohler@apextrial.com
              rferrell@apextrial.com
The Defendant is represented by:

      Alexander A. Guney, Esq.
      Anthony J. Anscombe, Esq.
      SEDGWICK LLP
      333 Bush Street 30th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 781-7900
      Facsimile: (877) 547-2700
      E-mail: alexander.guney@sedgwicklaw.com
              anthony.anscombe@sedgwicklaw.com

         - and -

      Karen E Woodward, Esq.
      SEDGWICK LLP
      801 South Figueroa Street 19th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90017-5556
      Telephone: (213) 426-6900
      Facsimile: (213) 426-6921
      E-mail: karen.woodward@sedgwicklaw.com


JOHNVINCE FOODS: Deal Concludes Dwindling Franchise Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Thomas, Esq. -- ethomas@osler.com -- Osler Hoskin & Harcourt
LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the recent settlement
in the Zwaniga v Johnvince Foods class action concludes yet
another of the dwindling number of franchise class actions before
the Canadian courts, highlighting the risks of class actions in
general and franchise class actions in particular.

The case

In 2011, the plaintiffs, the Zwanigas, commenced a proposed class
action against Revolution Food Technologies, a vending machine
distributor, and Johnvince Foods, a vendor of candies and
confections. A companion class action was also commenced against
the directors of Revolution.

The plaintiffs had a distribution agreement with Revolution for
the distribution of candies and peanuts through vending machines
supplied by Revolution. Johnvince Foods, the distributor of
Planters peanuts in Canada, granted Revolution a licence to use
the Planters trademark and sell Planters products. Revolution used
this licence to promote its distributorship business but managed
and directed the distributorship business on its own.

The plaintiffs brought claims against both Johnvince Foods and
Revolution under the Arthur Wishart Act for rescission and damages
based on alleged misrepresentations and breaches of the statutory
duty of fair dealing. The plaintiffs alleged that Johnvince Foods
was a franchisor's associate of Revolution. Johnvince Foods
brought and obtained summary judgment dismissing the action
against it on the basis that it did not control Revolution. This
dismissal was upheld on appeal.

Although the proposed class actions continued against Revolution
and its directors, by 2017 Revolution had been dissolved and its
directors lacked any insurance to respond to the claims. The
parties agreed to settle the proposed class actions on the basis
of distributing approximately CAD63,000, less approved legal fees
and other amounts, to class members who filed claims. The court
certified the cases for settlement purposes and approved both the
settlement and class counsel's fee of just more than CAD10,000.

After deductions for legal fees and other amounts, the amount
available to the 342 class members was approximately CAD47,000 --
about CAD135 per class member.

Takeaway

Although the settlement decision does not establish any new legal
principles, the settlement itself extends the declining trend in
class actions by franchisees against franchisors over the past
decade. Since 2002, there have been 15 franchise class actions
commenced in Ontario. Of these, eight were started during the
years 2008 to 2010. None have commenced since 2013, and only three
are known to still be before the courts. Furthermore, although
most franchise class actions have been certified, all of those
that have proceeded to judgment have ended in victory for the
franchisor and, in this case, the minimal recovery for class
members under the settlement can hardly be seen as a win for the
class members. [GN]


KENGARD MANOR: Residents Mull Class Action Over Apartment Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Klassen, writing for CFJC Today, reports that residents of a
burned-out apartment complex in Merritt are weighing their
options, including a class-action lawsuit to recoup some of their
belongings, for what they call "negligence" from the owners.

Debbie Walter and a handful of other residents of the Kengard
Manor have reached out to a law firm in Kelowna, which confirmed
to CFJC Today that it has committed to looking into their
grievance.  The Merritt Fire Department hasn't yet to determine
the cause of the fire -- not able to enter the north side of the
building that's been deemed structurally unsafe.  But Ms. Walker
and other residents are putting the blame on the owner.

"We just want anything.  Anything is better than nothing.  If we
have to sue, we are going to sue," said Ms. Walter.  "I'm going to
look into it.  If I can get a group of people on my side, and
there's lots.  I've already called Karen from [Columbia] Property
Management and told her I'm going ahead.  I said there's so much
wrong here.  Something good has to come back to us out of all
this."

The fire, which happened on March 16, forced around 60 residents
out of their homes.  Only five of the 36 units were insured.
Residents who have been staying in local motels had until Monday,
April 3, before finding their own place.  In the meantime,
Ms. Walter and others have been overwhelmed by the community
support.

"We are so thankful and overwhelmed with the support we have
received, that we continue to receive, and that is going to keep
coming through funding, through cash, through a set of pots, a
dish, a blanket, a chair, anything," noted Ms. Walter.  "People
are just so supportive, because I'm sure they would not want to be
in our position."



LMI AEROSPACE: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against LMI Aerospace, Inc. ("LMI Aerospace" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:LMIA) in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of current stock
holders of LMI Aerospace, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

On February 17, 2017, LMI and Sonaca announced that they had
entered into a definitive merger agreement (the "Merger
Agreement") pursuant to which Sonaca will acquire all of the
outstanding shares of common stock of LMI for USD14.00 per share
(the "Merger Consideration"), in cash (the "Proposed
Transaction"). The Proposed Transaction is expected to close in
mid-2017.

The Complaint alleges that the Proposed Transaction was approved
by a conflicted Board, which stands to receive windfall financial
benefits from the automatic vesting of restricted stock and stock
options. The Complaint alleges that while the consideration to be
received by LMI's shareholders is inadequate, the Board and the
Company's executive management will profit substantially from the
Proposed Transaction.

On October 13, 2016, LMI announced that it had delivered the first
of its aileron and flap assemblies to Honda Aircraft Company
("Honda"), to be utilized in Honda's first aircraft the Honda HA-
420 HondaJet ("HondaJet"). The Complaint also alleges that one
analyst that covers advances in aviation remarked that the
HondaJet is a "game-changer for the business aviation market" and
expects the jet to "foreshadow a wholesale change in the business
aviation marketplace," echoing what Honda and Toyota had done to
the automobile industry in the 1970's.  By entering into the
Proposed Transaction, however, the Complaint alleges that LMI
stockholders will not be able to share in the Company's success
and profits.

The Complaint also alleges that Defendants have violated the
Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and misleading
preliminary proxy statement (the "Proxy") to be filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on March 15, 2017.
The Proxy recommends that LMI shareholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction whereby Merger Sub will merge with and into
LMI, and become a wholly owned subsidiary of Sonaca.

If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]


LIFECARE SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Solicitation Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a West Covina resident has filed a class-action suit against
a medical supply company over claims it unlawfully called her to
solicit.

Carolyn Navarro filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated on March 21 in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against Lifecare Solutions Inc. and
Does 1 through 10 alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that beginning
in August 2016, she suffered damages from receiving several
unwanted calls from the defendant in its attempt to solicit its
services.  The plaintiff holds Lifecare Solutions Inc. and Does 1
through 10 responsible because the defendants allegedly called the
plaintiff despite being her number being registered to the
National Do Not Call Registry.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory
damages, treble damages of $1,500 and any other relief as the
court deems just.  She is represented by Todd M. Friedman, Adrian
R. Bacon and Meghan E. George of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman
PC in Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:17-cv-02214-BRO-PJW



MEAD JOHNSON: Faces "Walters" Securities Suit Over Reckitt Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN WALTERS, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. MEAD JOHNSON NUTRITION COMPANY, JAMES M.
CORNELIUS, STEVEN M. ALTSCHULER, M.D., HOWARD B. BERNICK, KIMBERLY
A. CASIANO, ANNA C. CATALANO, CELESTE A. CLARK, Ph.D., STEPHEN W.
GOLSBY, MICHAEL GROBSTEIN, PETER KASPER JAKOBSEN, PETER G.
RATCLIFFE, MICHAEL A. SHERMAN, ELLIOTT SIGAL, M.D., Ph.D., and
ROBERT S. SINGER, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00344-UNA (D. Del.,
March 30, 2017), alleges violation of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act in relation to the proposed merger between Mead
Johnson and Reckitt Benckiser Group plc under which Reckitt
Benckiser will acquire all of the outstanding common stock of
Clayton for $17.9 billion in cash.

The case alleges that Defendant filed materially incomplete and
misleading Schedule 14A Preliminary Proxy Statement.  In
particular, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (1) certain
material projections for Mead Johnson, including a reconciliation
of the non-GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles)
projections to the most directly comparable GAAP measures and the
line items used to calculate the non-GAAP measures, and (2) a fair
summary of the financial analyses performed by Goldman and Morgan
Stanley.

Mead Johnson Nutrition Company is a pediatric nutrition company.
The Company manufactures, distributes and sells infant formulas,
children's nutrition and other nutritional products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James R. Banko, Esq.
     Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 482-3182
     Email: jbanko@faruqilaw.com
     Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
     New York, NY 10118
     Phone: (212) 971-1341
     E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


METALDYNE PERFORMANCE: Faces Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that on March 22, a shareholder class action
lawsuit was filed against Metaldyne Performance Group ad members
of MPG'S board.

The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On March 23, the plaintiff filed motion for preliminary
injunction, request for expedited hearing before special meeting.

On March 28, the plaintiff filed notice with the court voluntarily
withdrawing his motion for preliminary injunction as moot.


MLS PLAYERS: Court Dismisses Class Action Over RSTP Rules
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Carlisle, writing for ESPN FC, reports that a class-action
lawsuit filed by three youth clubs against the MLS Players Union,
as well as players Michael Bradley, Clint Dempsey, and DeAndre
Yedlin has been dismissed by order of the U.S. District Court
Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division.

In dismissing the suit, the court ruled that it lacked personal
jurisdiction over the MLSPU and specific jurisdiction over the
players involved.

A third motion, asking for a change of venue to the U.S. District
Court Massachusetts District, was rendered moot given that the
original suit had been dismissed.

The original class-action lawsuit -- filed last July by Redmond,
Wash.-based Crossfire Premier, the Chicago Sockers, and the Dallas
Texans -- aimed to settle the question of whether FIFA's
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) are legal
in the U.S., and whether the youth clubs in question can then
recoup training fees for the players it developed who later become
professionals.  At one point, Bradley played for the Chicago
Sockers, Dempsey for the Dallas Texans, and Yedlin for Crossfire
Premier.

RSTP stipulates that training compensation is charged when a
player signs his or her first pro contract and there is a change
of national association, while solidarity payments are collected
when a player is transferred before the expiration of their
contract, and there is a change of national association.

The U.S. Soccer Federation, citing U.S. law, has long forbidden
U.S. youth clubs from collecting training compensation and
solidarity fees, and MLS has followed their lead.  Specifically,
the concern is that implementing RSTP in the U.S. could result in
a restraint of trade and thus violate U.S. anti-trust law.

In a bid to collect the fees they feel are owed them, the three
clubs have taken their case to FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber
(DRC), and are awaiting a decision.  Meanwhile, they are also
moving to establish the system's legality in the U.S.

"We have said consistently that training compensation and
solidarity payments are bad for players, and would treat players
differently than employees in any other industry, including
sports," MLSPU executive director Bob Foose said in a statement.
"For example, it's absurd to think that a business school could
demand a fee from a company that hired one of its students. Yet,
that's the kind of payments the youth clubs seek. No player should
have the market for his services adversely affected by these
payments.

"This is not to say that players and the Players Union don't
believe in and support youth development.  We do, but it should
not be funded through a tax on randomly selected professional
players' contracts.  We have said all along that we do not
understand why the youth clubs sued players and their union, and
we certainly do not believe that the suit was filed in the
appropriate court.  We're very satisfied that the court has agreed
and brought this case to a close by dismissing it in its
entirety."

Lance Reich, the attorney representing the three youth clubs told
ESPN FC in an interview last year that the lawsuit was a
preemptive strike against the MLSPU.  In a meeting back in May of
2016, it was alleged that Foose said that implementing a system of
training compensation and solidarity payments would violate anti-
trust law.  It was also alleged by the clubs that a representative
of MLS told them that the MLSPU had threatened to file an
antitrust lawsuit against the clubs, the U.S. Soccer Federation
and others if the DRC awarded the clubs training compensation or
solidarity contributions.

ESPN FC's Taylor Twellman believes Christian Pulisic made a
'massive statement' with the fight he showed against Panama.
The MLSPU countered with three motions.  The first stated that the
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas, lacked personal
jurisdiction over the MLSPU in the matter, since the union had
minimal contacts in the state of Texas had no offices there, and
that its Collective Bargaining Agreement is with MLS and not any
specific entity in Texas.

A second motion argued that the players "lack sufficient contact
with the state of Texas" for them to be under specific
jurisdiction by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas.  The third was for a change of venue, in the event that
the suit wasn't dismissed.

The three clubs argued that the fact that the MLSPU contained
members in the state of Texas, occasionally held meetings there,
and was threatening litigation against one of the youth clubs was
sufficient to give the Texas court jurisdiction.

Ultimately the court sided with the union and the three players.
With regard to the MLSPU, the court said in its decision that
having some members located in the state of Texas and holding
meetings there wasn't sufficient to establish the court's
jurisdiction.  The court added, "A defendant's threat of
litigation does not establish specific jurisdiction over the
defendant in a declaratory judgment action."

The court used similar reasoning in dismissing the suit against
the players.

"The Court does not need to determine whether an agency
relationship existed between the Player Defendants and the Players
Union.  Even if the Players Union threat of litigation could be
attributed to the Defendant Players, the threat of litigation does
not establish specific jurisdiction over the defendant in a
declaratory judgment action."

Reached by telephone, Mr. Reich said he was "still mulling over
the full import of the opinion."

But Mr. Reich did state that the ruling contained a silver lining.
The court found that, "The Players' Union is not a party to the
trade contract between the professional soccer clubs that would
give rise to Plaintiffs' claim for solidarity fees in Texas.  The
Players' Union's contacts with Texas do not give rise to the cause
of action."

Mr. Reich said, "The key we're focused on is the specific ruling
by the judge that the MLSPU is not a party to a player transfer,
therefore they don't have a cause of action, so they can't sue us
for antitrust."

Given that interpretation, Mr. Reich said the three clubs have no
intent to refile the suit against the MLSPU "in any other
jurisdiction right now."

In the meantime, the three clubs will await the ruling by FIFA's
DRC.

"Once we get that, and hopefully they rule on our favor, we'll
push forward from there on getting solidarity payments and
training compensation enforced," he said.


MORRIS AUTO: Snap Parking's Suit Proceeds Without Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey affirmed an order denying the
Defendant's motion to stay, pending arbitration, and to compel
individual arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims in the case, SNAP
PARKING, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MORRIS AUTO ENTERPRISES,
LLC, d/b/a PERFORMANCE FORD and PERFORMANCE FORD LINCOLN,
Defendant-Appellant, No. A 4733-15T4 (S.C. N.J.).

The case involves the validity of an arbitration agreement
submitted by the Defendant in his motion to stay the action and
compel individual arbitration. The agreement required that (a) all
claims, disputes, or controversies arising from the transaction of
the parties must be arbitrated; (b) that the parties waive their
right to other proceedings, including court actions; and (c) that
the parties agree that any arbitration shall not be conducted as a
class action.

The Superior Court concluded that the Agreement under review is
not enforceable based on the plain meaning of its terms. The
Superior Court further concluded that the "class action
arbitration" waivers were not stated with sufficient clarity to
constitute a complete abandonment of court proceedings to pursue a
class action.

A copy of the Court's Order dated March 27, 2017 is available at
https://is.gd/tKSTcq from Leagle.com.

Bruce E. Baldinger -- info@baldingerlaw.com -- attorney for
appellant.

The Wolf Law Firm, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Henry P. Wolfe,
Andrew R. Wolf and Matthew S. Oorbeek -- moorbeek@wolflawfirm.net
-- on the brief).


MYLAN INC: Pa. Fund Alleges Price-Fixing of Albuterol Sulfate
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Sun Pharmaceutical
Industries, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01461-CMR (E.D.
Pa., March 30, 2017), accuses Defendants of engaging in a
conspiracy to fix, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of
generic Albuterol Sulfate tablet products.

Mylan Inc. is a global generic and specialty pharmaceuticals
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
     EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
     3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
     Newtown, PA 18940
     Phone: (215) 867 2399
     Fax: (267) 685-0676
     E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com

        - and -

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


NATIONWIDE BUSINESS: "Cunningham" Case Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
In the case styled CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE BUSINESS
RESOURCES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of
them, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-4542-MWF-KS (C.D. Cal.), Judge
Michael W. Fitzgerald of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California dismissed the individual claims of the
named Plaintiff, Craig Cunningham, with prejudice, and his alleged
putative class action claims, without prejudice.

The Court further ordered each party to bear its own attorneys'
fees, costs, and expenses.

A copy of the Court's Order dated March 27, 2017 is available at
https://goo.gl/4xDRKD from Leagle.com.

Craig Cunningham, Plaintiff, represented by Adrian Robert Bacon,
Law Offices of Todd Friedman PC.

Craig Cunningham, Plaintiff, represented by Meghan Elisabeth
George, Law Offices of Todd Friedman PC, Thomas Edward Wheeler,
Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC & Todd M. Friedman, Law Offices
of Todd M Friedman PC.

Nationwide Busines Resources, Inc., Defendant, represented by
David George Hagopian -- dhagopian@cdflitigation.com -- Carothers
DiSante and Freudenberger LLP & Jeffrey L. Sikkema --
jsikkema@cdflitigation.com -- Carothers DiSante and Freudenberger
LLP.


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: MAO-MSO Seeks Medical Expense Reimbursement
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, MSP Recovery, LLC, MSPA Claims 1, LLC,
Plaintiffs, v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, an Ohio
company, Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-04646 (S.D. Ohio, March 31,
2017), seeks reimbursement of double damages, equitable relief by
issuing an injunction ordering Defendant to comply with its
statutory duties, prejudgment and post-judgment, and such other
and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the
Medicare Act.

The complaint says Defendant failed to fulfill its statutorily-
mandated duty under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the
Medicare Act to reimburse Medicare Advantage Organizations for
medical treatments or expenses paid by Plaintiffs on behalf of
Defendant's insured clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tracy L. Turner, Esq.
      PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
      5093 Heath Gate Drive
      New Albany, OH 43054
      Phone: (614) 657-3454
      Email: tturner@pbclawfirm.com

             - and -

      Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
      Courtney L. Stidham, Esq.
      PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
      1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
      New Orleans, LA 70112
      Phone: (504) 355-0086
      Fax: (504) 523-0699
      Email: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com
             cstidham@pbclawfirm.com

             - and -

      Michael L. Baum, Esq.
      R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
      Pedram Esfandiary, Esq.
      BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
      12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Tel: (310) 207-3233
      Fax: (310) 820-7444
      Email: mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com
             rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
             pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com


NATURE'S WAY: Class Action Over Made In USA Label Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Boysen, writing for Law360, reports that a consumer's
proposed class action against vitamin manufacturer Nature's Way
alleging it misrepresented its products as "made in the USA" can
proceed, an Illinois federal judge ruled on March 28, saying the
consumer provided enough proof she was damaged to avoid having the
case tossed.

District Judge Sara L. Ellis did throw out Angel McDonnell's
claims under Illinois's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act in
response to the manufacturer's motion to dismiss, however, saying
that law requires proof of continuing harm, something that's
unlikely to occur given Ms. McDonnell is well aware of the alleged
misrepresentations by Nature's Way at this point.

But she found McDonnell's claim that she paid a premium for the
"made in the USA" label because she is a "patriotic American" was
enough to proceed on charges of unjust enrichment and violations
of Illinois's Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

"Although the allegations are relatively bare-bones, they" are
sufficient, Judge Ellis wrote, citing relevant case law. "Nature's
Way does not cite any cases that required McDonnell to provide
more specificity . . . [and] the court will not require McDonnell
to plead more."

Judge Ellis also declined to take up Nature's Way's argument that
McDonnell shouldn't be allowed to pursue claims under other
states' consumer fraud statutes, as she has proposed, saying that
question can be settled if and when the proposed class is
certified.

She also said that although the ICFA itself does not provide for a
jury trial, in this case she would allow it since the Seventh
Amendment "allows for jury trials in certain cases even where no
such right exists in state court."

Ms. McDonnell filed the suit in May, alleging she'd purchased
bottles of "Alive! Women's Energy Supplement" in 2013 and 2014, in
part because of the "made in the USA" representations on the
label. McDonnell says the pills contain Vitamin C from primarily
foreign sources, however, and not the United States, making the
use of that phrase "on the labels deceptive," her complaint said.

The complaint says she's "willing to pay a premium for American-
made goods," and cites a 2015 survey by Consumer Reports that
concludes nearly "80 percent of Americans are willing to pay more
for American-made goods," as well as several similar reports, to
bolster her argument.

Nature's Way moved to have the case tossed in December, saying her
allegations weren't specific enough and didn't allege actual
injury, among other things.

Ms. McDonnell also alleged that Nature's Way misrepresented other
products as "made in the USA" when they were not, but Judge Ellis
tossed those claims because McDonnell didn't actually purchase any
product other than the Women's Alive supplements, according to her
complaint.

Nature's Way is represented by Donald E. Mrozek --
dmrozek@hinshawlaw.com -- Joel Bertocchi, Barry F. MacEntee and
James Vlahakis -- jvlahakis@hinshawlaw.com -- of Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP.

Ms. McDonnell is represented by John E. Norris --
jnorris@davisnorris.com -- Frank Davis -- fdavis@davisnorris.com -
- Wesley W. Barnett -- wbarnett@davisnorris.com -- Dargan Ware
-- dware@davisnorris.com -- and Kristan Rivers --
krivers@davisnorris.com -- of Davis & Norris LLP; and Gerald
Bekkerman and Jennifer Bekkerman of  Bekkerman Law Offices LLC.

The case is Angel McDonnell v. Nature's Way Products LLC, case
number 1:16-cv-05011, in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.


NATURMED INC: Can File Cross-Claim Against Bactolac
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAYE WINK, Individually and as next of Kin of Donald
Wink, deceased, and also on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. NATURMED, INC., d/b/a THE INSTITUTE FOR
VIBRANT LIVING, an Indiana Corporation, and BACTOLAC
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., a New York Corporation, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 4:16-CV-00090-JHM (W.D. Ky.), Magistrate Judge H. Brent
Brennenstuhl of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky granted the Defendant, NaturMed's motion for leave to
file an amended answer and cross-claim against Bactolac.

The case involves a statewide class action lawsuit filed by the
Plaintiff alleging that NaturMed's dietary supplement products
made customers sick and it's product called All Day Energy Greens
was the reason for Donald Wink's death on October 27, 2015.

The Court noted that there will be no prejudice to Bactolac if
NaturMed's motion is granted because the deadlines in the
scheduling order can be extended to accommodate Bactolac's
circumstances. Therefore, justice requires granting NaturMed's
leave to file the proposed amended answer and cross-claim.

A copy of the Court's Order dated March 27, 2017 is available at
https://goo.gl/8Oxtvn from Leagle.com.

Kaye Wink, Plaintiff, represented by Frank L. Watson, III --
fwatson@watsonburns.com -- Watson Burns, PLLC.

Kaye Wink, Plaintiff, represented by John T. Edwards, Ballin
Ballin and Fishmen, Kevin M. McCormack, Ballin Ballin and Fishmen,
P.C. & William F. Burns -- bburns@watsonburns.com -- Watson Burns,
PLLC.

NaturMed, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Andrew M.
Palmer, Frost Brown Todd LLC, John Kendrick Wells, IV, Frost Brown
Todd LLC, Kelly L. Wilkins, Snell & Wilmer, LLP, Sheila Carmody --
scarmody@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer, LLP & Stephen E. Embry,
Frost Brown Todd LLC.

Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by
James E. Looper, Jr., Hall Booth & Smith PC.


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: July 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is a notice of a settlement of class action lawsuits.
This is not a notice of lawsuits against you.

If you received any telephone calls or text messages from Navient
Solutions, Inc. ("NSI") at a number that was assigned to a
cellular telephone service, between May 4, 2011 and January 26,
2017, which were wrong number calls--in that the subscriber or
customary user of the phone number called was different from the
party that NSI was trying to reach you may be entitled to
compensation as a result of the settlement in the class actions
captioned:

Randy Johnson. v. Navient Solutions, Inc., f/k/a Sallie Mae, Inc.,
No. 1:15-cv-0716-LJM (S.D. Ind.)

Shelly Toure and Tony Heard v Navient Solutions, Inc., f/k/a
Sallie Mae, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00071-LJM-TAB

A federal court authorized this notice.
This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

Please read this notice carefully.
It explains your rights and options to participate in a class
action settlement.

What are your legal rights and options?

SUBMIT A TIMELY CLAIM FORM: If you submit a timely claim form, you
will receive a proportionate share of the $19,744,650 settlement
fund after attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, service awards
for named plaintiffs and the costs of administration are deducted,
and you will release claims you may have against NSI related to
this case.

DO NOTHING: If you do nothing, you will not receive a share
of the settlement fund, but you will release claims you may have
against NSI related to this case.

EXCLUDE YOURSELF: If you exclude yourself from the settlement,
you will not receive a share of the settlement fund, and you will
not release any claims you have against NSI.

OBJECT: You may object to the settlement.

Why is this notice available?
This is a notice of a proposed settlement in class action
lawsuits.  The settlement would resolve the lawsuits, which Randy
Johnson ("Johnson") filed against NSI, along with similar claims
filed by Shelly Toure ("Toure") and Tony Heard ("Heard").  Please
read this notice carefully.  It explains the lawsuits, the
settlement and your legal rights, including the process for
receiving a settlement check, excluding yourself from the
settlement or objecting to the settlement.

What are the lawsuits about?
Johnson filed this lawsuit against NSI, alleging that NSI violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Sec.
227, when calling consumers on their cellular telephones, via an
automatic telephone dialing system, at wrong numbers--in that the
subscriber to or user of the phone number called was different
from the party that NSI was trying to reach.
Toure and Heard filed a similar lawsuit.  NSI denies the
allegations.  The parties have agreed to a settlement.

Why is this a class action?
In a class action, one or more people called "class
representatives" file a lawsuit on behalf of people who have
similar claims.  All of these people together are a "class" or
"class members."  The Court accordingly resolves claims for all
class members, except for those who exclude themselves from the
class.

Why is there a settlement?
Johnson, Toure, and Heard, on the one hand, and NSI, on the other,
have agreed to settle the lawsuits to avoid the time, risk and
expense associated with it, and to achieve a final
resolution of the disputed claims.  Under the settlement,
participating class members will obtain a payment in settlement of
the claims raised in the lawsuits.  Johnson, Toure, and Heard, and
their attorneys think the settlement is best for all class
members.

How do you know if your claims are included in the settlement?
This settlement resolves claims on behalf of the following class:

Each person and entity throughout the United States: (a) to whom
Navient Solutions Inc. placed one or more telephone calls; (b)
directed to a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone
service; (c) by using an automatic telephone dialing system; (d)
after Navient Solutions Inc. designated the telephone number to
which it placed the call(s) as a wrong number; (e) between
May 4, 2011 and January 26, 2017.

What does the settlement provide?
NSI will establish a settlement fund in the amount of $19,744,650.
Out of the settlement fund, NSI will pay:
a. Settlement compensation to the class members;
b. The costs and expenses of administrating the class action
settlement;
c. An award of attorneys' fees in an amount up to one-third of the
settlement
fund, subject to the Court's approval;
d. Costs and expenses incurred litigating this matter, not to
exceed $55,000,
subject to the Court's approval; and
e. Service awards to Johnson in an amount up to $25,000, and to
Toure and Heard in an amount up to $5,000 each, subject to the
Court's approval.

Each class member who submits a timely and valid claim form will
be entitled, subject to the provisions of the settlement
agreement, to his or her equal share of the settlement fund as it
exists after deducting: the costs and expenses of administrating
the class action settlement; the attorneys' fees, subject to the
Court's approval; the costs and expenses of the litigation,
subject to the Court's approval; and the service awards for
Johnson, Toure and Heard, subject to the Court's approval.  How
much each class member receives depends on how many people make
approved claims.  Class Counsel estimates that the amount of the
cash award may be within the range of $200 to $350.

Any remaining monies from uncashed settlement awards may be
redistributed in a second distribution to class members who
submitted a valid and timely claim.  However, if a second
distribution would result in less than $5 per qualifying claimant,
the remaining monies will instead be donated to the National
Endowment for Financial Education.

How can you get a payment?
You must mail a valid claim form to the Johnson Settlement
Administrator, postmarked by May 26, 2017.  Or you must submit a
valid claim through www.johnsontcpasettlement.com by May 26, 2017.

When will you be paid?
If the Court grants final approval of the settlement, settlement
checks will be mailed to class members who timely mailed or
submitted valid claim forms no later than 45 days after the
judgment if the lawsuits become final.  If there is an appeal of
the settlement, payment may be delayed.

What rights are you giving up in this settlement?
Unless you exclude yourself from the settlement, you will be
considered a member of the class, which means you give up your
right to sue or continue a lawsuit against NSI over the
released claims.  Giving up your legal claims is called a release.
Unless you formally exclude yourself from the settlement, you will
release your claims against NSI.

For more information on the release, released parties and released
claims, you may obtain a copy of the class action settlement
agreement by writing to the settlement administrator at

Johnson v Navient Solutions
PO Box 2578
Faribault, MN 55021-9578
or on the settlement website, www.johnsontcpasettlement.com.

How can you exclude yourself from the settlement?
You may exclude yourself from the settlement, in which case you
will not receive a payment.  If you wish to exclude yourself from
the settlement, you must mail a written request for exclusion to
the settlement administrator, at the addresses set forth below,
postmarked by May 26, 2017.  You must include in your request for
exclusion your:

a. Full name;
b. Address;
c. Telephone number demonstrating that you are a person in the
Settlement
Class; and
d. A clear and unambiguous statement that you wish to be excluded
from the
settlement, such as "I request to be excluded from the settlement
in the Johnson action."

You must sign the request personally.  If any person signs on your
behalf, that person must attach a copy of a power of attorney or
other official document authorizing that signature.

When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the
settlement?
The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on July 13, 2017 at
2:30 p.m.  The hearing will take place in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, 46 East
Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, before the Honorable Larry
McKinney.  At the final fairness hearing, the Court will consider
whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and, if
so, whether final approval of the settlement should be granted.
The Court will hear objections to the settlement, if any. The
Court may make a decision at that time, postpone a decision or
continue the hearing.

Do you have to attend the hearing?
No. You are not required to attend the hearing.  But you are
welcome to attend the hearing at your own expense.  You cannot
speak at the hearing if you have excluded yourself from the class
settlement.  Once you have excluded yourself, the class settlement
does not affect your legal rights.

What if you want to object to the settlement?
If you do not exclude yourself from the settlement, you can object
to the settlement if you do not believe it is fair, reasonable,
and adequate.  If you wish to object, you must mail a written
notice of objection, postmarked by May 26, 2017, to class counsel,
NSI's attorneys, and to the Court, at the following addresses:

Class Counsel:
Aaron D. Radbil
GREENWALD DAVIDSON
RADBIL PLLC
106 E. 6th Street, Suite 913
Austin, TX 78701

NSI's Counsel:
Lisa M. Simonetti
VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP
1925 Century Park East
Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067

Court:
U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana
46 East Ohio Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204

You must include in your objection your:
a. Full name;
b. Address;
c. Telephone number called by NSI to demonstrate that you are a
person in
the Settlement Class;
d. A statement of the specific objection(s);
e. The grounds for the objection(s);
f. Identification of any documents to show that you are a person
in the
Settlement Class or which you desire the Court to consider; and
g. A statement noting whether you intend to appear at the fairness
hearing.

By when must you enter an appearance?
Any class member who objects to the settlement and wishes to enter
an appearance must do so by May 26, 2017.  To enter an appearance,
you must file with the Clerk of the Court a
written notice of your appearance and you must serve a copy of
that notice, by U.S. mail or hand-delivery, upon class counsel and
NSI's attorneys, at the addresses set forth above.

What if you do nothing?
If you do nothing and the Court approves the settlement agreement,
you will not receive a share of the settlement fund, but you will
release any claim you have against NSI related to the allegations.
Unless you exclude yourself from the settlement, you will not be
able to sue or continue a lawsuit against NSI over the released
claims.

What will happen if the Court does not approve the settlement?
If the Court does not finally approve the settlement or if it
finally approves the settlement and the approval is reversed on
appeal, or if the settlement does not become final for some other
reason, you will receive no benefits and the lawsuits will
continue.

Who are the attorneys for Johnson, Toure and Heard?
The attorneys are:
Aaron D. Radbil
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
106 E. 6th Street, Suite 913
Austin, TX 78701

Michael L. Greenwald
James L. Davidson
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
5550 Glades Rd., Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431

The Court has appointed these attorneys to act as class counsel.
You do not have to pay class counsel.  If you want to be
represented by your own lawyer, and have that lawyer appear in
Court for you in this case, you must hire one at your own expense.

Who are NSI's attorneys?
NSI's attorneys are:
Lisa M. Simonetti
VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067

Where can you get additional information?
This notice is only a summary of the settlement. All documents
filed with the Court, including the full class action settlement
agreement, may be reviewed or copied at the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana.  In addition,
pertinent case materials are available at the settlement web site,
www.johnsontcpasettlement.com.

If you would like additional information about this matter, please
contact:

Johnson v Navient Solutions Settlement Administrator
c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
PO Box 2578
Faribault, MN 55021-9578
1-877-740-6998

Please do not call the Judge about this case. Neither the Judge,
nor the Clerk of Court, will be able to give you advice about this
case.  Furthermore, neither NSI nor NSI's attorneys represent you,
and they cannot give you legal advice.


NEW YORK: Port Authority Faces Class Action Over Gay Men Arrest
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS New York and The Associated Press report that a class action
lawsuit claims Port Authority of New York and New Jersey police
are wrongly arresting gay men on public lewdness and other charges
after using the bus terminal's bathrooms.

The suit, filed on March 27 in Manhattan federal court, claims
Port Authority police officers engage in discrimination by falsely
arresting men perceived as gay at the Port Authority Bus Terminal
on baseless charges.

The complaint accuses officers of roaming bus station bathrooms,
sometimes trying to engage the interest of men they find there,
then charging them with lewd conduct, CBS2 reported.

The complaint accuses PAPD officers of targeting gays to boost
quality of life arrest statistics.

"The PAPD have continued to make such targeted arrests knowing or
believing that most of those arrested will ultimately be forced to
plead to lesser charges to avoid public embarrassment and
humiliation, costly legal fees, and jail sentences, as well as
reputational and professional harm associated with the false
charges," the suit explained.

The suit was filed by Winston & Strawn LLP and the Legal Aid
Society. The plaintiffs are seeking a stop to the practice, as
well as compensatory and punitive damages.

"The use of police assets and resources in this unconstitutional
and unconscionable way is particularly stunning in light of the
world in which we live," said Thomas Patrick Lane, partner with
Winston & Strawn.

The Port Authority declined to comment.


NORTHERN CHILDREN'S: Faces "Pratt" Suit Under FLSA, Penn. Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tanea Pratt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Northern Children's Services, Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01433-NIQA (E.D. Pa., March 30, 2017), alleges
that Defendant permitted Plaintiff to regularly work more than 40
hours in certain workweeks without being paid proper overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and/or Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

Defendant offers school therapeutic services to support children
and youth who have emotional and/or behavioral problems.
Plaintiff is employed as hourly therapeutic staff support worker.
[BN]


ONTARIO: Top Court Certifies Crown Wards' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The law firms Koskie Minsky LLP and Watkins Law Professional
Corporation disclosed that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
ruled on March 30 that abused, neglected and victimized Crown
wards may proceed with their class action against the Province of
Ontario.

In this case, the plaintiffs were removed from their families and
made Crown wards when they were children. They were apprehended by
the Province of Ontario because they suffered criminal assaults,
neglect or abuse at the hands of their family members or others.
Many Crown wards suffered further abuse while in the care of the
Crown.

The plaintiffs allege that there was a Province-wide failure to
protect and advance the children's claims for compensation from
the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board or in the civil courts.
By failing to do so, the plaintiffs were deprived of compensation
that could have dramatically changed their lives for the better.
On March 30, 2017, the Honourable Madam Justice H.M. Pierce
released reasons certifying the case as a class action, clearing
the way for this case to go to trial. Justice Pierce concluded
that a class action would foster access to justice, promote
judicial economy and lead to behavior modification on the part of
the Province. Justice Pierce certified the class action in part
because of the vulnerability of the Crown ward class.

Her decision states, "The class of former Crown wards is, by its
nature, a vulnerable group. Many suffered abuse or neglect as
children to the extent that they were removed permanently from
their families. Some suffered abuse as foster children. At the
tender age of 18, they were deemed independent. Against this life
experience, it would not be surprising that they would encounter
barriers in access to justice if required to litigate their claims
individually."

The proposed class action includes all children who were Crown
wards at any time from January 1, 1966, the date that the Province
of Ontario voluntarily accepted legal responsibility and
guardianship of Crown wards. There may be more than 90,000 class
members who will be affected by this case.

The representative plaintiffs are Toni Grann, Robert Mitchell,
Dale Gyselinck and Lorraine Evans. Toni, Robert, Dale and Lorraine
are former Crown wards of the Province of Ontario, seeking justice
for the rest of the class.

"I'm just happy we can get this case moving. The Province has
fought us on every step so far," said Toni Grann upon learning
about his victory. "We have waited long enough for justice. Now we
can go to trial."

Currently, over 500 class members have contacted class counsel.
Class counsel encourages former Crown wards to contact them to
assist in these claims being advanced.

"Ontario has wrongly taken the position from day one that they do
not even owe Crown wards any duties at all and has tried to shift
blame to Children's Aid Societies," said Jonathan Ptak, co-lead
counsel in this case and a partner at Koskie Minsky LLP. "What is
outrageous is that on the one hand, the Child and Family Services
Act specifically mandates that the Province of Ontario is the
parent for each Crown ward. On the other hand, the Province of
Ontario administers the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. It's
intimately familiar with its policies, procedures, and what is
required to prove a claim. What happened here? Why did Ontario
fail to consider claims to the Criminal Injuries Compensation
Board on behalf of children in its care? Now that the class action
is certified, we can finally get the court to answer these
questions and ensure the Crown fulfils its duties as a parent and
take appropriate Crown wards in its care."

Ontario Crown wards and former Ontario Crown wards are encouraged
to visit www.kmlaw.ca/ocwclassaction, email --
ocwclassaction@kmlaw.ca -- or call 1 (866) 778-7985 or --
www.watkinslawforthepeople.com -- or call (807) 345-4455 to
provide information about their wardship to support the case and
to be in a position to make a claim, if the case is successful.

Jonathan Ptak of Koskie Minsky LLP, and Chris Watkins of Watkins
Law Professional Corporation are lead counsel in this proposed
class action. The claim was issued in Thunder Bay, Ontario.

Koskie Minsky LLP, based in Toronto, is one of Canada's foremost
class action, pension, labour, employment and litigation firms.
Its class actions group has been a leader in class actions since
1992 and has prosecuted many of the leading cases in the area.
For example, Koskie Minsky LLP was counsel in Cloud v. Canada,
the first Indian Residential Schools class action certified in
Canada which was settled for CAD5 billion. Koskie Minsky LLP was
also counsel in Dolmage v. Ontario and three other related cases
against the province of Ontario on behalf of thousands of people
with disabilities which were settled for more than CAD107 million.
[GN]


PAYPAL: Settles Class Action Over Account Closures for $4 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Maynard, writing for Consumer Affairs, reports that no
one ever accused the litigation process of being overly
expeditious, but a $4 million settlement approved by U.S. District
Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong will finally put an end to a class
action lawsuit that has spanned nearly seven years.

The original suit was filed by lead plaintiff Moises Zepeda, who
sued PayPal in 2010 for allegedly closing his account and
pocketing the money and interest that he had stored in it.  While
that may seem like a cut and dried case if proven true, actions
taken by attorneys representing consumers with similar complaints
derailed settlement talks and elongated the process.

A long journey

Sometime after Mr. Zepeda filed his claim in 2010, another PayPal
user named Devinda Fernando attempted to sue both PayPal and eBay
on similar charges, claiming that the companies closed customer
accounts without notice for supposed suspicious activity.

All parties entered mediation in 2011 and reached a global
settlement, but attorney Marina Trubitsky attempted to negotiate
individual settlements with both PayPal and eBay, a series of
actions that Judge Armstrong believes was "ostensibly intended to
derail the Zepeda settlement" in order to "[resurrect] her dormant
motions to consolidate Zepeda and Fernando."

Judge Armstrong denied Ms. Trubitsky's motions and set a global
settlement conference for 2012; however, Ms. Trubitsky and her
Fernando clients did not attend, so no settlement could be
reached.  Those actions began a string of proposed settlements by
the Zepeda party, which were denied by Armstrong for varying
reasons ranging from vagueness and lack of money damages to
improper citations of previous settlement orders.

Finally, on March 24, Judge Armstrong approved a settlement that
had been well-received by the majority of class members; of the
100 million PayPal users who had been sent email notices of the
settlement, only 11 objected to it and 75 opted out.

"These numbers indicate that the notice process has been
remarkably successful -- and the settlement class's reaction to
the settlement has been overwhelmingly positive, which favors
approving the settlement," she wrote in her decision.

Best to settle
Judge Armstrong notes that the plaintiffs' claims were generally
"weak," a fact that she said "militates in favor of settlement.
"There is no question that maintaining this case as a class action
through trial would be highly uncertain," she wrote.

Under the agreement, PayPal will pay $4 million to the settlement
fund, modify the disclosure of its reserve and hold practices, and
clarify its dispute resolution process.  Judge Armstrong granted
$800,000 to counselors but denied Ms. Trubitsky any award.

"[Trubitsky's] actions resulted in additional delay and litigation
costs -- all to the detriment of the class.  The court finds that
she is not deserving of attorney's fees or costs on the ground
that her actions, on balance, did not provide a substantial
benefit to the class," she wrote.


PRECISION DRILLING: "Montez" Hits Misclassification, No OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Montes on behalf of himself individually, and all others
similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Precision Drilling Company LP,
PD Supply Inc. and Precision Drilling Corporation Defendants, Case
No. 4:17-cv-01012, (S.D. Tex., April 1, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as well as
other damages for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants manufacture drilling rigs and provide drilling services
for customers in the oil and gas industry where Joel Montes worked
as a Welder. Montez claims to be misclassified as an independent
contractor thus denied overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
     THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
     3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
     Houston, TX 77054
     Phone: (832) 778-8182
     Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
     Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


RADIO RENTALS: Customer Sues Over "Rent, Try $1 Buy" Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marty Silk, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
struggling Wagga Wagga mother of five Casey Simpson paid Radio
Rentals $3320 for a used bed worth $480, and she still doesn't own
it.

Ms Simpson, who is leading a $50 million class action launched by
Maurice Blackburn lawyers against Radio Rentals on March 29, says
its "Rent, Try, $1 Buy" contract misled her.

She says instead of letting her buy the used bed for $1 when her
18-month contract ended, the appliance rental giant continued to
deduct weekly payments from her Centrelink account.

"That could come in handy for me and my children, I could have
done a lot with that money," she said.

"I think it's a big scam, from the start when I signed the
contract."

Thorn Group, which owns Radio Rentals, saw its shares slump on
March 29 after the class action was revealed, accusing the home
appliance rentals giant of "unfair and unconscionable practices"
that have hurt up to 200,000 customers.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers principal Ben Slade claims the "Rent,
Try $1 Buy" scheme is misleading and has led to customers paying
up to seven times the true retail cost of home appliances they
have rented.

The Radio Rentals website tells potential customers that at the
end of a 24-, 36- or 48-month rental plan for an appliance or
piece of furniture: "you can make it yours for just $1".

Mr Slade said that was not correct, as customers do not
automatically get to buy their rented items outright for $1.

Instead, the fine print stated that the impetus is on customers to
negotiate to buy rented appliances or furniture for a price agreed
by Radio Rentals.

If customers fail to secure a purchase, their contracts
automatically roll over into another 24-, 36- or 48-month term.

"Here we have a national company that deals with vulnerable people
promising them one thing but signing them up to another, at a much
higher price than is reasonable," he said in a statement on March
29.

"It's not rent, try, one dollar buy, it's rent now, pay forever,"
Mr Slade said.

Mr Slade estimates that up to 200,000 Radio Rental customers are
eligible to join the class action with Ms Simpson.

He said under Australian consumer law, contracts must be fair and
companies must not act in a manner that misleads or deceives.

Mr Slade said if Radio Rentals' advertising stated that customers
could pay up to seven times the value of a rented product, it
would not be misleading but consumers would avoid it.

"Would I think that was a sensible product? No. Would the
community think it was a sensible product? No. They would say it
was stupid and they would not go anywhere near the shop," he said.

Thorn Group has been contacted for comment. Its shares were down
8.7 per cent at $1.365 as of 2:59 pm.

The class action news comes a week after the company warned
shareholders it may have to pay compensation to customers who did
not meet minimum income thresholds for their contracts, following
a probe by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

The matter involves Radio Rentals stores owned and operated by the
Thorn Group in states other than South Australia. The South
Australian Radio Rentals brand is not associated in any way. In
South Australia, Thorn Group stores trade as Rentlo Reinvented.


RADIO RENTALS: Class Action May Drag on for Years, Parent Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that Thorn Group says a
$50 million class action involving past lending practices of its
subsidiary Radio Rentals could drag on for years.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers announced the action against Radio
Rentals on March 29 on behalf of customer and lead plaintiff Casey
Simpson.

The legal firm alleges that the home appliance rental company's
"Rent, Try, $1 Buy" contracts are misleading and deceptive as
customers do not get to buy rented goods for $1 at the end of
their contract periods.

Thorn Group on March 30 confirmed it had been served with a
statement of claim but warned the case could drag on.

"Thorn Australia Pty Limited will defend the claim in the ordinary
course of the class action process," the company said in a
statement to the ASX.

"It is anticipated that the process could take a significant
length of time (perhaps years) to run its course."

The Radio Rentals website tells potential customers that at the
end of a 24, 36 or 48 month rental plan for an appliance or piece
of furniture: "you can make it yours for just $1".

However, Maurice Blackburn principal Ben Slade said the contract
fine print states that the impetus is on customers to negotiate to
buy rented appliances or furniture for a price agreed by Radio
Rentals.

If customers fail to secure a purchase, their contracts
automatically roll over into another 24, 36 or 48 month term.

Additionally, Radio Rentals' website states that goods available
to buy under those contracts "are similar to (the) rented good in
age, dimension and features."


ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: PERS Hits Overpriced Shares
------------------------------------------------------
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. and Mark A. Diblasi,
Peter R. Armbruster, Defendants, Case 2:17-cv-00474 (E.D. Wis.,
March 31, 2017) seeks unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees and costs under the California Labor Code,
California Business and Professions Code, and applicable Wage
Orders issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission.

Plaintiff provides retirement, disability, and survivor benefits
to employees of the State of Mississippi's public school
districts, municipalities, counties, community colleges, state
universities, and such other public entities as libraries and
water districts. Roadrunner is an asset-light transportation and
logistics service provider, offering a suite of global supply
chain solutions with principal executive offices located at 4900
S. Pennsylvania Ave., Cudahy, Wisconsin 53110. DiBlasi and
Armbruster served as the Company's President and Chief Financial
Officer respectively.

The complaint says Defendants concealed material adverse facts
about Roadrunner's business, operations, management and the
intrinsic value of its securities, to artificially inflate prices.
Defendants failed to disclose that the Company's financial
statements were not stated in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nola J. Hitchcock Cross, Esq.
     Mary C. Flanner, Esq.
     CROSS LAW FIRM, S.C.
     The Lawyers' Building
     845 N. 11th Street
     Milwaukee, WI 53233
     Tel: (414) 224-0000
     Fax: (414) 273-7055
     Email: mflanner@crosslawfirm.com
            njhcross@crosslawfirm.com

            - and -

     Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
     BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE STEPHEN R. BASSER
     600 West Broadway, Suite 900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 230-0800
     Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
     Email: sbasser@barrack.com
            sward@barrack.com

            - and -

     Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq.
     BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE STEPHEN R. BASSER
     3300 Two Commerce Square
     2001 Market Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: (215) 963-0600
     Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
     Email: jbarrack@barrack.com


SCHWARTZ: Negligence Claim Certified as Global Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Case, Esq. -- rcase@lerners.ca -- and Alex Sharpe, Esq.
-- asharpe@lerners.ca -- of Lerners, in an article for Mondaq,
report that Excalibur Special Opportunities LP v Schwartz Levitsky
Feldman, is a recent example of a global class proceeding being
certified in Ontario.  The majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal
certified this action for auditor's negligence despite 98% of the
proposed class members being non-residents of Ontario.
Ultimately, the jurisdictional analysis turned on how the proposed
claim was characterized with the majority of the Court of Appeal
holding that it is for the plaintiff to plead their claim as they
see fit and to fail or succeed on that basis.2 The fact that all
but one of the class members could be contacted directly was also
important.

Background

Excalibur Special Opportunities LP ("Excalibur") was one of 57
investors (50 of which were American and only two of which were
Canadian) that lost money in an expressly high-risk investment in
an American corporation, Southern China Livestock International
Inc. ("Southern China").  Excalibur was one of the largest
investors having invested almost one million USD after reviewing a
Private Placement Memorandum that included an audit report
prepared by the defendant, a Montreal and Toronto based accounting
firm.  Approximately one year later, "Southern China Livestock
went dark, and its shares and warrants [were] now worthless."

Excalibur's motion to certify the global class action was
dismissed at first instance and this decision was upheld by the
Divisional Court.  While preferable procedure and deference were
also issues, we focus here on the question of whether there was a
real and substantial connection between Ontario and the subject
matter of the dispute.

The motion judge held that the class definition criterion was not
satisfied because the proposed claim lacked a real and substantial
connection to Ontario.  Although Excalibur and the defendant
auditor were both based in Ontario, all of the remaining proposed
class members were non-residents of Ontario, Southern China was
based in the United States, and the transactions were governed by
American law.

The majority of the Divisional Court deferred to and affirmed the
motion judge's decision. However, in dissent, Sachs J held the
motion judge "erred in failing to find a real and substantial
connection between Ontario and the proposed action."

The Importance of the Characterization of the Claim

Justice MacFarland, writing for the majority of the Court of
Appeal, essentially agreed with Sachs J and held that the motion
judge erred in failing to assume jurisdiction over the global
class due ultimately to his mischaracterization of the nature of
the claim.

What was disputed was the import of the expectations of non-
resident class members to have their rights determined in Ontario.
The majority held that whether it is reasonable for non-resident
class members to expect that their rights would be determined by a
foreign court is not an independent factor to be considered when
determining whether to take jurisdiction in a global class action.

The test to determine whether to take jurisdiction begins with
examining the presence of jurisdiction simpliciter.  Jurisdiction
simpliciter was present as the defendant was resident in Ontario,
carried on business in Ontario and the audit report was prepared
in Ontario.  This was accepted by all.

The majority of the Court of Appeal found that considerations of
order and fairness were not seriously challenged in this case.
Procedural interests could be protected as the identity of all but
one class member was known and they could be notified directly
about the claim and their ability to opt-out.  It was found to be
an error in law that taking jurisdiction had to be exercised with
restraint on the basis of Currie in this case.

The claim is for negligence with respect to an audit report that
was prepared in Ontario.  Once properly characterized, the real
and substantial connection to Ontario is clear.  Focusing on the
fact that the private placement took place in the United States
led to the jurisdictional error.  This is an action in auditor's
negligence brought by an Ontario resident against an auditor who
performed the work in its Ontario office, which defendant had no
assets in the United States.

In dissent, Justice Blair held that the motion judge accepted that
the Ontario court could assume jurisdiction but nevertheless
concluded that it should not assume jurisdiction over the non-
resident class members as there was insufficient connection
between Ontario and the subject of the dispute.

Viewed in this manner, Blair JA saw no error in the motion judge's
consideration of the reasonable expectations of the non-resident
class members or in focusing on a broader characterization of the
subject matter of the proposed class proceeding, i.e. the private
placement transaction in the United States.  Both of these were
appropriate given the focus of the motion judge on whether
jurisdiction should be assumed and the built-in approach of
jurisdictional restraint in our system. Justice Blair further
noted that just because the class members could be notified did
not assist as the motion judge did not rely on Currie with respect
to procedural protections but rather with respect to
jurisdictional restraint.

As it stands, this class action brought by a resident of Ontario
against an Ontario based defendant over work done within the
province but relied upon by others in foreign jurisdictions has
been certified as a global class action in Ontario.


SIGNET JEWELERS: May 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 30
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Signet Jewelers Limited securities (SIG) from August
29, 2013 through February 27, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Signet
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Signet class action, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1064.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

The complaint alleges that defendants during the Class Period
issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that alleged sexual harassment by employees of Signet's Sterling
Family of Jewelers division ("Sterling"), including numerous
incidents of sexual assault and rape, which were detailed in
approximately 249 declarations signed under penalty of perjury by
current and former Sterling employees, made it unlikely that
Signet would be able to avoid paying a sizable amount of damages
in connection with a class action lawsuit filed by Sterling
employees.  As a result of this information being withheld from
the market, Signet's stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching a high of $150.94 per share.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May
30, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-
1064.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq.
of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


SP AUSNET: Black Saturday Survivors Get $418.5MM Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Flower, writing for Herald Sun, reports that Black Saturday
survivors have been handed $418.5 million as part of a class
action over the Kilmore East-Kinglake and Murrindindi fires.

Cheques have been mailed out to those affected by the devastating
fires, 2973 days after the February 7, 2009, events.

Chris Hobbs, who lost his house on Black Saturday, said the money
had been a long time coming.

"But you have to get these things right," he said.  "Had I not got
this settlement, I probably would have had to have sold and moved
somewhere cheaper, which is the last thing at my age I wanted to
do. I'm very happy here."

The Kilmore East-Kinglake bushfire resulted in 119 deaths, the
destruction of 1242 homes, damage to a further 1084 homes, and the
burning of more than 125,000ha of land.

Forty people died in the Murrindindi fire and an estimated 500
homes were destroyed.

The Kinglake fire was caused when a live power line hit a power
pole cable stay, igniting surrounding vegetation while the
Murrundindi blaze was sparked by a break in an electrical
conductor on a power pole near the Murrindindi Saw Mill.


Power company SP AusNet and four other defendants reached an
agreement to settle the class action for the record settlement in
July 2014.

The Supreme Court approved it and the proposed settlement
distribution scheme in December that year.

Maurice Blackburn is administering the settlement, which saw more
than 10,000 individual claims registered as part of the class
action.

The Supreme Court advised that nearly all of the group members who
suffered personal injuries because of the bushfire had received
their compensation payment of about $158.5 million.

Survivors who claimed economic loss or property damage had, or
would be, receiving about $260 million.

Maurice Blackburn spokesman Cameron Scott said about 4000
claimants would receive payments, totalling more than $496
million.

The payments come on top of more than $192.4 million paid to 1800
claimants in personal injury money last year.

The figure pushes the amount paid to Black Saturday survivors as
part of the class action to more than $688 million.

Mr Hobbs, who received his cheque, said the money offered him some
much-needed breathing space.

"The money just clears all those things like credit cards . . . I
won't have to beg, borrow or whatever," he said.  "Most people I
know here are very happy with the outcome."

Maurice Blackburn principal Andrew Watson said it had achieved the
two highest class action settlements in Australian history on
behalf of survivors of the Black Saturday fires.


SUTHERLAND MORTGAGE: "Rapp" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
William Rapp and Larry Eggett, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. Sutherland
Mortgage Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01010 (S.D.
Tex., March 31, 2017), seeks actual damages in the amount of
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and all
other relief under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant provides mortgage loan services. Rapp and Eggett are
former mortgage loan officers who worked for the Defendant. They
claim to be denied overtime when they worked more than forty hours
in a workweek. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Sullivan, Esq.
      OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP
      712 Main Street, Suite 900
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 401-3555
      Fax: (713) 401-3547
      Email: ed@osattorneys.com

             - and -

      Mark J. Oberti, Esq.
      OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP
      712 Main Street, Suite 900
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 401-3555
      Fax: (713) 401-3547
      Email: mark@osattorneys.com

             - and -

      Clayton D. Craighead
      THE CRAIGHEAD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      440 Louisiana, Suite 900
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (832) 798-1184
      Fax: (832) 553-7261
      Email: clayton.craighead@thetxlawfirm.com


TAURUS PROCESSING: "Milosch" Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Milosch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Taurus Processing and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00588
(C.D. Cal., April 2, 2017) seeks damages and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Taurus Processing is in the business of marketing and research,
including offering live-transfer lead generation services for
merchant funding businesses. Taurus contacted Milosch on his
cellular telephone number in an attempt to solicit its services.
Plaintiff incurred charges for incoming calls and Defendant did
not possess Plaintiff's prior express consent to receive such
calls. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


THEBERGE DEVELOPMENTS: Ottawa Condo Owners File $3MM Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Burke, writing for CBC News, reports that an Ottawa woman
has launched a $3-million class action on behalf of more than 100
condo owners, claiming builder Theberge Developments Ltd. failed
to deliver on its promises and blindsided purchasers with hidden
costs.

Sabrina Heyde, 31, alleges the builder "tricked" her into signing
an agreement to rent her forced air heating system.

She put a $20,000 deposit down on a two-bedroom unit in the Alta
Vista Ridge development on Everest Private, south of St. Laurent
Shopping Centre, in 2011.  The building was not yet constructed at
the time.

Two years later Ms. Heyde was asked to meet with the builder to
pick out tiles and paint colours.  She claims that during that
meeting the developer slipped the heating system rental agreement
into a pile of unrelated paperwork, and she signed it without
realizing what it was.

Ms. Heyde and other condo owners now pay $89 a month for their
combined heating system and hot water tank, a cost some of them
claim was never disclosed by the developer.

"It's an issue of being tricked, it's an issue of being lied to,"
Ms. Heyde said.

Theberge, which operates as Theberge Homes, disputes the claims of
breach of contract, breach of the Condominium Act and negligent or
fraudulent misrepresentation, and intends to file an appeal to
have the case thrown out.

'We just got stuck with it'

Experienced real estate investor Kevin Marshall claims he never
signed the agreement to rent a heating system.

"We just got stuck with it," said Mr. Marshall, who also sits on
the condo board. "It was unknown and it wasn't explained."

Mr. Marshall has purchased five investment properties including a
triplex and a four-unit building, and said furnaces have always
been included.

Mr. Marshall said he went to a lawyer to try to get out of the
condo purchase, but claims Theberge refused.

Valeda Babineau and Joe Corkery said they feel "cheated" and
"deceived" by Theberge.  The couple is nearing retirement and
recently decided to downsize to a condo.

"We were lied to," said Ms.Babineau.  "We didn't know that when we
purchased we were going to have to pay an extra $89 a month
. . . Otherwise I think we would have thought twice about
purchasing."

Ms. Babineau and Mr. Corkery said they were told about the heating
system rental during their upgrades meeting and were so upset they
also went to a lawyer to try to get out of the deal.

The couple said they spent $3,000 in legal fees, but couldn't get
out of the purchase.

Builder promised storage lockers

The lawsuit also accuses the developer of reneging on a promise to
provide more than 60 condo owners with storage lockers, even
though the lockers were included in their original purchase
agreements, according to court documents.

The company blamed a drafting error in an original contract, which
stated storage lockers were included in the purchase price.

"I would have not purchased the place without storage," said Ms.
Babineau.

"They manipulated us," said Mr. Corkey.

An Ottawa judge certified the class action earlier in March.
Justice Robert Smith wrote in his decision that purchasers "were
in a vulnerable position when dealing with the developer," and
said they either had to close the transaction and sue for damages,
or forfeit their deposits.

The Law Foundation of Ontario has reviewed the merits of the class
action and is covering the costs of the case under its class
proceedings fund.

Theberge disputes claims

Class actions against condo developers are a growing trend in
Toronto, where the market has been booming for years, but it's
believed this is the first lawsuit of its kind in Ottawa.

According to a statement submitted by Theberge president Joey
Theberge, Reliance Home Comfort approached him in 2013 and sold
him on the idea of a rented heating system.

According to court documents, Theberge tasked his agent with
speaking to buyers about the rental fee at upgrade meetings so
they had an opportunity to ask questions or raise concerns.

"I wanted to ensure that each purchaser understood and accepted
the rental fees," he wrote.

"If almost every purchaser had not executed the rental
acknowledgement, I would have not have installed the . . .
system," he wrote in his submission.

CBC spoke to two condo owners who said they understood the
agreement and what they were renting.

Joey Theberge did not provide CBC News with an interview by the
deadline provided, but did a provide a statement, in which he
claims he "offered to install storage prior to this litigation at
no cost to the home buyers as a goodwill gesture."

Past and present condo board members say condo owners have yet to
be presented with this offer.

Ms. Heyde said she hopes the lawsuit encourages other condo buyers
to stand up to developers.

"This is the only way really to stop them from doing it," said Ms.
Heyde."


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Claimant Objection Could Complicate Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Maynard at Consumer Affairs reports that former Trump
University students may be seeing big payouts on their class-
action suit. More than 3,700 of the 6,000 plaintiffs had filed a
claim on the USD25 million settlement, with each person standing
to make as much 90 cents on the dollar of their original
investments, according to class attorney Rachel Jensen.

However, a claim by one woman and her Florida attorney may end up
throwing a wrench into things and may derail the whole settlement,
according to Courthouse News.

Claimant Sherri Simpson, represented by Gary Friedman --
gfriedman@fklaw.com -- of Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP,
filed an objection to the settlement on March 6 saying that she
was not afforded a second opt-out opportunity after the settlement
was reached, a promise that was made in the 2015 class notices
mailed to each plaintiff.

Friedman said that not allowing Simpson to opt out of the
settlement forfeited her right to file an objection to the
settlement as a pre-condition for her to seek cash payment on any
potential settlement agreement. Simpson is looking to file her own
fraud lawsuit against Trump that could secure her triple damages
if she wins the case.

                  Derailing the Settlement

Class attorney Jason Forge has called Simpson's and Friedman's
actions "outrageous," and said that the move jeopardizes the case
for all other claimants simply because Simpson wants an apology
from Trump.

"You can't do better than getting money back," he said. "If you
get back 90 cents on the dollar, isn't that better than someone
saying, 'Hey I'm sorry?'"

Others have called the ethical implications of the action into
question. Simpson apparently did not know about the exact clause
in the class notice that guaranteed a second opt-out opportunity,
but Friedman allegedly contacted her to offer his legal services
after learning of the matter.

Class attorney Patrick Coughlin points to an "admission" by
Friedman in court stating that fact, saying that "we just had an
admission she didn't have this parenthetical but had a vague
understanding she would be able to opt out."

Friedman said that contacting Simpson and essentially soliciting
her as a client was "not relevant," stating that "[Simpson] was
unhappy with the settlement and had expected she would be able to
opt out. In terms of me calling her representing an ethical breach
-- I believe that's false."

Elderly class members at risk

So, what does all of this mean for the other members of the class?
For right now, nothing. U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel
still needs to issue a written ruling and approve the settlement
before it goes forward. However, if he doesn't give approval based
on Simpson's objection, attorneys say that many older members of
the class may suffer.

Jensen points out that lead plaintiff John Brown is turning 66 and
that he planned to use the settlement money to pay off credit card
debt and retire debt-free. Other members undoubtedly would use the
money to "replenish retirement funds, send kids to college and put
a down payment on a house," she said.

Unfortunately, derailing the settlement could mean that many
elderly members never see the money they're allegedly owed. "If
this selfishness persists there is no question some people would
die before getting their money back," said Forge. [GN]


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Hears Arguments on Settlement Objection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Freifeld, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge was
set to hear arguments on March 30 over whether to grant final
approval to a $25 million settlement of fraud lawsuits against
President Donald Trump over his Trump University real estate
investment seminars, with at least one former student objecting to
the deal.

Sherri Simpson of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, who paid $19,000 to
learn Trump's investing "secrets," filed court papers earlier in
March arguing the class action settlement should not have
contained a provision barring her and other students from opting
out and suing Trump on their own.

The objection raises the possibility the litigation could continue
to dog Trump's presidency.  During the campaign, Trump vowed to
fight the fraud claims but agreed to the settlement soon after the
election.  Under the deal, Trump admitted no wrongdoing.

Lawyers for Trump and those representing thousands of other
students in two class actions will urge U.S. District Judge
Gonzalo Curiel in San Diego to overrule the objection and approve
the deal.

The students, who paid as much as $35,000 for the seminars, are
expected to recover more than 80 percent of the money they paid.

Though Ms. Simpson's lawyer, Gary Friedman, called the settlement
"laudable," he said his client wanted to press for a full
recovery, as well as punitive damages and other relief. He is
planning to argue the deal should be rejected unless she is
allowed to do so.

"What Ms. Simpson seeks is her day in court," Friedman said in
court papers.

Ms. Simpson and other students claim they were lured into the
seminars by false promises that they would learn Trump's
investment strategies from his "hand-picked" instructors.  Trump
admitted he did not personally select the instructors but said the
claim was sales "puffery."

Rachel Jensen, a class action lawyer for the students, said in a
court filing that some 3,730 students submitted claim forms.  Two
filed objections but only Simpson's lawyers are expected at the
hearing.

In court papers, both Jensen and Daniel Petrocelli, a lawyer for
Trump, suggested Ms. Simpson's objection might be politically
motivated.  They noted she appeared in an anti-Trump political ad
in February 2016.

"Defendants paid $25 million to avoid the uncertainty that
political opponents might solicit opt-outs to force a high-profile
trial," Ms. Jensen said.

Mr. Friedman denied any political motive and said he would appeal
if the judge overruled the objection.

Trump accused Judge Curiel of bias last year based on the Indiana-
born judge's Mexican ancestry.


U.S. CONCRETE: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 28 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against U.S. Concrete, Inc. ("U.S. Concrete" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:USCR) and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District
of Texas, and docketed under 17-cv-00266 is on behalf of a class
consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired U.S
Concrete securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused
by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased U.S. Concrete securities
between March 6, 2015 and March 23, 2017, both dates inclusive,
you have until May 29, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact
Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529
(or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-
mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone
number, and number of shares purchased.

U.S. Concrete, Inc. produces and sells ready-mixed concrete,
aggregates, and concrete-related products and services for the
construction industry in the United States. It operates through
two segments, Ready-Mixed Concrete and Aggregate Products.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) the Company lacked effective
internal controls over financial reporting; and (ii) as a result
of the foregoing, U.S. Concrete's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 24, 2017, U.S. Concrete filed a Current Report on Form 8-
K with the Securities and Exchange Commission, announcing the
resignation of the Company's Chief Financial Officer, Joseph Tusa,
and advising investors that the Company had dismissed its previous
auditor, Grant Thornton LLP, and engaged Ernst & Young LLP as its
new public accounting firm.

On this news, U.S. Concrete's share price fell $5.90, or 8.84%, to
close at $60.80 on March 24, 2017.

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


U.S. PHYSICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of U.S.
Physical Therapy, Inc. securities (USPH) from May 8, 2014 through
March 16, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for U.S. Physical Therapy investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the U.S. Physical Therapy class action, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1088.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- for
information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) U.S. Physical Therapy had a material weakness in its
internal controls over accounting and financial reporting; (2)
U.S. Physical Therapy improperly accounted for redeemable non-
controlling interests of acquired partnerships in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (3) U.S. Physical
Therapy's financial statements for the years ended December 31,
2015 and 2014, and all quarters within 2014 and 2015, and the
first three quarters of 2016 contained material errors; and (4) as
a result, defendants' statements about U.S. Physical Therapy's
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May
30, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-
1088.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq.
of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. [GN]


UNIQUE BEVERAGE: Sued Over Misleading Coconut Water Label
---------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
consumer has filed a class action lawsuit against the maker of a
beverage marketed as coconut water, alleging the drink was
misleadingly labeled because it contains no coconut water at all
and has no coconut health benefits.

Vicky Silva filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on March 9, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon against Unique Beverage Co. LLC, alleging that the
corporation falsely advertises the actual contents of its coconut
water product.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she
suffered damages from being misled into purchasing a falsely
advertised product.  The plaintiff holds Unique Beverage
responsible because the defendant allegedly labels its product
with the word "Coconut" even though the beverage doesn't taste
like coconut.  This misleads consumers into purchasing the
product, the complaint said.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks to enjoin the
defendant and order the defendant to preserve all sales records
and other consumer data.  She is also asking for actual, statutory
and punitive damages, interest and reimbursement for all legal
fees and any other relief the court deems just.  She is
represented by Michael Fuller of Olsen Daines PC in Portland, Ore.

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon Case number 3:17-
cv-00391-HZ


VOLKSWAGEN: Proposed Settlement Not in Consumers' Best Interest
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Wallcraft at Autonews reports an Ontario Superior Court
hearing to approve the Volkswagen class action settlement was held
over on March 31 as the presiding judge said the outlined proposal
is "nowhere near" being in the best interests of consumers
directly affected by VW's diesel-cheating scandal.

The proposed system for compensation would see owners of VW's 2.0-
liter TDI diesel-powered cars from the model years 2009 to 2015
receive Canadian Black Book value for their vehicle as of
September 2015 -- just before their market value was affected by
news of the emissions scandal -- plus additional damages ranging
from CAD5,100 to CAD8,000.

Under the proposal, which was agreed upon by Volkswagen Canada and
the counsel representing affected owners, VW's projected total
estimated payout would be CAD2.1 billion.

(Claims for cars with 3.0-liter TDI engines are not included in
the settlement and have not yet been determined.)

Ontario Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba addressed his
concerns by citing section 18.2 of Ontario's Consumer Protection
Act.  Under it, because of Volkswagen's demonstrated intentional
misrepresentation of its diesel emissions, TDI owners would be
legally entitled to a refund of their full original purchase
price.

While Justice Belobaba accepted that depreciation could be a valid
factor in valuation, he stated that lawyers representing both VW
and the vehicle owners need to demonstrate why it is fair and
reasonable for the difference in payouts between purchase price
and settlement compensation to be in the range of CAD10,000 or
more. Because it's a proposal already agreed upon by lawyers for
both sides, both sides must prove to Justice Belobaba why the
difference in payouts is fair and reasonable.

Of the 105,000 Canadians represented in the class action,
approximately 500 written objections to the current settlement
have been received by the court. Ten were delivered orally at the
hearing.

The majority of those heard by the court noted that Canadian Black
Book values are at wholesale rather than retail and that the
settlement does not compensate consumers for extra costs such as
dealer accessories, extended warranties, fees or taxes.

Several objectors added that they were able to use their TDIs for
only four or five years instead of an expected decade or more.

Lawyers on both sides committed to file the requested memorandum
to Belobaba within a week. The hearing will reconvene after that.

During March 31's proceedings, it was confirmed that an import-
export clause has been added to the settlement that would see the
Canadian registration requirement for compensation waived if the
vehicle was registered in the U.S. during the qualifying period,
with a similar clause being made available to U.S. consumers.
This is the second Canadian hearing on the VW settlement in as
many weeks. On March 22, Justice Marie-Claude Lalande of the
Superior Court of Quebec presided over a hearing in Montreal. Her
decision is pending.

Should both hearings result in approval, affected consumers will
be able to begin filing for claims on April 28. [GN]


WALGREENS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Price Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
multi-state class action complaint filed March 23 in federal court
in Chicago accuses Walgreens of fraud, negligent misrepresentation
and unjust enrichment in relation with the way it prices
prescription drugs.

Named plaintiffs Dorothy Forth, Troy Termine, Cynthia Russo and
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 38
Health and Welfare Fund accused Walgreens of a "fraudulent and
deceptive price scheme to artificially inflate the 'usual and
customary' prices reported and used to charge" themselves and
putative class members for generic drugs.  The lawsuit doesn't
specify how much the plaintiffs believe Walgreens has allegedly
overcharged, saying only that the amount in controversy exceeds
the procedural threshold of $5 million.

According to the complaint, likely millions of individual
customers who use health insurance to buy generic prescription
drugs from Walgreens are paying more for certain drugs than cash-
paying Walgreens customers enrolled in the company's Prescription
Savings Club, which is not a form of health insurance.

The complaint cites a Generic Pharmaceutical Association report
indicating 89 percent of all prescriptions dispensed in the U.S.
now are generic drugs.  The plaintiffs also maintain pharmacies
are not allowed to charge customers or third-party payors more for
prescription drugs than its usual price.

Under the PSC, customers without insurance can buy prescription
generics in tiers -- $5, $10 and $15 for 30-day supplies and $10,
$20 and $30 for 90-day supplies.  The pricing package, per the
complaint, "includes some of the most commonly used generics for
cardiovascular, diabetes, pain, psychiatric illnesses,
gastrointestinal disorders and other common ailments.

The complaint alleges Walgreens breaks the law by artificially
inflating prices for generics on reimbursement claims submitted to
third-party payors, such as Medicare, Medicaid and private
insurers.  The practice allegedly dates to 2007, and the action
seeks either nationwide class certification or for action to be
brought under fraud laws of Arizona, California, Colorado,
Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin.

Forth, of Texas, said she bought more than 20 generic medicines at
Walgreens since 2012 using Medicare Part D coverage.  She said
she's overpaid at least $285 compared to what she believes she
would have paid if she'd used cash and participated in the PSC.
Russo, of Florida, also uses Medicare Part D and said she overpaid
by $130 since 2012.  Termine, of Lousiana, had a Humana policy and
said he overpaid by $8 -- $7.15 for one 30-day prescription and
$10.89 for another, both $5 tier one drugs under the PSC. IBEW
Local 38 has beneficiaries in the 15 states named in the action.

The complaint incorporated a table showing drug prices in Suffolk
County, N.Y., Orlando, Fla., and Philadelphia, at Walmart, Target,
Shoprite and Winn-Dixie, contrasted with the usual and customary
prices Walgreens submits to third-party payors, and the PSC cash
price it charges.  It argues against any tolling of statute of
limitations, noting that "because Walgreens affirmatively
concealed its pricing scheme, plaintiffs and the class had no
knowledge until recently of the alleged fraudulent activities or
information which would have caused a reasonably diligent person
to investigate whether Walgreens committed the actionable
activities detailed herein."

In addition to class certification and a jury trial, the
plaintiffs seek monetary, compensatory, consequential, statutory
treble, punitive or exemplary and general damages and injunctive
relief.  They say all class members "are owed at least the
difference between the amount they paid and the (usual and
customary) offered to the general public."

The plaintiffs sent a copy of their complaint to attorneys general
in Illinois, Louisiana and Missouri.

Representing the plaintiffs in the action are Halunen Law, of
Minneapolis; Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, of Colchester,
Conn., and New York; Lemmon Law Firm LLC, of Hahnville, La.;
Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP, of Raleigh, N.C.; Brandner Law
Firm, LLC, of New Orleans; and Tusa P.C., of Southold N.Y.


WELLS FARGO: Settles Class Action Over Unauthorized Accounts
------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Sweet, writing for Associated Press, reports that Wells Fargo
has agreed to pay $110 million to settle a class-action lawsuit
over up to 2 million accounts its employees opened for customers
without getting their permission, the bank announced on March 28.

It's the first private settlement that Wells Fargo has reached
since the company paid $185 million to federal and California
authorities late last year.  Authorities said bank employees,
driven by high-pressure sales tactics, opened the bank and credit
card accounts without customer authorization.

The settlement will include customers who had accounts opened
without their permission, or were signed up for a product they did
not agree to, going back to Jan. 1, 2009.  Wells Fargo says it
believes this settlement, which is subject to court approval, will
resolve the 11 other pending class-action lawsuits filed against
it over the accounts.

Notably, Wells Fargo said it is waiving its right to take
customers into third-party arbitration, which lets the bank take
complaints to a private mediator instead of a court of law.  The
practice has been a source of controversy for the bank, and
customer advocates and politicians had been pressuring Wells Fargo
to give up its right to use arbitration.

"We believe this is an outstanding result obtained for the benefit
of a proposed nationwide class, notwithstanding Wells Fargo's
effort to block the class action with an arbitration clause," said
Derek Loeser -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- a partner with
Keller Rohrback, one of the firms that filed a class-action
lawsuit against the bank.

After paying attorneys' fees, the $110 million will first go to
cover any customers' out-of-pocket losses or fees that they may
have incurred due to the unauthorized accounts.  All remaining
money will be split among the all affected customers.

San Francisco-based Wells Fargo has seen sharp declines in new
account openings and bank traffic, and has been working to restore
customers' trust since the practices came to light.  The biggest
scandal in the bank's history led to the abrupt retirement of its
CEO, John Stumpf. In response to the scandal, Wells Fargo has
changed its sales practices, ousted other executives and called
tens of millions of customers to check on whether they truly
opened the accounts in question.

"This agreement is another step in our journey to make things
right with customers," Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan said in a
prepared statement.  Mr. Sloan took over as CEO in October.

Wells Fargo's board of directors is conducting an investigation
into the bank's sales practices, a report that is expected to be
out in April ahead of the annual shareholder meeting.  The board
has already cut bonuses to major executives.


ZOCDOC INC: "Geismann" Case Not Moot, 2nd Circ. Says
----------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacates
an order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York remanding the case captioned Radha Geismann, M.D., P.C.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZocDoc, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee,
John Does 1-10, Defendants, Docket No. 14-3708 (2nd Circ.).

Judge Louis L. Stanton of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion,
agreeing with ZocDoc that the rejected offer, which the court
concluded would have afforded Geismann complete relief on its
individual claims, rendered the entire action moot,
notwithstanding the pending class-certification motion.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the action was not moot. The
Court cited that, although the Supreme Court has held that an
unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment, on its own, will not moot a
plaintiff's claims, that rule does not control where, unlike in
the case, the Plaintiff negotiated the check proffered by the
Defendants.

Since the unaccepted offer did not moot Geismann's individual
claim, the Court need not address the remaining issues raised on
appeal. The Court of Appeals noted that the district court should
not have entered judgment on the basis of ZocDoc's offer, nor
therefore should it have dismissed Geismann's action. Because a
named Plaintiff remains in the action, the dismissal of the class
claim was also in error. Although the district court may, in its
discretion, permit ZocDoc to deposit with the court any part of
the relief sought, Fed. R. Civ. P. 67, the basis for so granting
the defendant leave to deposit must not be inconsistent with the
opinion.

A copy of the Court of Appeal's Decision is available at
https://goo.gl/ztGvIi from Leagle.com.

GLENN L. HARA -- GHara@andersonwanca.com (David M. Oppenheim, on
the brief), Anderson + Wanca, Rolling Meadows, Illinois, for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

BLAINE C. KIMREY -- bkimrey@vedderprice.com (Charles J. Nerko --
cnerko@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price P.C., New York, New York,
Bryan K. Clark, on the brief), Vedder Price P.C., Chicago,
Illinois, for Defendant-Appellee.


* Employers Seek Clarity on Mandatory Arbitration Agreement Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emina Poricanin, writing for Buffalo Journal, reports that on Jan.
13, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in three cases
involving employers' use of mandatory arbitration agreements with
class-action waivers.  The Supreme Court will determine whether
such arbitration agreements violate the National Labor Relations
Act.  For employers that rely on mandatory arbitration agreements
to mitigate exposure to costly class action litigation, this is an
issue of paramount importance.

Over the past several years, the Supreme Court has issued a series
of decisions upholding arbitration agreements with class-action
waivers under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).  In so holding,
the Supreme Court rejected several challenges to the
enforceability of these agreements.  In the seminal decision on
this issue, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011),
the court held that state law doctrines that "disfavor
arbitration" would be pre-empted by the FAA if "[r]equiring the
availability of classwide arbitration interferes with fundamental
attributes of arbitration and thus creates a scheme inconsistent
with the FAA."  Since Concepcion, the Supreme Court has continued
to enforce arbitration agreements with class-action waivers,
evidencing a "liberal federal policy favoring arbitration." See
e.g., American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S. Ct.
2304 (2013); Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct. 2064
(2013); DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 136 S. Ct. 463, 466 (2015).

Most of the cases the Supreme Court decided have involved
mandatory arbitration agreements in the context of consumer
contracts.  Concepcion, for example, involved a cell phone
contract between the Concepcions and their cell phone carrier. The
court's decisions, however, prompted employers to use arbitration
agreements with class-action waivers with employees as a means of
mitigating exposure to costly class action involving claims of
systemic violations of employment laws.  In executing the
arbitration agreements with class-action waivers, employees agree
not to pursue claims against their employer on a class or
collective basis and, effectively, agree to seek redress through
individual, single-plaintiff, arbitration.

In the employment context, employers that utilize arbitration
agreements with class-action waivers enter into these agreements
with their employees at the inception of employment or during the
course of employment.  The agreements are subject to state
contract laws, requiring legal consideration and consent.  And to
be enforceable, the agreements should not require employees to
waive statutory rights (e.g., right to recover attorneys' fees or
certain damages).  Attempts to curtail employees' rights through
the arbitration agreements could subject the agreement to attack
on the basis that the agreement is unconscionable.


* House Passes Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Goldrich, Esq. -- Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP -- in an
article for JD Supra Advisor, wrote that on a February 27, 2017
post, we reported that the House Judiciary Committee approved the
Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 ("FCALA"), a bill
described by its sponsor, Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R. Va.), as
intended "to protect innocent individuals and small businesses who
have become targets of frivolous suits by attorneys who have found
loopholes in our civil litigation system." Among other things, the
FCALA would (a) prohibit class certification where class members
cannot be objectively identified or did not suffer the same type
and scope of injury; (b) revise the amount and timing of payments
of fees to class counsel; (c) provide for interlocutory appellate
review of all class certification decisions; and (d) impose a stay
of discovery pending resolution of motions to dismiss, transfer,
or strike class allegations.

On March 9, 2017, the House of Representatives passed FCALA,
without amendment, by a vote of 220-201. FCALA now moves on to the
Senate where, in 2016, a similar bill sponsored by Rep. Goodlatte
failed to make it out of committee for a vote. We will continue to
track FCALA and provide updates. [GN]


* Law Firms Mull Class Action Over Play-to-Play Audition
--------------------------------------------------------
Gary Baum, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that trial
lawyers seek to cast actors as plaintiffs while the L.A. City
Attorney begins a court battle.

As criminal court proceedings continue against dozens of
individuals charged with violating California's Krekorian Talent
Scam Prevention Act, civil class action filings are being explored
to recoup money lost by actors in what many consider a predatory
labor practice.

Among those weighing such a move is Roman Silberfeld --
RSilberfeld@RobinsKaplan.com -- a veteran partner at the big
Century City-based law office Robins Kaplan. The heavy-hitting
trial attorney responsible for one of Hollywood's largest jury
verdicts -- he won $319 million from Disney in a 2010 case over
Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? profits -- says his firm has been
looking into the issue for "more than a year."

"I've spoken to friends inside studios and network television,"
Mr. Silberfeld told The Hollywood Reporter via e-mail.  "They have
encouraged us to proceed with this, too." He added, "Our
investigation at studios and networks (usually with officer level
individuals) about these workshops reveals that the problem is
real, that it is perceived by some studios and network individuals
as a scam that preys on vulnerable young people and that putting
an end to the practice would benefit all legitimate stakeholders
in the entertainment industry."
Regarding the status of the case, Mr. Silberfeld continued: "We
remain interested in pursuing this case and need a cross section
of plaintiffs who have attended different workshops at different
times in order to meet the legal tests of standing, typicality and
adequacy.  Robins Kaplan has a long history of representing only
talent in the film, television and music industries.  We continue
to gather evidence in support of claims for violations of the
Krekorian Act that we intend to file." (Mr. Silberfeld noted that
anyone interested in sharing their experience should contact his
associate, Kevin Meek.)

Robins Kaplan isn't the only L.A. legal office to be considering a
class-action filing.  "We are gathering evidence," says attorney
Daniel Srourian, head of an eponymous Westwood-based firm that
specializes in litigating unfair competition cases of employment
law. "Beyond that, there's nothing I can offer at the moment."

The website of Mr. Srourian's firm explains that "individuals who
were scammed are entitled to receive back three times the amount
they paid to offenders for 'educational' or 'workshop' classes, a
guise to cover up the 'pay to play' scheme.  Individuals are also
entitled to receive their attorney's fees."  It goes on to list
the five workshop firms identified by Los Angeles City Attorney
Mike Feuer in his February indictment -- Actors' Alley, Your
Studio Productions, The Actor's Key, The Actors Link (since
rebranded Ace Studios) and The Casting Network -- and asks that
those who "took a class or workshop within the last year" be in
touch.


* New Law May Unlock Class Action Litigation in Poland
------------------------------------------------------
Pawel Bukiel, Esq. -- pawel.bukiel@wolftheiss.com -- at Wolft
Theiss, in an article for Lexology, wrote that new regulations on
class actions are being contemplated by the Polish Parliament. If
accepted, they will simplify the procedure and contribute to the
growth of class action litigation in Poland.

At the beginning of March, the Lower House of Polish Parliament
accepted a bill introducing major changes concerning class action
litigation in Poland. Despite political differences, the bill was
accepted with only a single vote against it. We expect that the
new law will come into force in the upcoming months.

Why change?

Class actions were introduced into Polish law in 2010. Soon it
became clear that the set of rules governing this procedure was
seriously flawed. The proceedings last too long, are easily
obstructed and grossly ineffective. What is more, only a few types
of claims are subject to a class action. For these reasons, a
representative suit is a rare sight in Polish courts.

Risks and opportunities

This is supposed to change once the new law comes into force. The
proposed regulations are designed to speed up the proceedings and
make them less formal and easier to conduct. They also allow for
more types of claims to be pursued through a class action, most
importantly those stemming from a breach of contract. As a result,
we can expect a significant increase in the number of class action
cases, including those conducted in a B2B setup.

However, simplifying the procedure comes with a price. Perhaps the
most contentious part of the new rules concerns weakening the
procedural position of a defendant. In order to accelerate the
proceedings, it was necessary to limit the defendant's rights to
contest court decisions regarding the admissibility of a class
action and the composition of a class. It remains to be seen
whether these changes will disrupt the equilibrium between the
parties.

The anticipation

We are eagerly anticipating the new law to be adopted and enter
into force. It may bring new exciting opportunities for lawyers
specializing in the field of dispute resolution. And who knows,
maybe the next Erin Brockovich movie will be made in Poland. [GN]


* Robinson+Cole Attorney Shares Thoughts on H.R. 985 Bill
---------------------------------------------------------
Wystan Ackerman, Esq. -- wackerman@rc.com -- of Robinson+Cole, in
an article for JDSupra, wrote that a fair amount of attention has
been given in the legal media to the Fairness in Class Action
Litigation Act of 2017, H.R. 985, which has passed the House of
Representatives and is currently under consideration by the
Senate. Corporate groups and the defense bar have sung its
praises, and the plaintiffs' bar has railed against it.  Less
attention has been given to areas where, if this bill becomes law,
courts will need to decide what it means.  Here are a few thoughts
on that:

1. Type and Scope of Injury Requirement: The bill provides that a
class action for monetary relief may not be certified unless the
plaintiff "affirmatively demonstrates that each proposed class
member suffered the same type and scope of injury as the named
class representative or representatives."  A court is required to
conduct a "rigorous analysis" of this question.  Expect extensive
disputes over what constitutes the "same type and scope of
injury."  This does not appear to mean that every class member has
the same amount of damages. What constitutes "type" and "scope"
would be left to the courts to figure out.

2. Class Representative Conflicts of Interest: The bill requires
disclosure in a class action complaint regarding whether any named
plaintiff is a relative or present or former employee of class
counsel, or present or former client of class counsel with respect
to a different matter, or has any other contractual relationship
with class counsel.  It further requires that "the complaint shall
describe the circumstances under which each class representative
or named plaintiff agreed to be included in the complaint . . . ."
Courts would have to determine what level of detail is required
here, and the extent to which, if any, the attorney-client
privilege applies. Courts would also need to determine what type
of motion could be used to attack a complaint that the defendant
claims insufficiently complies with these requirements, perhaps a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

3. Ascertainability: The bill further provides that a class cannot
be certified unless the class is "defined with reference to
objective criteria and the party seeking to maintain such a class
action affirmatively demonstrates that there is a reliable and
administratively feasible mechanism (a) for the court to determine
whether putative class members fall within the class definition
and (b) for distributing directly to a substantial majority of
class members any monetary relief secured for the class."  I
expect courts would continue to debate, as many of them currently
are, what constitutes a "reliable and administratively feasible
mechanism." Could this include self-identification by affidavit,
or not? Would compliance with this requirement depend on how many
people come forward?

4. Attorneys' Fees: The bill would require that attorneys' fees in
cases involving monetary awards be limited to a "reasonable
percentage" of funds actually received by class members, and that
attorneys' fees could not exceed the amounts actually received by
class members.  In cases involving equitable relief, attorneys'
fees would be limited to a "reasonable percentage of the value of
the equitable relief, including any injunctive relief."  The
litigation here seems likely to focus on what constitutes a
"reasonable percentage," and how you value the equitable relief.
There is some existing precedent on these issues, and the extent
to which Congress intends to either adopt or modify that precedent
could be an issue.

5. Issues Classes: The bill provides that a court may not certify
an issues class under Rule 23(c)(4) unless the court determines,
after a "rigorous analysis," that "the entirety of the cause of
action from which the particular issues arise satisfies all the
class certification prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(1),
Rule 23(b)(2), or Rule 23(b)(3)."  I don't see a lot of room for
debate here, although the application of the other requirements of
Rule 23, of course, remain hotly debated by the courts.

6. Stays of Discovery: The bill mandates a stay of discovery
pending a motion to dismiss, motion to transfer, motion to strike
the class allegations or other motion to dispose of the class
allegations, unless particularized discovery is necessary to
preserve evidence or prevent undue prejudice.  Would this mean
that a defendant would be entitled to multiple stays of discovery
if it files, seriatim, a motion to dismiss and then, if that is
denied, a motion to strike the class allegations or to deny
certification?

7. Appeals: The bill makes appeals of class certification orders
mandatory, providing that "[a] court of appeals shall permit an
appeal from an order granting or denying class-action
certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure."  Would this mean that a court of appeals is required
to hear multiple interlocutory appeals in a case that involves
more than one certification order, or a partial decertification of
the class? Would an order granting or denying a motion to strike
class allegations be appealable?

8. Rulemaking Authority Provision: The bill provides that "Nothing
in this title shall restrict in any way the authority of the
Judicial Conference and the Supreme Court to propose and prescribe
general rules of practice and procedure under chapter 131 of title
28, United States Code."  Would this mean that the Judicial
Conference and the Supreme Court, by virtue of their rulemaking
power, could directly override any part of this bill (if enacted),
at any time?

9. Retroactivity: The bill provides that "[t]he amendments made by
the title shall apply to any civil action pending on the date of
enactment of this title or commenced thereafter."  Would this mean
that, if a case is pending where the court has certified a class
already, it must revisit certification following the enactment of
this law? Would a court have to reevaluate a class settlement or
attorneys' fees that had been approved? Would a court of appeals
have to accept an appeal it had previously rejected under Rule
23(f)? There seem to be lots of questions here that courts would
need to decide.






                         *********


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  * * *