CAR_Public/170413.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Thursday, April 13, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 74



                            Headlines

ABUELITOS FELICES: Faces "Medina" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
AIR METHODS: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Planned Acquisition
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Reich" Suit in E.D. New York
ALTEGRA HEALTH: Faces "Craig" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages

AMAZON.COM: Delivery Drivers Allege Wage Violations
AMERICAN CENTURY: "Wildman" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
ARIZONA: Border Patrol Held in Civil Contempt Over Video Files
ASAHI BEER: "Panvini" Sues Over Asahi Dry Deceptive Marketing
ASSET RECOVERY: Class Certification Hearing Continued to May 24

AUROBINDO PHARMA: Falconer Alleges Glyburide Price-Fixing
AUSTRALIA: Oakey Residents Warned Not to Answer Defense Survey
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over FLSA Violation
BASF CATALYSTS: "Williams" Suit Moved from N.D. Ohio to D.N.J.
BHC ALHAMBRA: "Zeledon" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court

BLACKBERRY LTD: Former Engineers Transferred to Ford File Suit
CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: Faces "Shum" Wage and Hour Suit
CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE: Settlement in "Thompson" Gets Final OK
CLINTON ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert. Bid in "Labriola" Denied
CONDE NAST: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York

CREATIVE AIR: Faces "Menichiello" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
DAVID GLADIEUX: "Buroff" Suit Seeks to Certify Inmates Class
DIAL CORP: Bid for Amended Class Cert. in Suit Over Soap Granted
DIALAMERICA MARKETING: "McKenna" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
DIRECTV LLC: Faces "Frintzilas" Suit Over NYGBL Violations

DIRECT ENERGY: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in "Richards"
DIRECTV LLC: Judge Will Not Decide on the Parties' Cross-Motions
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Mayor Bowser Faces "Just-Buddy" Suit
DYNAMIC PET: "Brown" Sues Over Real Ham Bone For Dogs' False Ads
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Peterson" Suit in E.D. California

FIREMEN'S ANNUITY: Firefighter Retirees Sue over Benefit Hike
FLINT, MI: Judge Remands "Nappier" to Michigan Court of Claims
FLORIDA: Class Action Aims to Restore Ex-Felons' Voting Rights
FORSTER GARBUS: "Feliciano" Suit Seeks to Certify Consumers Class
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Class Certification Bid Denied in "Briggs" Suit

GEO: Detained Immigrants' Class Action Over Unpaid Labor OK'd
GILEAD GROUP: "Adams" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
GLASSBORO, NJ: Faces Rental Discrimination Class Action
GREATER HUME: Fire Victims' Class Action Opens in Supreme Court
GREYSTAR REAL: California Court Dismisses "Kohler" Case

HAIN CELESTIAL: "Arena" Sues BOD for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
HEWLETT PACKARD: "Delman" Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
HYUNDAI: Santa Fe Engine Stall Class Action Settlement Okayed
JOS. A. BANK: "Leese" Suit Moved to New Jersey Federal Court
LANNETT CO: NY Local Fund Allege Price Fixing of Levothyroxine

LAS VEGAS SANDS: Faces "Kennedy" Suit over Pilots Salary
LOUISIANA: Livingston Parish School Board Joins Flood Suit
LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Winehouse" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
MAIBEC INC: Class Certification Bid Denied in "Stern" Suit
MAYNE PHARMA: Amended Class Cert. Bid Denied in Glen Ellyn Suit

MIDAN REST: Court Grants Final Approval of Settlement in "Manley"
MILLER & STARK: Class Certification Bid in "Zolandz" Suit Nixed
MINNESOTA: Sex Offenders to Bring Class Action to Supreme Court
MONSANTO COMPANY: 6 Suits Filed in Del. Over Herbicide Roundup
MULTICHOICE NIGERIA: Dstv Subscription Fees Increase Despite Suit

MYPILLOW INC: Class Action Over BOGO Ads Pending in Oregon
NATROL LLC: "Stakutis" Sues Over Biotin Supplement Labels
NEW JERSEY: "Wolf" Suit Transferred from S.D.N.Y. to D.N.J.
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Jacoby & Meyers' Suit
NORTHERN DYNASTY: "Schubert" Sues Over Share Price Drop

OKLAHOMA: Federal Court Takeover of DHS Worst-Case Scenario
OMNICARE INC: May 2 Case Management Conference Set in "Esomonu"
ORANGE LAKE: Faces "Epps" Suit Over FCRA Violations in Va.
PAINTING FIRM: "Robinson" Seeks Overtime Pay
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: FTC Investigation into Venmo Ongoing

PEOPLE'S WATER: Donaldsonville Residents File Class Action
PIZZATI ENTERPRISES: "Nieto" Has Conditional Class Certification
PLANET FITNESS: Court Refuses to Reconsider Prior Dismissal Order
PLATINUM HOME: Faces "Severin" Suit in N.Y. Superior Court
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Flushable Wipes Class Action Can Go Ahead

RADIO RENTAL: Thorn Group Disputes Class Action Claims
REAL TIME: Approval of $1.3MM "Tannlund" Case Settlement Sought
REPUBLIC SCHOOLS: Class Action Over Spam Texts Can Proceed
RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: NJ Court Grants Bid to Dismiss FDCPA Suit
RICK WOLF LANDSCAPE: "Gomez" Sues for Unpaid Overtime Pay

RJ AMERICAN: "Gentile" Seeks to Rescind Portfolio Transfer
RUSHMORE LOAN: "Bovin" Class Certification Bid Denied
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Kellas" Suit Over Washing Machines
SANTILLAN FOUNDATION: Faces "Barrera" Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
SCHACHTER PORTNOY: Romano Wants Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued

SCI DIRECT: Faces "Romano" Wage and Hour Suit
SIGNET JEWELERS: Faces "Mikolchak" Class Suit in TX
SKYLER ELECTRIC: "Patton" Seeks OT Pay, Missed Break Premiums
SLATER & GORDON: Investors File Fresh Class Action Claim
SODEXO INC: "Piveronas" Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania

STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Faces "Kuckuk" Suit in Calif. State Court
SUMMONS REAL CARE: "Nesterenko" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
TGI FRIDAYS: "Calabrese" Suit Seeks Certification of Two Classes
TITAN SOLAR: Faces "Payton" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of TCPA
TOTAL GAS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Gas Price Manipulation Suit

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: California Judge OKs Class Rep Award of $15,000
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Sherman" Wage and Hour Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Rimel" Suit Proceeds to Arbitration
US PHYSICAL: Faces "Culhane" Securities Class Action
USAA CASUALTY: MAO-MSO Recovery Sues Over MAOs Reimbursement

VECTOR CAPITAL: Former Execs Lose Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
VERIZON: Faces Class Action Over Cellphone Fraudulent Charges
WORTHY PARKING: "Potenzo" Sues Over Car Damage in Valet Parking

* Australian Gov't Cuts Toxic Firefighting Safe Exposure Levels
* "Right to Know" Bill May Impact Illinois Small Businesses



                            *********


ABUELITOS FELICES: Faces "Medina" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO MEDINA and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b), Plaintiff, vs. ABUELITOS FELICES II ALF INC., LIZANDRA
ALCANTARA, OMAIDA GONZALEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21291-DPG
(S.D. Fla., April 5, 2017), alleges that Defendants employed
several other similarly situated employees like Plaintiff who have
not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing of this complaint back
three years.

ABUELITOS FELICES II ALF INC. is an assisted living facility in
Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Tel: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


AIR METHODS: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Planned Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION, AARON D.
TODD, C. DAVID KIKUMOTO, JOSEPH WHITTERS, RALPH J. BERNSTEIN, MARK
D. CARLETON, JEFFREY A. DORSEY, JOHN J. CONNOLLY, MORAD TAHBAZ,
CLAIRE M. GULMI, JESSICA GARFOLA WRIGHT, AMERICAN SECURITIES LLC,
ASP AMC INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC., and ASP AMC MERGER SUB, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00383-UNA (D. Del., April 5, 2017),
alleges that the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement in
connection with the acquisition of AIR METHODS by American
Securities LLC and its affiliates omits material information with
respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement
false and misleading, in violation of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, American Securities
commenced a tender offer, set to expire on April 20, 2017, and
stockholders of Air Methods will receive $43.00 per share in cash.

The complaint says (i)the Solicitation Statement omits material
information regarding the Company's financial projections and the
financial analyses performed by the Company's financial advisors,
Goldman Sachs and Centerview; (ii) the Solicitation Statement
omits material information regarding potential conflicts of
interest of the Company's officers and directors; (iii) the
Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding
potential conflicts of interest of the Company's financial
advisors, and (iv) the Solicitation Statement omits material
information regarding the background of the Proposed Transaction.

Air Methods Corp. offers air medical transportation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard A. Maniskas
     RM LAW, P.C.
     1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Phone: (484) 324-6800

        - and -

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


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TOMAS SUXSTORF, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLIED
INTERSTATE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00449 (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M0g03Wuk

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Reich" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP. The case is captioned as Jack Reich, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Alltran
Financial, LP formerly known as United Recovery Systems, L.P., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01800 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 30, 2017).

Alltran Financial is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (516) 668 6945
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


ALTEGRA HEALTH: Faces "Craig" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Margo Craig, on behalf of herself and all other Employees or
Former Employees of the Altegra Health Operating Company,
Plaintiffs v. Altegra Health Operating Company Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00505-HGH (N.D. Ala., March 31, 2017) seeks to
recover wages for each hour worked during the 40-hour work week
pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff worked as a nurse.

Defendant Alterga Health Operating Company Inc. is a healthcare
data retrieval and analysis company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Teri Ryder Mastando, Esq.
   Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
   D. Anthony Mastando, Esq.
   Mastando & Artrip, LLC
   301 Washington St., Suite 302
   Huntsville, AL 35801
   Tel: (256) 532-2222
   Fax: (256) 513-7489
   Email: teri@mastandoartrip.com
          artrip@mastandoartrip.com
          tony@mastandoartrip.com


AMAZON.COM: Delivery Drivers Allege Wage Violations
---------------------------------------------------
RAEF LAWSON, in his capacity as Private Attorney General
Representative, the Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON
LOGISTICS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02515 (C.D.
Cal., Apr. 6, 2017), seeks recovery of all penalties that may be
imposed against Defendants under the Private Attorney General Act
(PAGA).

The case is brought as a representative action on behalf of the
State of California arising out of for Defendants' wage violations
against delivery drivers who have worked for Amazon in California
who have contracted directly with Amazon and have been classified
as independent contractors.

Amazon is a commercial seller of electronic and consumer goods
through its website, providing delivery service of its various
products to its customers' homes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Matthew D. Carlson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994 5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  mcarlson@llrlaw.com


AMERICAN CENTURY: "Wildman" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Steve Wildman and Jon Borcherding,
individually and as representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons, and on behalf of the American Century Retirement
Plan, the Plaintiffs, v. American Century Services, LLC, the
American Century Retirement Plan Retirement Committee, American
Century Investment Management, Inc., American Century Companies,
Inc., Christopher Bouffard, Bradley C. Cloverdyke, John A. Leis,
Tina S. Ussery-Franklin, Margaret E. Van Wagoner, Gudrun S.
Neumann, Julie A. Smith, Margie A. Morrison, Chat Cowherd, Diane
Gallagher, and John Does 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-
737-DGK (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a
class of:

   "all participants and beneficiaries of the American Century
   Retirement Plan at any time on or after June 30, 2010,
   excluding Defendants, employees with responsibility for the
   Plan's investment or administrative functions, and members of
   the American Century Services LLC Board of Directors".

The Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint Plaintiffs as the
class representatives for the class, and Plaintiffs' counsel as
class counsel (Nichols Kaster, PLLP as lead class counsel and
Brady & Associates as local counsel for the class).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LAvKky5N

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kai Richter, Esq.
          Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
          Jennifer K. Lee, Esq.
          Jacob T. Schutz, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256 3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338 4878
          E-mail: krichter@nka.com
                  cengstrom@nka.com
                  jlee@nka.com
                  jschutz@nka.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Brady, Esq.
          Mark Kistler, Esq.
          BRADY & ASSOCIATES
          10985 Cody Street, Suite 135
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          E-mail: brady@mbradylaw.com
                  mkistler@mbradylaw.com


ARIZONA: Border Patrol Held in Civil Contempt Over Video Files
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHIO reports that a federal judge has said the Border Patrol in
Arizona violated court orders by failing to properly preserve
surveillance video related to a lawsuit claiming the agency
detains migrants in inhumane conditions.

U.S. District Judge David Bury on April 3 partially granted a
motion to hold the Border Patrol's Tucson Sector in civil contempt
over video files it was legally required to provide but were
irreparably damaged.  The court found that the Border Patrol knew
about the corrupted files in June 2016, but it never notified the
plaintiffs.

The ACLU, the National Immigration Law Center and the Morrison and
Foerster law firm filed the contempt request in January after
realizing a month earlier that the files had been corrupted and
could not be opened.

The lawsuit originally filed in 2015 claims that the Border
Patrol's Tucson Sector, which comprises most of Arizona, holds
migrants in extremely filthy and cold cells.

Migrants and advocates call the holding cells "hieleras," the
Spanish word for "freezers."

Judge Bury said in his order that the Tucson Sector "egregiously"
appeared to know the extent of gaps in archived videos but failed
to let the plaintiffs or the court know.

He denied the plaintiff's request to appoint a third party to work
with the Border Patrol on producing the videos but required the
agency to turn over a list of missing footage within a week. The
government will also have to pay for plaintiffs' fees spent on
technical help to review and attempt to retrieve the corrupted
video files.

"This is a good result for us," said Nora Preciado, an attorney
with the National Immigration Law Center.  "The court recognizes
that this is a pervasive problem in the inability to preserve
evidence."

The latest ruling comes after nearly two years of action against
the Tucson Sector.

Judge Bury in 2015 also sanctioned the Border Patrol over its
destruction of video evidence, saying the agency's decision to do
so was "at best, negligent and was certainly willful."

He issued a preliminary injunction in late 2016 requiring the
agency to provide clean sleeping mats and thin blankets to
migrants held for longer than 12 hours and to allow them to wash
or clean themselves.  The Border Patrol is expected to appeal that
decision.

Ms. Preciado said the agency has complied with some of those
requirements but not all.  The advocacy groups were considering an
appeal, she said.

The Border Patrol does not comment on pending litigation but has
defended its practices and said it is committed to the safety,
security and welfare of detainees.

The agency has said it provides detained migrants with basic human
needs in accordance with its own policies, and that agents provide
medical care, warmth, sanitation, food and water, and allows
detainees to sleep.

The government fought for months to prevent disclosure of photos
from security cameras at the Arizona detention centers.

The photos were eventually released, and they showed men jammed
together under a thin thermal blanket and a woman using a concrete
floor strewn with trash to change a baby's diaper. Pictures also
showed rusty toilets, dirty toilet paper on the floor and a
malfunctioning water fountain.

The lawsuit was originally filed on behalf of three immigrants. It
is now a class-action suit.


ASAHI BEER: "Panvini" Sues Over Asahi Dry Deceptive Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER PANVINI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ASAHI BEER U.S.A., INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01896-KAW (N.D. Cal., April 5, 2017),
was brought on behalf of consumers of Asahi Super Dry beer
(Asahi Dry) who have been led to believe that Asahi Dry is
manufactured in and imported from Japan.

The case further alleges that Defendant misleads consumers to
believe that Asahi Dry is brewed by a Japanese brewery -- namely,
Asahi Breweries Limited -- when in fact it is not, but rather it
is brewed by Molson in Canada.

Asahi also sells its Asahi Dry at prices substantially higher than
other Canadian beer, despite the fact that the beer is not from
Japan, but rather is brewed in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael R. Reese, Esq.
     George V. Granade, Esq.
     REESE LLP
     100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10001
     Phone: (212) 646-0500
     Fax: (212) 253-4272
     E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
             ggranade@reesellp.com

        - and -

     Amy E. Boyle, Esq.
     Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
     HALUNEN LAW
     Charles D. Moore, Esq.
     1650 IDS Center
     80 S 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Tel: 612.605.4098
     Fax: 612.605.4099
     E-mail: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
             boyle@halunenlaw.com


ASSET RECOVERY: Class Certification Hearing Continued to May 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ronald A. Guzman entered an order in the lawsuit titled
Yuridia Trujillo, the Plaintiff, v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02303 (N.D. Ill.), granting
Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue class certification
hearing on May 24, 2017 at 09:30 AM.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 28, 2017,
the Court orders the parties to appear for an initial status
hearing. All parties shall refer to and comply with Judge Guzman's
requirements for the initial appearance as outlined in Judge
Guzman's case management procedures, which can be found at:
www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. A motion hearing set for April 6, 2017 is
stricken and no appearance is required.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jz7CXIhp


AUROBINDO PHARMA: Falconer Alleges Glyburide Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------
FALCONER PHARMACY, INC., HALLIDAY'S & KOIVISTO'S PHARMACY,
RUSSELL'S MR. DISCOUNT DRUGS, INC., and SOUTHSIDE PHARMACY, INC.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC., CITRON Pharma, LLC,
HERITAGE Pharmaceuticals, Inc., TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
Jeffrey A. GLAZER, and Jason T. MALEK, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-01543-CMR (E.D. Pa., April 5, 2017), arises from an alleged
conspiracy by Defendants to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
prices of the generic prescription medication glyburide in the
United States during the period April 1, 2014 through December 31,
2015.

Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. manufactures generic pharmaceutical
drugs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Alexandra Warren, Esq.
     Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
     Joel Davidow, Esq.
     Peter Gil-Montllor, Esq.
     Blaine Finley, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200
     Washington, DC 20016
     Phone: (202) 789-3960
     Fax: (202) 789-1813
     E-mail: awarren@cuneolaw.com
             jonc@cuneolaw.com
             joel@cuneolaw.com
             pgil-montllor@cuneolaw.com
             bfinley@cuneolaw.com

        - and -

     Arthur Bailey, Esq.
     ARTHUR N. BAILEY & ASSOCIATES
     111 West 2nd Street, Suite 1100
     Jamestown, NY 14701
     Phone: (716) 664.2967
     E-mail: artlaw@windstream.net

        - and -

     Don Barrett, Esq.
     Katherine B. Riley, Esq.
     BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
     404 Court Square North
     P.O. Box 927
     Lexington, MS 39095
     Phone: (662) 834-2488
     E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com
             kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com


AUSTRALIA: Oakey Residents Warned Not to Answer Defense Survey
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Farmer, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that Oakey
residents concerned about contaminated water in the town have been
warned not to complete a Defence Department survey on their
dietary habits.

The Toowoomba Chronicle reports that Shine Lawyers ambassador Erin
Brockovich was set to visit on April 3 to speak with residents
about the survey and an upcoming class action.

Shine Lawyers principal Peter Shannon said the firm asked the
Defence Department for reassurances the survey responses would be
used without prejudice in the future.

"So far our requests have been met with silence," he said.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Cindy R. Castillo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bank of America National
Association, a North Carolina Corporation and Does 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00580 (C.D. Cal., March
31, 2017) seeks to recover damages for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants know, should know, knew
and/or should have known that Plaintiff and the other Class
Members were entitled to receive accurate wages including overtime
compensation and premium wages including but not limited to Labor
Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders and California Code of
Regulations, but were not paid all regular and overtime wages and
not paid all meal and rest period premiums due.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a "non-exempt employee" as
a call center worker at its Brea location.

Defendant Bank of America National Association, a North Carolina
Corporation, own and operate a full service bank, which serve the
general public, throughout the United States, including
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James R. Hawkins, Esq.
   Gregory Mauro, Esq.
   James Hawkins APLC
   9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
   Irvine, CA 92618
   Tel: (949) 387-7200
   Fax: (949) 387-6676
   Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
          Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com


BASF CATALYSTS: "Williams" Suit Moved from N.D. Ohio to D.N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, individually,
as personal representative of the Estate of Charles L. Williams,
deceased on behalf of said estate and as representative of others
similarly situated; NANCY PEASE, individually, as personal
representative of the Estate of William Clark deceased on behalf
of said estate, and as representative of others similarly
situated; MARILYN L. HOLLEY as personal representative of the
estate of Kathryn Darnell, deceased on behalf of said estate, and
as representative of other similarly situated; DONNA WARE,
individually, as personal representative of the Estate of Ralph
Ware, deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of
others similarly situated; DONNETTE WENGERD, individually, as
personal representative of the Estate of Jennifer Graham, deceased
on behalf of said estate, and as representative of others
similarly situated; and Rosanne Chernick, individually, as
personal representative of the Estate of Steven Chernick, deceased
on behalf of said estate, and as representative of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BASF CATALYSTS LLC; CAHILL
GORDON & REINDEL LLP; Cahill Gordon & Reindel; THOMAS D. HALKET;
ARTHUR A. DORNBUSCH, II; GLENN HEMSTOCK; HOWARD G. SLOANE, also
known as: PETER SLOANE; IRA J. DEMBROW; SCOTT A. MARTIN; JOHN DOE
BUSINESS ENTITIES 1-200; John Doe Lawyers, 1-500; JOHN DOE, 1-500;
and Third Party Defendant, BEVAN & ASSOCIATES LPA, INC., the
Defendants, , Case No. 1:17-mc-00015, was transferred on April 7,
2017 from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Newark). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02402
to the proceeding.

BASF Catalysts develops and produces environmental and process
catalysts for customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jared M. Placitella, Esq.
          Michael Coren, Esq.
          COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH
          127 Maple Avenue
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 747-9003
          E-mail: mcoren@cprlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Pollock, Esq.
          997 Lennox Drive, Bldg. 3
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

The Defendants are represented by:

          Craig Demareski, Esq.
          Robert E. Ryan, Esq.
          CONNELL FOLEY
          85 Livingston Avenue
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          E-mail: rryan@connellfoley.com

               - and -

          Marc D. Haefner, Esq.
          WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP
          One Riverfront Plaza
          1037 Raymond Blvd., 6th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 757 1100
          E-mail: mhaefner@thewalshfirm.com

               - and -

          John A. Boyle, Esq.
          Kevin Marino, Esq.
          MARINO TORTORELLA & BOYLE PC
          437 Southern Boulevard
          Chatham, NJ 07928-1488
          Telephone: (973) 824 9300
          E-mail: jboyle@khmarino.com

               - and -

          Brendan E. Little, Esq.
          LEVY KONIGSBERG LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 605 6282
          E-mail: blittle@levylaw.com


BHC ALHAMBRA: "Zeledon" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jaime Zeledon, an individual, on
his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. BHC Alhambra Hospital, Inc., a Tennessee
Corporation, Universal Health Services, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, UHS of Delaware, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and
DOES 1 - 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC651028, was
removed on Mar. 30, 2017 from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02465 to the proceeding.

BHC Alhambra Hospital operates as a subsidiary of Universal Health
Services Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


BLACKBERRY LTD: Former Engineers Transferred to Ford File Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Jonston, writing for Auto Connected Car News, reports that
Ford in the expansion of its Canadian research and development
presence is spending $500 million investment, adding more than 400
software and hardware engineers and plans to establish a new
Ottawa Research and Engineering Centre.  Many of the engineers
came through a deal with BlackBerry.  The move is causing a
controversy with former BlackBerry employees who were
transferred/hired by the Ford.  Ford uses BlackBerry's QNX
software as part of its operating systems and Ford SYNC, it at
first may seem like a win/win situation however the employees are
crying foul.

The BlackBerry engineers that were transferred/fired to Ford filed
a class action lawsuit.  An Ottawa law firm is seeking more than
$20-million in damages against BlackBerry Ltd., alleging the
company misled employees who accepted a transfer to Ford Motor Co.
of Canada Ltd. Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP has commenced a class
action against BlackBerry on behalf of a group of BlackBerry's
employees working in Ontario and across Canada.

BlackBerry arranged to transfer over 300 employees across Canada.
Only after employees accepted employment with the business
partner, BlackBerry informed the employees that they had resigned
their employment.  BlackBerry provided resignation letters for the
employees to sign and dictated their last date of employment.
BlackBerry stated that the transfer is not a sale of business,
meaning the employees will lose all of their years of service.

The lawsuit claims BlackBerry's actions amount to a termination of
the employees' employment. This entitles these employees to
statutory, common law, and/or contractual entitlements on
termination.  BlackBerry has stated that it will not pay
BlackBerry employees any of these entitlements, despite the fact
that employees lose all of their years of service. They allege
that BlackBerry has breached its duties of good faith and honesty,
and has knowingly misled the employees. BlackBerry structured this
transaction in such a way as to avoid paying these employees their
statutory entitlements.

The suit seeks damages for the plaintiffs for minimum provincial
statutory entitlements on termination, contractual entitlements on
termination, and/or common law entitlements on termination. They
are also seeking for bad faith and punitive damages, as well as
costs.

Plaintiffs in the class action include individuals who were
employees and/or dependent contractors of BlackBerry Limited in
Canada, and who were offered and accepted employment with the
business partner.

In a news release the lawyers discouraged employees from signing
letters from QNX/BlackBerry.


CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: Faces "Shum" Wage and Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------
WALTER SHUM, RUTH HO, BONNYAWD KITTLADAVAN, and MAGGIE CHUNG,
individuals on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CLUB, INC., a California
Corporation, and DOES 1 TO 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. BC656681 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 6, 2017), seeks to recover
equitable and injunctive relief, economic and statutory damages,
prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and other
appropriate relief against the Defendants for violations of the
Labor Code.

The case is a civil wage and hour class action. The amount in
controversy in this matter exceeds the sum of $25,000.00,
exclusive of interest and costs.

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in the illegal
practice of requiring all non-exempt employees, including
Plaintiffs and other employees who worked as dealers for the games
including Black Jack, Pai Gow and Baccarat, to work four or more
hours without a rest period in violation of the I.W.C. Wage Order,
California Labor Code and other relevant laws, rules, orders,
requirements and regulations.

California Commerce operates a poker casino. It offers poker,
blackjack, Caribbean stud, baccarat, and Asian style games.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
          Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq.
          SOLOUKI & SAVOY, LLP y
          316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 814-4940


CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE: Settlement in "Thompson" Gets Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila granted final approval of the
class settlement in the case captioned, GABRIEL THOMPSON,
Plaintiff, v. CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 5: 16-cv-01486-EJD (N.D. Cal.).

The case involves the Plaintiff bringing several wage-and-hour
claims on behalf of food-service employees who worked during the
2016 Super Bowl.

Under the settlement, the employees will receive a total of
US$117,127.50. The amount is equivalent to payment for five hours
of work by each employee at that employee's hourly overtime rate.

The settlement further provides that the individual awards will
range from less than $1.00 to $1,440.32. Fees to the settlement
administrator will be $16,500 and the named Plaintiff will receive
$500. In this case, the Plaintiff's counsel did not seek
attorneys' fees.

A copy of the Court's Order dated March 30, 2017 is available at
https://goo.gl/ybtfX2 from Leagle.com.

Gabriel Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by Caren P. Sencer --
csencer@unioncounsel.net -- Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld.

Gabriel Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by David Albert
Rosenfeld, Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld.

Centerplate of Delaware, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rachel T.
Segal, Barnes and Thornburg, Steve Lou Hernandez --
steve.hernandez@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP & Scott J.
Witlin -- scott.witlin@BTLaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg, LLP.


CLINTON ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert. Bid in "Labriola" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Michelle Labriola, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Clinton Entertainment Management LLC., et al., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:15-cv-04123 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer
entered an order:

   a. granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment on
      Plaintiff Labriola and Lapina's FLSA minimum wage claim;

   b. denying without prejudice claim regarding alleged seizure
      of tips to pay fees and otherwise; and

   c. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without
      prejudice as moot.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 28, 2017,
Claims against John Does 1 and 2 are dismissed. If no other
Plaintiff presents evidence in support of the overtime claim
within 21 days, the court will grant summary judgment on that
claim and dismiss the IMWL claims and the claim regarding the
alleged retention of Labriola's $1,000 tip without prejudice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cLvIIl3L


CONDE NAST: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conde Nast
Entertainment LLC. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan Jr., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Conde Nast Entertainment LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-02529 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 7, 2017). The case is

Conde Nast Entertainment, also called Conde Nast Entertainment
Group, is the book to film division of Conde Nast magazine
publisher.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


CREATIVE AIR: Faces "Menichiello" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE MENICHIELLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CREATIVE AIR SOLUTIONS INC.,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant,
Case No. 8:17-cv-00613 (C.D. Cal., April 5, 2017), alleges that
Defendant negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacted
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's home telephone to solicit Plaintiff to
purchase Defendant's services in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, and related regulations, specifically the
National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.

CREATIVE AIR SOLUTIONS INC. is a residential and commercial HVAC
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DAVID GLADIEUX: "Buroff" Suit Seeks to Certify Inmates Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DEMETRIUS BUROFF, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DAVID
GLADIEUX, in his official capacity, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-00124-JD-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order certifying a class of:

   "all individuals held at the Allen County Jail on November 8,
   2016 who on that date were U.S. citizens, residents of
   Indiana, were at least eighteen years of age, were not serving
   a sentence for a conviction of a felony crime, had not
   previously voted in the 2016 general election, were provided
   neither an absentee ballot nor transportation to a voting
   center, and were registered to vote or had been denied the
   opportunity to register to vote while held in the Allen County
   Jail".

The Plaintiff alleges Defendant unlawfully and disenfranchised
individuals held in the Allen County Jail by denying them the
fundamental right to vote in the 2016 general election. See
O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524, 530 (1974) (inmates "not allowed
to use the absentee ballot and are denied any alternative means of
casting their vote although they are legally qualified to vote"
are under "a restriction which is so severe as itself to
constitute an unconstitutionally onerous burden" (citation and
internal quotes omitted); see also U.S. v. Olinger, 759 F.2d 1293,
1304-05 (7th Cir. 1985).

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of putative class
members, alleges standardized discriminatory conduct by Defendant
on the common issue of the right to vote in the 2016 general
election. Defendant's acts and omissions, as operator of the Allen
County Jail, give rise to common questions of law and fact
including whether Defendant may bar inmates' access to the ballot,
particularly when he has assumed an affirmative obligation to
facilitate their ability to vote.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ux3GVgWv

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Frank, Esq.
          Christopher C. Myers, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES
          809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400
          Fort Wayne, IN 46802-2307
          Telephone: (260) 424 0600
          Facsimile: (260) 424 0712
          E-mail: dfrank@myers-law.com


DIAL CORP: Bid for Amended Class Cert. in Suit Over Soap Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Steven J. McAuliffe of the United States District Court for
the District of New Hampshire granted motion for amended class
certification and denied motion to strike in the case captioned,
In re: Dial Complete Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation,
Case No. 11-md-2263-SM ALL CASES (D.N.H.).

The consolidated, multi-district class action litigation is
brought by consumers in Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois,
Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated consumers in those states, against defendant,
The Dial Corporation (Dial). Plaintiffs allege that Dial
continually misrepresented the antibacterial properties of its
"Dial Complete" branded soap, and advance claims under their
respective state consumer protection and unfair trade practices
statutes, as well as statutory and common law causes of action for
breach of warranty and unjust enrichment.

On November 16, 2012, pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. 23(b)(3),
plaintiffs moved to certify a class consisting of each state's
purported class members, for a total of eight subclasses, defined
as: "All persons residing in the state who purchased Dial Complete
Antibacterial Foaming Hand Soap for household use at any point in
time from Dial Complete's commercial launch in 2001 through the
present. The court denied plaintiffs' motion for certification for
failure to provide detail sufficient to permit a full assessment
of whether damages could be adequately calculated on a classwide
basis.

On June 24, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class
certification asserting that class-wide damages can be reliably
calculated in a manner that comports with their theories of
liability.

In opposition, Dial argued that Boedeker's proposed methodology is
fundamentally flawed and incapable of measuring only those damages
attributable to plaintiffs' theory of liability. Dial has also
moved to exclude Boedeker's report from the court's consideration
on grounds that it is flawed, unreliable, and does not meet the
requirements of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579
(1993).

In an Order dated March 27, 2017 available at https://is.gd/rwQxT9
from Leagle.com, Judge McAuliffe denied Dial's motion to exclude
Boedeker's expert testimony because the issues on attributes and
the myriad others identified by Dial are either curable, or go to
the weight, not admissibility, of Boedeker's testimony.

As to the amended class certification, the Court found that
plaintiffs' memoranda in support of their amended motion for class
certification satisfies the demands of Comcast and Rule 23 because
plaintiffs' damages calculation appears capable of reliably
isolating the pertinent price premium and establishing the full
extent of damages on a class-wide basis.

In re Dial Complete Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation is
represented by Eugene A. Schoon, Esq. -- eschoon@sidley.com --
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP -- John-Mark Turner, Esq. -- jturner@sheehan.com
-- and -- Robert H. Miller, Esq. -- rmiller@sheehan.com -- SHEEHAN
PHINNEY BASS & GREEN PA

Michelle Carter is represented by Eric D. Holland, Esq. --
eholland@allfela.com -- and -- Randall Seth Crompton, Esq. --
scrompton@allfela.com -- HOLLAND GROVES SCHNELLER STOLZE, LLC --
Lucy J. Karl, Esq. -- lkarl@shaheengordon.com -- SHAHEEN & GORDON

Alicia Gentile is represented by Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq. --
jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com -- and -- James C. Shah, Esq. --
jshah@sfmslaw.com -- SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP --
Thomas D. Mauriello, Esq. -- tomm@maurlaw.com -- MAURIELLO LAW
FIRM APC

The Dial Corporation is represented by Patrick Haney, Esq. --
patrick.haney@kirkland.com -- Tracie Lynn Bryant, Esq. --
tracie.bryant@kirkland.com -- and -- Eugene F. Assaf, Esq. --
eugene.assaf@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS -- Allison W.
Reimann, Esq. -- areimann@sidley.com -- Elizabeth M. Chiarello,
Esq. -- echiarello@sidley.com -- Eugene A. Schoon, Esq. --
eschoon@sidley.com -- and -- Richard D. Raskin, Esq. --
rraskin@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP -- John E. Galvin, III,
Esq. -- jgalvin@foxgalvin.com -- and -- Jonathan H. Garside, Esq.
-- jgarside@foxgalvin.com -- FOX GALVIN, LLC


DIALAMERICA MARKETING: "McKenna" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARET MCKENNA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DIALAMERICA MARKETING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00690-GPC-BGS (S.D. Cal., April 5,
2017), alleges that Defendant negligently and/or willfully or
knowingly contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone to
do marketing, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Defendant is a telemarketing company, which provides domestic call
center services for a variety of industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Tel: (800) 400-6808
     Fax: (800) 520-5523
     E-mail: jason@kazlg.com
             ak@kazlg.com

        - and -

     Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
     409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: (619) 222-7429
     Fax: (866) 431-3292
     E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


DIRECTV LLC: Faces "Frintzilas" Suit Over NYGBL Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
William Frintzilas and Angelo Pozzuto, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Directv, LLC and
Mas Tec, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-02368 (S.D. N.Y.,
April 2, 2017) seeks injunctive relief, actual/compensatory
damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for Defendants'
deceptive business practices and for violation of public policy
pursuant to New York General Business Law.

Defendants have circumvented Federal Communication Commission
(FCC) regulations and violated public policy by performing
installation of the Directv Equipment on roofs and exterior walls
of Residential Dwelling Units ("RDUs") without securing prior
written/verbal permission from the Plaintiffs-Landlords and/or
putative class members, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Frintzilas was the owner and landlord of a RDU located
at 12 Forest Avenue, Glen Cove, NY 11542.

Directv has been engaged in the marketing and sales of Directv
satellite television service and the leasing and installation of
Directv antennae such as a satellite dish and or other equipment
designed for over-the-air reception of television broadcast
signals ("Equipment") in the State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Steven Bennett Blau, Esq.
   Shelly A. Leonard, Esq.
   Blau, Leonard Law Group, LLC
   23 Green Street, Suite 303
   Huntington, NY 11743
   Tel: (631) 458-1010
   Email: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com
          sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com


DIRECT ENERGY: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in "Richards"
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY W. RICHARDS, Plaintiff, v. DIRECT ENERGY
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:14 cv 1724 (VAB), (D. Conn.),
District Judge Victor A. Bolden granted the Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment and denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification as moot.

The case involves the Plaintiff, Gary Richards, filing a putative
class action against Direct Energy Services, LLC, asserting claims
that arise out of Direct Energy's business of supplying
electricity to residential customers.

The Court need not to determine the Plaintiff's class
certification motion having determined that the Defendant is
entitled to summary judgment on all of the Plaintiff's claims.
Thus, the motion for class certification was rendered moot.

A copy of the Court's Order dated March 31, 2017 is available at
https://goo.gl/CM0lXu from Leagle.com.

Gary W. Richards, Plaintiff, represented by Robert A. Izard, Jr. -
- rizard@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP.

Gary W. Richards, Plaintiff, represented by Craig A. Raabe --
craabe@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe LLP & Seth R. Klein --
sklein@ikrlaw.com -- Izard Kindall & Raabe.

Direct Energy Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Hutson B.
Smelley, Edison, McDowell & Hetherington LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael D. Matthews, Jr., Edison, McDowell & Hetherington, LLP,
pro hac vice, Robert P. Debelak, III, Edison, McDowell &
Hetherington LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas F.A. Hetherington, Edison,
McDowell & Hetherington LLP, pro hac vice, Joey Lee Miranda --
jmiranda@rc.com -- Robinson & Cole & Peter R. Knight, Robinson &
Cole, LLP.


DIRECTV LLC: Judge Will Not Decide on the Parties' Cross-Motions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied the parties' cross-
motions for summary judgment in the case styled JAMIE ARNOLD, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. DIRECTV, LLC, et al., Defendants, No. 4:10-CV-
352 JAR (E.D. Mo.).

DirecTV sells and provides digital television and audio
programming via satellite. After a customer signs up for DirecTV
service, technicians install the receiving equipment in the
subscriber's home or business.

Plaintiffs are former satellite installation and service
technicians classified as W-2 employees of one of DirecTV's three
Home Services Providers. The court conditionally certified
plaintiffs' FLSA claim to proceed as a collective action on four
FLSA subclasses, the MasTec, Inc., Multiband Corporation,
DirectSat USA, LLC and DirecTV Home Services. Plaintiffs have also
moved for Rule 23 class action certification to pursue their
Missouri state law claims on behalf of a subclass of DTV Home
Services II, LLC technicians. Plaintiffs allege that they and
other similarly situated technicians were jointly employed by
DirecTV under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201
et seq., and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law, Mo. Rev. Stat.
Sections 290.500 et seq., and claim entitlement to overtime
compensation from DirecTV for violations of the FLSA and MMWL.

DirecTV moves for summary judgment as to the named representatives
of the MasTec, Multiband and DirectSat subclasses on the grounds
that it was not their joint employer. DirecTV argues it did not
hire, fire, supervise, discipline, pay or provide benefits to
plaintiffs or keep their personnel files. Plaintiffs move for
partial summary judgment on DirecTV's employment relationship,
arguing that DirecTV operates a fissured employment scheme
designed to allow the company to shed its role as a direct
employer of its technicians while at the same time maintaining
tight control over their day-to-day work, from the uniforms they
wear to the method, manner, quantity, and quality of the work
performed.

Judge Ross denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment
as there are genuine disputes regarding the material facts
necessary to an analysis of the factors indicative of joint
employment. The court cannot make credibility and factual
determinations on a summary judgment motion.

A copy of Judge Ross's memorandum and order dated March 31, 2017,
is available at https://goo.gl/vKZY0A from Leagle.com.

Jamie Arnold and Clinton Feger, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew
W. Funk -- Crystal R. Cook -- cook@stuevesiegel.com -- George A.
Hanson -- hanson@stuevesiegel.com -- Lauren E. Luhrs --
luhrs@stuevesiegel.com -- at STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP; Bradford B.
Lear -- lear@learwerts.com -- Sander C. Sowers --
sowers@learwets.com -- Todd C. Werts -- werts@learwerts.com. -- at
LEAR WERTS LLP; Jesse B. Hearin, III -- JBHearin@HearinLLC.com --
at HEARIN, LLC; Michael G. Crow -- at CROW LAW FIRM, LLC; Jonathan
P. Lemann -- lemannjp@couhigpartners.com -- Robert E. Couhig, Jr.
-- couhigre@couhigpartners.com -- at COUHIG PARNTERS, LLC,

Robert Guice, Julienne Mertens, Steven Parr, and Robert Ellendorf,
Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew W. Funk --Crystal R. Cook --
cook@stuevesiegel.com -- George A. Hanson --
hanson@stuevesiegel.com -- at STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP; Bradford B.
Lear -- lear@learwerts.com -- Todd C. Werts --
werts@learwerts.com. -- at LEAR WERTS LLP

Christian Lang, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W.
Funk -- at STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP; George A. Barton -- at LAW
OFFICES OF GEORGE A. BARTON PC

Defendants, represented by Andrew Cahill Johnson --
anjohnson@littler.com -- James J. Oh -- joh@littler.com --
Patricia J. Martin -- pmartin@littler.com -- Jennifer C. Znosko --
jznosko@littler.com -- at LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Mayor Bowser Faces "Just-Buddy" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Muriel Bowser, mayor
of Washington D.C.  The case is titled as JOHN I. JUST-BUDDY, as
the Personal Representative of the Estate of LUCILLE L. JUST-
BUDDY, and DIONNE KINGSBURY, as the Personal Representative of the
Estate of RONALD KINGSBURY, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MURIEL BOWSER, in her
official capacity as Mayor of the District of Columbia, and LAURA
GREEN ZEILINGER, in her official capacity as the Director of the
District of Columbia Department of Human Services, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00625 (D.D.C., Apr. 7, 2017).

Washington, DC, the U.S. capital, is a compact city on the Potomac
River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.
[BN]


DYNAMIC PET: "Brown" Sues Over Real Ham Bone For Dogs' False Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Brown, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Dynamic Pet Products, LLC and Frick's Meat
Products, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00659-JAH-BLM (S.D.
Cal., April 1, 2017) seeks damages resulting from
misrepresentations and omissions made by Defendants regarding the
Real Ham Bone for Dogs in violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, despite knowing that the Real Ham Bone
For Dogs is dangerous and not appropriate for dogs, Defendants
expressly and impliedly represented and continue to represent on
the product label and on Dynamic's website and other marketing
that the Real Ham Bone For Dogs is "safe for your pet" and is
"meant to be chewed." It has failed to inform consumers of the
known dangers, and that the Real Ham Bone for Dogs is not safe and
that when used as directed may cause injury or death.
Defendants violated the Missouri MPA by engaging in deception,
fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair
practice and the concealment, suppression or omission of any
material fact in connection with the sale and advertisement of the
Real Ham Bone For Dogs in trade or commerce by, inter alia,
deceptive and misleading advertising and failing to warn consumers
and omitting material facts from its labeling, advertising and
marketing materials, says the complaint.

Frick's Meat Products, Inc. is a major meat product manufacturer
and supplies sausages and other prepared meats to food retailers
nationwide.

Dynamic is in the business of manufacturing and selling chew toys
for dogs.c[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
   Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
   Thomas J. O'Reardon, II, Esq.
   Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP
   701 B Street, Suite 1700
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: 619-338-1100
   Fax: 619-338-1101
   Email: tblood@bholaw.com
          lhurst@bholaw.com
          toreardon@bholaw.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Peterson" Suit in E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC. The case is entitled as Erika Peterson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00499-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal., Apr. 7, 2017). The case is assigned to
the Hon. Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIREMEN'S ANNUITY: Firefighter Retirees Sue over Benefit Hike
-------------------------------------------------------------
BANSLEY, MARK BENSON, PAUL J. BEZAZIAN, RICK W. BISKUP, SIDNEY L.
BLUSTAIN, NANCY A. BONKO, PHILLIP W. BOZEMAN, KEVIN BRANNIGAN,
SEAN W. BURKE, KEVIN G. BUTZEN, KEVIN P. BYRNE, MOSES CAJIGAS,
DAVID A. CALES, MICHAEL J. CARASOTTI, JAMES CARROLL, ROBERT CASEY,
WILLIS E. CHRISTIAN, VICTOR A. CIAPAS, JAMES P. CLARKE, THOMAS J.
CLEMENS, DANIEL COZZI, DANIEL CULLEN, JAMES B. CUMMINGS, JOHN
CZERWIONKA, BRUCE G. DAHM, LAGRANT K. DAVIS,
RAMON DE JESUS, TIMOTHY F. DELANA, PATRICK F. DILLON, THOMAS
DINNEEN, RICHARD A. DORY, KEVIN P. DOYLE, ROBERT D. DREYER, ROBERT
F. DUBBERKE, JAMES B. DUNLOP, JOHN L. DURKIN, CLINTON
ELMORE, DAVIS K. ENG, DANIEL P. FERGUSON, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. THE RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE FIREMANS ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND
OF CHICAGO, MICHAEL J. SHANAHAN, TIMOTHY MCPHILLIPS, DANIEL
FORTUNA, ANTHONY P. VASQUEZ, PETER O'SULLIVAN, ANNA VALENCIA,
ERIN KEANE, KURT A. SUMMERS, JR, and All as Trustees of the
FIREMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO, the Defendants,
Case No. 2017-CH-05036 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Apr. 6, 2017), seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as a review of annuity
decisions by the Retirement Board pursuant to the Illinois
Administrative Review Law, and other remedies that the Court may
allow.

Sometime between January 9, 2017 and March 1,2017, the Retirement
Board of the Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago,
implemented Public Act No. 99-0905 in a manner that denied certain
annuitants benefits they are entitled to under P.A. 99-0905 which
became effective November 30, 2016. The Retirement Board
calculated periodic cost-of-living adjustments, known as Annual
Automatic Increases, to the pension benefits of Plaintiffs and a
group of similarly situated firefighter retirees, in a manner
inconsistent with P.A. 99-0905 that resulted in the denial of
substantial present and future annuity benefits for the Plaintiffs
and these similarly situated firefighter retirees.

According to the Complaint, the Retirement Board ignored the
express terms of P.A. 99-0905, and the intent of the legislature
at the time of the passage of that Public Act and denied
Plaintiffs, who are among approximately 214 other similarly
situated firefighter retirees born in 1955 and 1956 who retired
prior to January 1,2016, of Automatic Annual Increases of 3% to
their annuity benefit for those years prior to January, 2017
during which they were retired and over the age of 55. Under P.A.
99-0905, Plaintiffs and those similarly situated firefighter
retirees are entitled to an automatic annual 3% increase for each
year since they attained the age of 55 or for every year after the
first anniversary of their retirement date, whichever is later.
The Retirement Board directed the Fund to calculate the benefits
to Plaintiffs and these similarly situated firefighter retirees
under P.A. 99-0905 in a manner which was substantially less than
the rate authorized under P.A. 99-0905.

Chicago Firemen's Annuity Benefit Fund provides long term
financial security services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick E. Deady, Esq.
          Robert Sugarman, Esq.
          HOGAN MARREN BABBO & ROSE, LTD.
          321 N. Clark Street, Suite 1301
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 946 1800


FLINT, MI: Judge Remands "Nappier" to Michigan Court of Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gordin J. Quist of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan, Southern Division, remanded the case styled
TAMARA NAPPIER, as mother and next fried of T.N., a minor child,
on behalf of T.N. and a class of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. RICHARD SNYDER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
CV-636 (W.D. Mich.).

As a cost-saving measure, the City of Flint switched its water
source from the City of Detroit water system to the Flint River.
In connection with the switch, officials discontinued corrosion-
control treatments required by the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) and added ferric
chloride, which increased the corrosivity of the Flint River
water, to reduce formation of trihalomethanes from organic matter.
Plaintiff Tamara Nappier, the mother and next friend of T.K., a
minor, alleges that defendants knew that the water pumped from the
Flint River was toxic and not fit for consumption, but nonetheless
assured the public that it was safe to drink. Plaintiff further
alleges that, in spite of defendants' assurances, T.K. experienced
an elevated blood lead level and suffered permanent brain damage
as a result of drinking water from the Flint River. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants were grossly negligent and/or negligent in
participating in, or facilitating, the switch to Flint River water
as the source of the City of Flint's water. Plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of all individuals who were minors, resided in
the City of Flint, and suffered brain damage as a result of
ingesting water supplied from the Flint River.

Plaintiff filed a putative class action case in the Michigan Court
of Claims on March 23, 2016, against Richard Snyder, Nick Lyon,
Eden Wells, Nancy Peeler, and Robert(State defendants), Stephen
Busch, Patrick Cook, Michael Prysby, Liane Shekter Smith, and
Bradley Wurfel and Darnell Early (MDEQ defendants) and Gerald
Ambrose. Plaintiff alleged a single substantive count of gross
negligence and/or negligence against all defendants arising out of
the water crisis in Flint, Michigan.

Busch removed the case to the Western District of Michigan,
Southern Division, pursuant to the federal-officer removal
statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1), alleging that pursuant to
the federal Safe Water Drinking Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. Section 300f
et seq. and the EPA's LCR, the EPA has delegated authority to the
MDEQ to act on its behalf and regulate public water drinking
systems and that defendant Busch took the actions alleged by
plaintiff in the course of fulfilling his duties delegated by the
EPA to the MDEQ. Defendant Busch alleged that he was standing in
the shoes of the EPA and taking actions which EPA would have
otherwise been required to take, and his alleged actions were
taken pursuant to EPA's oversight and guidance. Defendant Busch
also alleged that the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1441 because plaintiffs' claims are inextricably
intertwined with the construction, interpretation, and effect of
the SDWA and the LCR.

Judge Quist concludes that the MDEQ defendants were not acting
under any federal officer or agencies when they took the actions
set forth in the complaint, and thus were not entitled to remove
the case under the federal-officer removal statute. In addition,
the court concludes that it does not have jurisdiction under the
substantial federal question doctrine. Judge Quist will remand the
case to the Michigan Court of claims for lack of jurisdiction.

A copy of Judge Quist's opinion dated March 31, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/sxGh5F from Leagle.com.

Tamara Nappier, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth C. Thomson,
Hertz Schram PC -- lthomson@hertzschram.com -- Patricia A. Stamler
-- pstamler@hertzschram.com -- at Hertz Schram PC

Richard Snyder, Defendant, represented by Eugene Driker --
edriker@bsdd.com -- Morley Witus -- mwitus@bsdd.com -- Todd R.
Mendel -- tmendel@bsdd.com -- at Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker;
Margaret Bettenhausen -- Nathan A. Gambill -- Richard S. Kuhl --
Zachary C. Larsen -- at MI Dept Attorney General

Darnell Earley, Defendant, represented by Todd Russell Perkins --
plg@perkinslawgroup.net -- The Perkins Law Group PLLC

Gerald Ambrose, Defendant, represented by Barry Abba Wolf -- at
Barry A. Wolf, Attorney at Law, PLLC

Bradley Wurfel and Daniel Wyant, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Bradley Clare -- cclare@clarkhill.com -- Jay M. Berger
-- jberger@clarkhill.com -- Michael J. Pattwell --
mpattwell@clarkhill.com -- at Clark Hill PLC

Liane Shekter Smith, Defendant, represented by Michael H. Perry --
mperry@fraserlawfirm.com -- Robert Paul Vance --
pvance@fraserlawfirm.com -- Thaddeus E. Morgan --
tmorgan@fraserlawfirm.com -- at Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap
PC

Stephen Busch, Defendant, represented by Courtney Beth Ciullo --
cciullo@kotzsangster.com -- Dennis Egan -- degan@kotzsangster.com
-- Krista A. Jackson -- kjackson@kotzsangster.com -- Philip A.
Grashoff, Jr. -- pgrashoff@kotzsangster.com -- at Kotz Sangster
Wysocki PC

Patrick Cook and Michael Prysby, Defendants, represented by
Allison Marie Collins -- acollins@fosterswift.com -- Charles E.
Barbieri -- CBarbieri@fosterswift.com -- at Foster Swift Collins &
Smith PC

Nick Lyon and Eden Wells, Defendants, represented by Margaret
Bettenhausen -- Nathan A. Gambill -- Richard S. Kuhl -- Zachary C.
Larsen -- at MI Dept Attorney General

Robert Scott and Nancy Peeler, Defendants, represented by Michael
S. Cafferty -- at Michael S. Cafferty & Associates PC


FLORIDA: Class Action Aims to Restore Ex-Felons' Voting Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dee Thompson, writing for Florida Record, reports that a new
lawsuit by a group of ex-felons seeks to change the strict Florida
law that restricts voting rights for felons.  The seven plaintiffs
in the class action have sued Governor Rick Scott claiming the law
restricting their rights is unconstitutional. The case is filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

This suit was brought by the non-partisan Fair Elections Legal
Network on behalf of the seven plaintiffs.  It takes aim at the
process by which they can seek to regain their voting rights.
There is a backlog of more than 10,000 petitions to have voting
rights restored.  Over 1.6 million people in Florida have lost
their voting rights, as the South Florida Sun-Sentinel cited
research from The Sentencing Project.

In many states, those convicted of felonies find their voting
rights restricted.  Florida, however, strips all former felons of
voting rights.  In 2011, Scott and Republican lawmakers enacted
laws requiring felons to wait for five to seven years after their
sentences are completed before even applying to have their voting
rights reinstated.

The Sentencing Project estimates that across America 6.1 million
Americans have lost their voting rights.

"So few people had their rights restored during Gov. Scott's first
term that many others stopped applying," according to the
project's website.  "Applications for restoration of civil rights
under Gov. Scott have dropped by nearly 95% from former Gov.
Charlie Crist's administration."

Howard Simon is the Executive Director of the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida.  He describes the Florida laws
regarding voting rights as a holdover from the era immediately
after the Civil War.

"Florida was part of the Confederacy, and when the Civil War was
over it was necessary to re-do the Florida constitution,"
Mr. Simon told the Florida Record.  "It was necessary to extend
full rights of citizenship to all of the former slaves. A whole
structure was put in pace to comply with that requirement from the
federal government, but also to deprive the black community of
their political power.

"The aim was to take the vote away from as many black people as
possible.  It was called The Black Codes, enacted in the years
following the Civil War.  The system was put in place in the 1868
constitution.  That's the origin, but that's not where we are
today."

"Though the system was designed to take political power away from
black people, it now turns out that more white people in Florida
have been deprived of the right to vote, but black people are
disproportionately part of the disenfranchised population," Simon
said.

Mr. Simon takes a dim view of the lack of voting rights for
Florida felons.

"I think this is a scandalous situation," he said.  "Almost 10
percent of the entire adult population of Florida have been
permanently barred from being able to partake in our democracy,
barred from being able to vote unless they get clemency from the
governor and the cabinet, which is something that does not happen
that often.  The clemency board only meets four times a year, and
at the rate at which Florida convicts and incarcerates people, we
will never dig ourselves out of this situation.  This is the
unfinished business of the Civil Rights movement in Florida."

Mr. Simon said that Florida is one of a handful of states with
such strict voting rights restrictions for felons.

"There are only four states in the country -- Virginia, Kentucky,
Iowa and Florida -- whose constitutions mandate the loss of all
voting rights when convicted of any felony, for the rest of a
person's life," he said.  "In most places, if you're convicted of
a felony you lose your rights, but your rights are restored when
you've paid your debt to society and you've served all the terms
and conditions of your sentence, but in Florida, you lose your
rights for the rest of your life, unless they are restored by a
vote of the governor and the cabinet."

The ACLU is trying to end what it sees as an unfair and antiquated
system.

"The ACLU has a campaign underway for a proposed constitutional
amendment to end the system of lifetime felon disenfranchisement,"
Mr. Simon said.  "The proposed language for the constitutional
amendment is before the (Florida Supreme Court).  They hopefully
will come down with an opinion very soon. I'm very optimistic,
particularly since the Florida Attorney General did not oppose the
language for the amendment.

"If the Supreme Court approves it, then a movement can be
initiated," Mr. Simon continued.  "Almost a million signatures
will be required to get this on the ballot, either in 2018 or
2020. The only solution is to bring the Florida constitution into
the 21st century and to bring Florida, kicking and screaming, into
the 21st century, and end this provision that dates from the post-
Civil War era."


FORSTER GARBUS: "Feliciano" Suit Seeks to Certify Consumers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned GINGER I. FELICIANO, on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated, and LYNN ANTISTA, Consolidated
Plaintiff (Case. No. 2:15-cv-04338-CLW), the Plaintiffs, v.
FORSTER, GARBUS & GARBUS, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-02496-
CLW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order
certifying the case to proceed as a class action, and for final
approval of the settlement, on behalf of the following class:

   "all Consumers who reside in the State of New Jersey to whom
   Forster, Garbus & Garbus mailed a written communication during
   the period beginning April 7, 2014, and ending June 24, 2015,
   in an attempt to collect a debt on behalf of either Sallie Mae
   or LVNV Funding LLC, on a Credit One Bank credit card account
   which were mailed in a windowed envelope such that the file
   number or QR Code containing the file number associated with
   the Debt was visible from the outside of the envelope".

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qzQo1oX2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 200
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273 7117

               - and -

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN & THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1325
          Telephone: (973) 379 7500


FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Class Certification Bid Denied in "Briggs" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned HELEN BRIGGS, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
FREEPORT-MCMORAN COPPER & GOLD, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 5:13-cv-01157-M (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Micki Miles-
LaGrange entered an order:

   a. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
      brief in support;

   b. denying Plaintiffs' motion to exclude certain opinions of
      Dr. Barbara Beck;

   c. denying Defendants' motions to exclude Plaintiffs' Expert
      Mark Berkman and Brief in Support, to Exclude Opinions of
      Plaintiffs' Expert J. Berton Fisher and Brief in Support,
      and to Exclude Opinions of Plaintiffs' Expert Richard
      DeGrandchamp and Brief in Support; and

   d. denying Defendants' motion to strike rebuttal reports of
      Plaintiffs' Experts and Brief in support and Defendants'
      motion to strike second rebuttal report of Plaintiffs'
      Expert Richard DeGrandchamp as moot.

The action stems from Plaintiffs' allegations of continuous and
ongoing pollution and contamination in and around the City of
Blackwell, Kay County, Oklahoma. Plaintiffs allege the pollution
emanates from the Blackwell Zinc Smelter, which plaintiffs allege
Defendants own. The Blackwell Smelter began operations in 1916 and
ceased operations on May 17, 1972.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Blackwell Smelter has continued to
spread pollution throughout Blackwell from the beginning of its
operations until today. Plaintiffs further allege that smelters,
like the Blackwell Smelter, can cause air-polluting emissions and
that Defendants operated the Blackwell Smelter with no emission
controls.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fcbgbUP3


GEO: Detained Immigrants' Class Action Over Unpaid Labor OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Pauly, writing for Morther Jones, reports that when Carlos
Eliezer Ortiz Munoz arrived at the Denver Contract Detention
Facility in Aurora, Colorado, in 2014, he was given a clothing
package and assigned to a housing unit, where he'd have to stay
for months.  Like tens of thousands of other immigrants across the
country who are kept in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
detention each night, Ortiz and his fellow detainees were waiting
to see if they'd win their immigration cases or face deportation.

Before long, the private prison company that ran the detention
center put Ortiz to work.  Each day in his housing unit, guards
assigned a crew of six detainees to clean the private and common
living areas; scrub down toilets, showers, and eating tables; and
sweep and mop floors.  "None of us got paid anything," Ortiz said
in a court statement.  But he couldn't protest -- he knew he could
be sent to solitary confinement if he refused to do the cleaning.
"Some of the guards would threaten us by saying, 'Quieres ir al
hoyo?'" Ortiz said.  "'You want to go to the hole?'"

The GEO Group, the private prison company that operates Aurora,
allegedly forced more than 50,000 immigrants like Ortiz to work
without pay or for $1 a day since 2004, according to a lawsuit
that nine detainees brought against the company in 2014.  On
February 27, a federal judge ruled that their case could proceed
as a class action, breathing new life into a suit that exposes the
extent to which the for-profit company relied on cheap or unpaid
detainee labor to minimize costs at the Aurora facility.

"If we're right, and these practices are illegal, it has
tremendous implications on the ability of the government to use
detention in the immigration enforcement architecture," says
Andrew Free, an immigration attorney on the detainees' legal team.
"It would prompt a serious rethinking of whom to detain, and how
much it's going to cost."

GEO incarcerates more immigrants (and receives more public money
to do so) than any other detention center operator, according to
an analysis by the anti-detention group CIVIC.  And its business
detaining immigrants for ICE is only expected to grow "with this
increased and expanded approach to border security," CEO George
Zoley said in a February earnings call.

According to the lawsuit, there were two ways GEO cashed in on
cheap labor from detainees.  There was the facility's sanitation
policy, under which detainees like Ortiz were required to work as
janitors without pay.  If they didn't, they risked being punished
with solitary confinement, according to GEO's local detainee
handbook. Detainees could also apply for a job in Aurora's
voluntary work program, which paid them exactly $1 a day to keep
the facility running.

In a statement, GEO spokesman Pablo Paez wrote that GEO's
volunteer work program policies follow federal standards.  "We
have consistently, strongly refuted the allegations made in this
lawsuit, and we intend to continue to vigorously defend our
company against these claims," he said.  "The volunteer work
program at all immigration facilities as well as the minimum wage
rates and standards associated with the program are set by the
Federal government under mandated performance-based national
detention standards."

"The problem isn't the existence of the work program. The problem
is this inherently coercive relationship that makes the workers
uniquely vulnerable to exploitation and abuse."

ICE's standards for immigration detention centers say that
voluntary work programs are intended to give detainees
"opportunities to work and earn money while confined."  Yet David
Fathi, director of the ACLU's National Prison Project, says it's
questionable whether such programs are truly voluntary for people
"held in captivity, against their will."  While working may be a
positive outlet for incarcerated people, Fathi says, "the problem
isn't the existence of the work program. The problem is this
inherently coercive relationship that makes the workers uniquely
vulnerable to exploitation and abuse."

Some people in Aurora's program stripped and waxed floors, while
others did laundry, prepared food, cut hair, or worked in the
library.  Shifts lasted between three and eight hours, according
to a copy of Aurora's detainee work program policy, and detainees
were paid the same $1 no matter how long they were assigned to
work.

Lourdes Argueta volunteered. She was given a job as a janitor in
the medical unit, where she and other detainees "clean toilets,
sweep and mop floors, pull carpets and clean floors, clean
windows, remove trash, clean patients' rooms (including cleaning
up blood, feces and urine), and perform other cleaning tasks," she
said in a statement to the court.  She also worked in GEO's
booking area, creating new detainee files and putting together
packages of clothing for new detainees.

During a deposition, GEO's assistant business manager at Aurora
testified that if there were no "voluntary workers" like Argueta,
the company would need to bring in additional officers, paid at
hourly wages set by rules in GEO's contract, to get the same work
done. So how much would the company have to shell out if it didn't
rely on cheap detainee labor? Under GEO's contract with ICE, which
incorporated federal wage regulations, the lowest allowable
employee wage at the Aurora facility was $10.90 an hour for food
service workers.  A typical shift in the voluntary work program
lasted approximately seven hours, according to the detainee work
program policy -- so if GEO had hired additional employees to do
the work, it would have cost the company nearly $76.30 per shift.
(That's a lowball estimate, given that some detainees worked jobs
that would have paid significantly more.) Instead, they spent $1.

If GEO had hired employees to do those jobs instead, the company
would have spent more than $125,000 in wages and benefits that
month.  GEO's actual payments: $1,680.

That translates to huge cost savings.  Take, for example, November
2012, when detainees took hundreds of voluntary work program
shifts.  If GEO had hired employees to do those jobs instead, the
company would have spent more than $125,000 in wages and benefits
that month.  GEO's actual payments: $1,680.

That number only increases if you account for Aurora's sanitation
policy, under which all detainees in the facility did janitorial
work in the housing units for no pay, the lawsuit alleges.  GEO
employees doing the same work would have been eligible for $12.01
per hour in wages, under the company's contract with ICE.

"If GEO was absorbing all of the labor costs, its profit would be
less," explains Nina DiSalvo, executive director of Towards
Justice, one of the firms representing the detainees.
Andrew Free, the attorney, goes further: "It turns their profits
upside down," he claims.  "It would be a money-losing enterprise
if they had to pay the people to operate this facility under the
current contract." (Given that the Department of Homeland Security
pays an average of $126.46 per day to detain one immigrant, that
may not be a stretch.)

So how does the company get away with it? The "dollar a day"
policy dates back to 1978, when Congress passed an appropriations
bill funding voluntary detainee work programs, says Jacqueline
Stevens, the head of Northwestern University's Deportation
Research Clinic, whose research on detainee labor informed the
2014 suit.  But that was before the rise of private prison
companies, she adds -- and it was initially implemented in
government-run facilities, not those run by for-profit companies
beholden to shareholders. "GEO's privately held, so there's an
extra concern that they may be exploiting people in a way an
institution run by federal government would not be," Stevens
explains.

When immigrants inside Aurora filed grievances asking why they
weren't paid more, GEO's assistant business manager replied by
saying that ICE, not the company, set the daily rate.  But in
February's order, Colorado District Court Judge John Kane ruled
that while ICE only reimburses GEO for $1 per detainee shift, the
company could pay more if it wanted. (And in fact, in at least one
other location, it appears to have paid detainees more than the $1
ICE reimbursed it for, Stevens says.) While the detainees aren't
eligible for employment under GEO's contract, their lawsuit argues
that GEO "unjustly enriched" itself by misleading them about how
much it could pay.

While the detainees aren't eligible for employment under GEO's
contract, their lawsuit argues that GEO "unjustly enriched" itself
by misleading them about how much it could pay.
"By far the greatest expense of running any detention facility is
labor," Fathi says.  "GEO has got to be worried that if this
practice is unlawful at one facility, it's presumptively unlawful
at all facilities." If they lose, he adds, "they have to be
looking at not just what they would have to pay at Aurora."

The lawsuit also argues that the sanitation policy violated the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act, a modern anti-slavery statute.
To maintain cleanliness in the housing units, GEO used
housekeeping crews like the one Ortiz was assigned to when he
arrived at Aurora.  According to GEO's local detainee handbook,
refusing to clean was considered a "high moderate"-level offense
and was punishable by several possible sanctions, including up to
three days of so-called "disciplinary segregation": solitary
confinement.  Plaintiff Demetrio Valerga told the court in a
statement that he "did the work anyway because it was well known
that those who refused to do that work for free were put in 'the
hole.'"  With the sanitation policy in place, the company employed
just one janitor for the 1,500-bed facility.

ICE's own standards say detainees can't be required to work,
except for keeping "immediate living areas" neat: making their
beds, stacking loose papers, and keeping the floor and furniture
uncluttered.  Under questioning during a deposition, Aurora's
assistant warden of operations made it clear that GEO considered
all parts of the housing unit (bathrooms and day areas, as well as
cells) to be fair game.  Yet a federal watchdog agency recently
found that requiring detained immigrants to clean any common areas
used by all detainees was a violation of ICE standards.

"Imagine you see people being yelled at by guards and thrown in
solitary all the time," Free says.  "In order to avoid solitary
yourself, you have to maintain the sanitary nature of the facility
you're being housed in.  And then they say, 'If you want, we'll
pay you a dollar a day to do something else.  If you don't, you're
still going to work when we tell you to.' And the company that's
on the other end of this is making millions."


GILEAD GROUP: "Adams" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROWLAND JEFFERY ADAMS, on behalf of himself
and all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. GILEAD
GROUP, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, REALTIME RESULTS,
LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, DIANE KOPITSKY,
individually, and JOHN McFERRON, individually, the Defendants.
Case No. 3:16-cv-01566-HLA-JBT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to issue an Order:

   a. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "current and former Field Collection Agents or Retention
      Specialists who worked for Defendants from three years
      preceding entry of the parties' class-wide tolling
      agreement to the present";

   b. directing Defendants to produce to undersigned counsel
      within 14 days of the Order granting this Motion a list
      containing the names, the last known addresses, phone
      numbers, social security numbers, and e-mail addresses of
      putative class members who worked for Defendants from three
      years prior to the parties' class-wide tolling agreement;

   c. authorizing undersigned counsel to send notice and a
      reminder notice, to all individuals whose names appear on
      the list produced by Defendants' counsel by first-class
      mail and e-mail;

   d. requiring Defendants post a copy of the notice as approved
      by the Court, along with the Consent to become a Party
      Plaintiff attached to the notice, at each of Defendants'
      locations at which such potential class members are
      employed;

   e. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list
      produced by Defendants' counsel with 90 days from the date
      the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to
      Become Opt-In Plaintiff; and

   f. granting any other relief that is just and appropriate.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GLASSBORO, NJ: Faces Rental Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
NJ.com reports that there's a long history of spats involving the
Borough of Glassboro, Rowan University students who live in nearby
off-campus neighborhoods, landlords who rent to those students,
and long-term private homeowners who live in the same
neighborhoods.

Add to this four-headed monster a fifth head: a university that
has grown too quickly to provide on-campus residences for every
student that wants one.

So, the fact that another lawsuit was filed last month by some of
the parties evokes the movie "Groundhog Day" -- except that Bill
Murray and Andie MacDowell resolved their time-loop issues in a
different small town in 101 minutes.

This time, let's hope that there's an alternate ending for all
Glassboro stakeholders.

The March 20 class-action litigation continues the old dynamic,
but with a new discrimination claim.  The group that filed it
against the borough, "Glassboro Guardians," maintains that it is
made up of both students and rental-property owners.  While the
organization's name sounds as if Curtis Sliwa should lead it,
there's a novel wrinkle in the filing.

Glassboro Guardians' suit states that since 1971, Rowan's main
campus enrollment has grown from 6,000 to 16,000 students -- but
the housing available to students hasn't increased at nearly the
same pace, both on and off campus.  The university itself provides
housing to just 4,500 students, court papers state. In addition,
about 1,100 borough rental properties are occupied by 3,314
tenants, 80 percent of whom are college students.

The "discrimination" claim is that the borough has "selectively
enforced" various housing ordinances since the 1970s, some of
which were enacted just to "discourage, reduce and eliminate these
rentals to college students."

College students and landlords as a protected anti-discrimination
class? Really?  If that contention is dubious, the housing data
filed with the suit and the shortage it highlights are relevant.

Color us skeptical about the degree of genuine student involvement
in the suit.  Its demands for relief are typical of landlord
groups that have sued earlier: Glassboro's, oh, so burdensome
requirement for property owners to get a $160 rental license for
each unit; security lighting and inspection regulations that
aren't imposed on single-family homes that are rented to just one
family.

Excuse Glassboro for wanting to protect inexperienced 18- and 19-
year-olds who'd agree to live in an actual dump if the rent were
low enough.  Is the borough council supposed to put its fingers in
its ears when longtime, single-family homeowners turn up with
frequent to complaints about noise, partying and parking woes
(another key element in the lawsuit) that students inflict on
their neighborhoods?

The new question that the suit prompts is: "What is the
university's obligation?" Should Rowan have to stop adding student
spaces until it can offer enough housing to meet increased
enrollment? It's a good question, but one that could be answered
outside the courts.

The data make a compelling case that there's been insufficient
planning for on-campus housing and little effective coordination
for years between the borough and university about how to best
deal with a student-housing pinch.  Instead of going back and
forth about beer bottles on lawns, the next summit should be a
big-picture one on what all parties can do to ease the shortage or
keep it from getting worse.


GREATER HUME: Fire Victims' Class Action Opens in Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Grimson, writing for The Border Mail, reports that more than
50 victims of a 2009 fire that started in the Walla tip and blazed
through about 8000 hectares of land -- burning down buildings and
killing livestock -- are claiming damages against Greater Hume
Shire Council in a class action that began in the Supreme Court in
Wagga on April 3.

Damages have not yet been quantified by the plaintiffs, but it is
believed to be many millions of dollars.

Gerogery Fire victim Sharon Patricia Weber is the lead plaintiff
of 57 people who are suing the council and who are represented by
bushfire specialists, Maddens Lawyers.

The plaintiffs allege that had the tip been properly managed by
council and had proper firebreaks in place a blaze believed to
have been started by spontaneous combustion on Thursday, December
17, 2009, would not have escaped the tip.

The fire destroyed 800 sheep, 450 hectares of unharvested crop,
300 kilometres of fencing, 40 cattle, four horses and four
Gerogery houses.

Strong winds fanned the fire and made the job of containing the
blaze difficult.

The fire forced the suspension of some rail passenger services and
closed several roads.

Walla farmer Martin Jacob told the court on Monday that some
months before the fire his contract with council to maintain the
Walla tip with a traxcavator -- a piece of earth-moving equipment
-- was reduced from once a week to an hourly rate and that council
did not provide soil to cover refuse.

He said he asked a Greater Hume Shire Council employee whom he
dealt with what he should do if he could not get the refuse "down"
in the two-and-a-half hours a week he was allocated.

"He said 'just leave it there'," Mr Jacob said.

Asked about fire hazard reduction work by council at the tip,
Mr Jacob said there may have been slashing of grass about three
metres wide outside the tip fence.

Mr Jacob's property, Springvale, is about two kilometres from the
tip and within sight of the facility.

He told the court that after he was alerted to the blaze he got
sheep out of a paddock in the line of the fire before he then went
to the tip to join the fight against the blaze.

The hearing, before Justice Michael Walton, continues.

Evidence from local witnesses will be heard in the Wagga court.  A
viewing of the tip is also expected before the case is adjourned
to Sydney for two or three weeks of evidence from expert
witnesses.


GREYSTAR REAL: California Court Dismisses "Kohler" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JORDAN KOHLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE
PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-02195 JAH(KSC), (S.D.
Cal.), District Judge John A. Houston granted the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's class action complaint.

The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice and with
leave to amend. The Court noted that the Plaintiff may file an
amended complaint that cures the deficiencies within 30 days of
the filing of the Order dated March 31, 2017.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff's complaint fails to join the
necessary parties as any decision by the Court will impact the
property owner. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss for
failure to join is granted with leave to amend.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://goo.gl/pdKWEl
from Leagle.com.

Jordan Kohler, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew M. Loker,
Kazerouni Law Group, APC.

Jordan Kohler, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian,
Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Alexander Lim, Hyde & Swigart & Joshua
Swigart, Hyde & Swigart.

Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark
G. Rackers, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP & Shannon Z.
Petersen, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP.


HAIN CELESTIAL: "Arena" Sues BOD for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy Arena, as trustee of the UA 10-22-1996 Rudy Arena Revocable
Trust and Peter M. Hallock, Individually, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf
of nominal defendant, Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Plaintiffs, v.
Irwin D. Simon, Richard C. Berke, Andrew R. Heyer, Raymond W.
Kelly, Roger Meltzer, Scott M. O'Neil, Adrianne Shapira, Lawrence
S. Zilavy, Pasquale Conte, Michael B. McGuinness, Stephen J. Smith
and Ross Weiner, Defendants, Case No. 602881/2017, (N.Y. Sup.,
April 4, 2017), seeks damages sustained by the Company as a result
of the Individual Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties; an
order to the Director Defendants to convene and hold an annual
meeting of Hain Celestial stockholders; appropriate equitable
relief; costs and disbursements of this action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees; accountants' and experts' fees, costs,
expenses; and such other and further relief for breach of
fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith.

Hain Celestial is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Lake
Success, New York. It manufactures, markets, distributes and sells
organic and natural products. Plaintiff alleges internal control
failures and deficiencies, woeful compensation and corporate
governance practices in Hain Celestrial as well as constant
restatement of its financial statements, numerous SEC comment
letters and resignations of key executives.

Irwin D. Simon is the founder of Hain Celestial. Simon has been
President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of Hain
Celestial since the Company's formation in May 1993. Richard C.
Berke, Andrew R. Heyer, Raymond W. Kelly, Roger Meltzer, Scott M.
O'Neil, Adrianne Shapira, Lawrence S. Zilavy, Pasquale Conte,
Michael B. McGuinness, Stephen J. Smith and Ross Weiner are
members of the board of directors of Hain Celestial. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Shapiro, Esq.
      THE SHAPIRO FIRM, LLP
      500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
      New York, NY 10110
      Telephone: (212) 391-6464
      Facsimile: (212) 719-1616
      Email: rshapiro@theshapirofirm.com

             - and -

      Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
      Robin Winchester, Esq.
      Christopher M. Windover, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER AND CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Telephone: (610) 667-7706
      Facsimile: (610) 667-7056


HEWLETT PACKARD: "Delman" Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
Richard Delman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. and Nebraska
Merger Sub, Inc., Defendants, Index No. 54198/2017, was removed
from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 31,
2017.  The clerk of court assigned Case No. 7:17-cv-02358-KMK to
the proceeding.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company provides technology solutions
to business and public sector enterprises. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Peter C. Hein, Esq.
   Marc Wolinsky, Esq.
   Ishpuneet K. Chhabra, Esq.
   Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
   51 West 52nd Street
   New York, NY 10019
   Tel: (212) 403-1000
   Email: PCHein@wlrk.com


HYUNDAI: Santa Fe Engine Stall Class Action Settlement Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Hyundai Santa Fe engine stall class-action lawsuit is finally
settled and over as a federal judge gave final approval to the
settlement terms concerning 2010-2012 Hyundai Santa Fe SUVs.

The class-action lawsuit was filed by lead plaintiffs Julia
Reniger and Greg Battaglia who claim their SUVs kept stalling
without warning, causing problems with trying to steer and stop
the SUVs.

The plaintiffs allege Hyundai knew about the stalling problems but
concealed the information from consumers and making trips to
dealerships didn't help because dealers typically said the
problems couldn't be duplicated.

In the case of Julia Reniger, she claims numerous dealer visits
did nothing to help and she finally traded in the Santa Fe.  The
dealer had changed the battery and worked on the throttle body,
but Ms. Reniger claims the SUV continued to stall while traveling
at various speeds.

Throughout the years, Hyundai Santa Fe owners have complained
about their engines stalling at every speed, including highway
speeds where stalling engines can raise hell with other drivers.

"I have a 2012 Santa Fe that stalls on the freeway at speeds of
60-80mph.  This has happened at least every couple of weeks since
I bought this POS car back in March 2013.  I've taken it in
numerous times.  Of course, they cannot replicate the error.  I
actually have video of me driving on the freeway with NO RPMs and
while keeping my foot pressed all the way down on the accelerator,
got the car back up to 70 with ZERO RPMs.  How the hell does that
happen? Dealer thinks I'm nuts." - 2012 Hyundai Santa Fe owner /
Gilbert, Arizona

"In October 2015, my 2011 Hyundai Santa Fe lost acceleration while
going 70 mph in the left lane.  We could have been killed, but
were able to flag cars to slow down so we could coast to the right
side of the highway to stop.  This is the second time this has
happened. . . . Hyundai appears to want to wait until someone dies
before fixing it.  Hyundai won't do a buyback for me. I read that
there was a class action lawsuit regarding the stalling in CA, but
don't know it's status." - 2011 Hyundai Santa Fe owner /
Strawberry Plains, Tennessee

A previous customer service campaign told owners the problem only
occurs when a specific set of operating conditions are present and
the SUVs can be restarted once they stall, claims the plaintiffs
say are false.

With the 2010-2012 Hyundai Santa Fe engine stall class-action
lawsuit finalized by the court, the automaker agrees to reimburse
customers on a claims-made basis for out-of-pocket costs if the
customer's SUV experienced a documented stall.  In addition, a
software update will be available for free for 10 years after the
date the SUVs were sold as new.

In addition, the automaker will provide a special cash incentive
on a claims-made basis to customers who wish to replace their
Santa Fe SUVs.

Hyundai is also offering an enhanced rebate program that provides
rebates from $500 to $2,000 for customers who experienced two
documented stall events.

For those who experienced one documented stall event, Hyundai is
offering a rebate of $250 to $1,000 on the purchase or lease of a
new Hyundai vehicle, depending upon the specific new vehicle
purchased or leased.

Finally, any dealer or customer incentives that otherwise would be
available to customers at the time of the new vehicle purchase or
lease will remain available notwithstanding availability of the
rebate certificate or enhanced rebate certificate.

The Hyundai Santa Fe engine stall class-action lawsuit was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
- Julia Reniger, Greg Battaglia, Oren Jaffe, Lucia Saitta and Ann
Mancuso, et al, v. Hyundai Motor America and Hyundai Motor
Company.

The plaintiffs are represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.


JOS. A. BANK: "Leese" Suit Moved to New Jersey Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MICHAEL LEESE, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, v. JOS.
A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. BUR L 437 17, was
removed on April 7, 2017 from the Superior Court of New Jersey, to
the U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey (Camden). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-02407 to the
proceeding.

Joseph A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., also known by the abbreviated name
JoS. A. Bank Clothiers, is a retailer of men's clothing,
particularly known for its low-priced men's suits. [BN]


LANNETT CO: NY Local Fund Allege Price Fixing of Levothyroxine
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York City, Local 246, S.E.I.U. Welfare Benefits Fund; New York
City, Local 246, S.E.I.U. Retirees Welfare Benefits Fund;
Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund; Teamsters Local 237 Retirees
Benefit Fund; Teamsters Local 237 Brentwood School District Health
and Welfare Trust Fund; Teamsters Local 237 North Babylon School
District Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Teamsters Local 237
Suffolk Regional Off-Track Betting Corp. Health and Welfare
Trust Fund; Teamsters Plainview Old Bethpage Central School
District Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Uniformed Sanitationmen's
Association Security Benefit Fund; and Uniformed Sanitationmen's
Association Retirees Welfare Fund; individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lannett Company,
Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sandoz, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-02467 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2017), alleges that
Defendants, directly and through their agents, engaged in a
conspiracy affecting all states to fix and inflate prices of
generic levothyroxine, which unreasonably restrained trade and
adversely affected the market for generic levothyroxine.

The Defendants are pharmaceuticals companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
     Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
     Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
     Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
     Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
     Bruce W. Leppla, Esq.
     Michelle A. Lamy, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
     Phone: (415) 956-1000
     Fax: (415) 956-1008
     Email: ecabraser@lchb.com
            rheimann@lchb.com
            efastiff@lchb.com
            bglackin@lchb.com
            dharvey@lchb.com
            bleppla@lchb.com
            mlamy@lchb.com

        - and -

     Daniel E. Seltz, Esq.
     Annika K. Martin, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10013-1413
     Phone: (212) 355-9500
     Fax: (212) 355-9502
     Email: dseltz@lchb.com
            amartin@lchb.com

        - and -

     Dan Drachler, Esq.
     Robert S. Schachter, Esq.
     Joseph Lipofsky, Esq.
     Sona Shah, Esq.
     ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
     41 Madison Ave.
     New York, NY 10010
     Phone: (212) 223-3900
     Fax: (212) 371-5969
     Email: ddrachler@zsz.com
            rschacter@zsz.com
            jlipofsky@zsz.com
            sshah@zsz.com


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Faces "Kennedy" Suit over Pilots Salary
--------------------------------------------------------
SEAN KENNEDY, individual; ANDREW SNIDER; individual, CHRISTOPHER
WARD; individual, RANDALL WESTON, individual; RONALD WILLIAMSON,
individual the Plaintiffs, v. LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP., a Domestic
Corporation; SANDS AVIATION, LLC, a Domestic Limited-Liability
Company; LAS VEGAS SANDS, LLC, a Domestic LimitedLiability
Company; INTERFACE OPERATIONS LLC, a Foreign Limited-Liability
Company, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00880-JCM-VCF (D. Nev.,
Apr. 6, 2017), seeks to recover monetary damages to redress the
deprivations of rights secured to Plaintiffs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA).

The Plaintiffs are residents of Las Vegas, in the County of Clark,
in the State of Nevada. The Plaintiffs were employees of
Defendants as company pilots. The Defendants contend that
Plaintiffs have entered agreements relating to their employment
with all the Defendants and their associated entities.

The Defendants allegedly maintained illegal pay policies that
denied Plaintiffs compensation for all hours worked, including
overtime hours. Defendants knew that Plaintiffs were not getting
paid for all the hours for which they were entitled to payment.

Las Vegas Sands is a pre-eminent developer and operator of world-
class Integrated Resorts that feature luxury hotels.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andre M. Lagomarsino, Esq.
          LAGOMARSINO LAW
          3005 West Horizon Ridge Parkway, Suite 241
          Henderson, NE 89052
          Telephone: (702) 383 2864
          Facsimile: (702) 383 0065


LOUISIANA: Livingston Parish School Board Joins Flood Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Olsen, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that the
Livingston Parish School Board recently voted in a unanimous
decision to join a class-action lawsuit against the Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development as well as the
company responsible for constructing Interstate 12.

The suit, filed Jan. 5 in Baton Rouge, alleges that the
construction of a median on the interstate worsened flooding that
occurred in August damaging several of the parish's schools.  The
Livingston Board voted Jan. 19 to join the suit, The Advocate
reported.

The school board joins the cities of Denham Springs and Walker in
seeking damages.  The plaintiffs' goal is to prove that the
concrete median acted as a dam during torrential rain fall last
autumn that impeded the water's natural flow causing significant
damage to public buildings when the water finally did break
through.

Louisiana's transportation department intends to use the same
design for the highway's expansion project, a plan that attorney
Joshua Palmintier hopes will stop the suit, though it would take a
court order to do so, he told The Advocate.

Livingston Parish Public Schools Superintendent Rick Wentzel had
previously joined the lawsuit and encouraged the school board to
officially enter as well.  The vote was presented at the school
board's regularly scheduled meeting.  The plaintiffs hope that the
addition of the district, which suffered significant enough damage
for three schools to have them remained closed well into the
second semester, will help the case.

In addition to the schools, several other buildings including area
residences and businesses sustained damage.  The cities
represented in the suit maintain that the damages are impeding tax
collections causing a negative financial impact.  The plaintiffs
fear that if the 12-mile continuation of the median is completed,
the construction will create an even more-disastrous situation for
the community in the event of another flood.

Mr. Palmintier and his team have enlisted the help of hydrologists
to investigate and generate evidence of the median's construction
flaws.


LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Winehouse" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LTD Financial
Services, LP. The case is styled as Isaac Winehouse, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. LTD Financial Services, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
02038 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 7, 2017). The case is

LTD Financial is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (516) 668 6945
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


MAIBEC INC: Class Certification Bid Denied in "Stern" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ILENE STERN and MELISSA McCAFFREY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. MAIBEC INCORPORATED, the Defendant, Case No. 3:11-
cv-03951-PGS-TJB (D.N.J.), the Hon. Peter G. Sheridan entered an
order:

   a. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   b. granting Defendant's motion to exclude expert testimony of
      Plaintiffs' expert Mr. Dean Rutila;

   c. denying Plaintiffs' motion to exclude expert testimony of
      Defendant's expert Dr. Barry Goodell;

   d. granting Plaintiffs' motion to exclude expert testimony of
      Defendant's expert Mr. Jan Kalas; and

   e. denying Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiffs' new
      arguments and documents submitted in reply on motion for
      class certification or in the alternative for permission to
      tile sur-reply.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XN9oIPW7


MAYNE PHARMA: Amended Class Cert. Bid Denied in Glen Ellyn Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Samuel Der-Yeghiayan entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, Inc., the Plaintiff, v. Mayne
Pharma, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06654 (N.D.
Ill.), striking Plaintiff's amended motion for class
certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 28, 2017,
status hearing previously set for May 18, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. will
stand.

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


MIDAN REST: Court Grants Final Approval of Settlement in "Manley"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted Plaintiffs' motions
for final approval of settlement agreement and settlement class in
the case captioned, EDWARD MANLEY, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MIDAN REST. INC.
d/b/a "Moran's Chelsea," et al., Defendants, Case No. 14 Civ. 1693
(HBP) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Edward Manley, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, commenced the action pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq., and
New York Labor Law (NYLL) Sections 190 et seq. against defendants
Midan Rest. Inc., doing business as Moran's Chelsea, and Colleen
Lydon to recover unpaid wages, spread-of-hours pay, unlawful
deductions and penalties for failure to provide wage statements
and notices. Manley commenced the action as a collective action
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) with respect to the FLSA
claims and as a class action with respect to the NYLL claims.

In June 2015, the parties engaged in an arm's-length negotiation
during a thirteen-hour mediation session with mediator Ruth
Raisfeld, Esq. The Settlement Agreement provides that defendants,
without conceding the validity of plaintiffs' claims or admitting
liability, agree to create a common settlement fund of $912,500.
From the settlement fund, Manley will receive a $15,000.00 service
award, the settlement claims administrator will receive an
estimated $15,500.00 to set up and make distributions from the
fund and counsel for plaintiffs will receive out-of-pocket costs
and attorneys' fees, not to exceed 33-1/3 percent of the total
settlement amount, subject to the Court's approval.

On March 30, 2016, the Court conditionally certified the NYLL
class, appointed Pechman Law Group PLLC as class counsel,
preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement and authorized the
notice of settlement to all putative class and collective members.
On August 1, 2016, plaintiffs filed the pending motion for final
approval.

In his Opinion and Order dated March 27, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/7I4JS5 from Leagle.com, Magistrate Pitman concluded
that the settlement is procedurally fair pursuant to Rule 23(e)
and all the relevant factors weigh in favor of settlement.

Jennifer Kuehn, et al. are represented by Louis Pechman, Esq. --
pechman@pechmanlaw.com -- and -- Vivianna Alexandra Morales, Esq.
-- morales@pechmanlaw.com -- PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC

Midan Rest. Inc. and Colleen Lydon are represented by Robert N.
Swetnick, Esq. -- rswetnick@evw.com -- EATON & VAN WINKLE, LLLP --
Adam Simeon Gross, Esq. -- Adam.Gross@jacksonlewis.com -- and --
Felice B. Ekelman, Esq. -- EkelmanF@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON
LEWIS P.C.


MILLER & STARK: Class Certification Bid in "Zolandz" Suit Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CYNTHIA ZOLANDZ, the Plaintiff, v. MILLER
STARK KLEIN & ASSOCIATES and ICOLLECT.COM, INC, the Defendants,
Case No. 16-CV-1163 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin
entered an order terminating motion for class certification for
administrative purposes.

The Court said, "The plaintiff filed what the court commonly
refers to as a "protective" or "placeholder" motion to certify a
class. Concurrently the plaintiff requested to stay briefing on
the motion. The Court grants plaintiff's motion to stay briefing
on this motion. However, the court regards the motion as pending
to the extent a pending motion is required to satisfy the
plaintiff's intended protective purpose in light of Damasco v.
Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), and Campbell-Ewald
Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016).

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


MINNESOTA: Sex Offenders to Bring Class Action to Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Rogers, writing for KEYC Mankato, reports that lawyers in
the class-action lawsuit on behalf of 700 sex offenders say they
will be bringing the case to the United States Supreme Court.  In
2015, district judge Donovan Frank declared the sex offenders
program unconstitutional, because only a handful of offenders had
won provisional releases.

The court of appeals reversed Judge Frank's decision in January.
Now, the lawyers for the sex offenders say it's not practical to
proceed and draw up remedies until there is a final resolution
decided in the Supreme Court.

"Some of them are very intelligent people.  It's just something
clicked, where they can't fix it and all we can do is manage them.
And that's what we have to be worried about.  When do we release
them into the community and when it is safe and that what I think
the Supreme Court will base their decision on," Rep. Tony Cornish
said.

Rep. Cornish recently authored a bill pushing to strengthen laws
when it comes to predatory offenders.


MONSANTO COMPANY: 6 Suits Filed in Del. Over Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in six different lawsuits seek to recover
compensatory damages as a result of Plaintiff's use of, and
exposure to, Roundup (TM) which caused or was a substantial
contributing factor in causing Plaintiff to suffer from cancer,
specifically NHL, and Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer,
severe and personal injuries which are permanent and lasting in
nature, physical pain and mental anguish, including diminished
enjoyment of life.

The 6 lawsuits are captioned as:

DAVID BORROWMAN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. N17C-03-264-FWW (Del. Super. Ct., Apr. 6,
2017).

MIGUEL AGUILAR, Plaintiff v. the MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. N17C-03-259-ALR (Del. Super. Ct., Apr. 6, 2017).

RICHARD AIRD, Plaintiff v. the MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. N17C-03-261 (Del. Super. Ct., Apr. 6, 2017).

STEPHEN BODEN, Plaintiff v. the MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. N17C-03-262-PRW (Del. Super. Ct., Apr. 6, 2017).

TAMMY MCINTOSH, Plaintiff v. the MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. N17C-03-268-AML (Del. Super. Ct., Apr. 6, 2017).

THEODORE STEINHORST, Plaintiff v. the MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. N17C-03-269-WCC (Del. Super. Ct., Apr. 6, 2017).

The lawsuits are action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a
direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.

Each of the lawsuits claimd that the Plaintiff's injuries, like
those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the
country, were avoidable.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is
headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Raeann Warner, Esq.
          JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A.
          750 Shipyard Drive, Suite 200
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 656 5445
          E-mail: Raeann@jcdelaw.com


MULTICHOICE NIGERIA: Dstv Subscription Fees Increase Despite Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oladeinde Olawoyin, writing for Premium Times, reports that
Nigerians have reacted with anger to the decision of satellite
television provider, Multichoice Nigeria, to increase its Dstv and
GOtv subscription fees by five percent.

The decision, coming just over a year after a 20 per cent raise,
was announced via text messages to subscribers on April 1.  It
will take effect from May 1.

Subscribers slammed the company, accusing it of insensitivity
given the current economic crisis that has made life difficult.
A Facebook user, Chukwudi Iwuchukwu, said, "I just got this SMS
from DSTV (containing notification of a price adjustment on
Premium package fee which has changed from N13,980 to N14,700
effective 1 May 2017). Time to stop watching DSTV."

Another subscriber, Rosy Chic, commenting on the planned hike,
called for a protest.  She also suggested that the Nigerian
parliament should be informed about the issue too.

"Let's protest and tag NASS," she posted on Facebook.

Other subscribers, however, called for a boycott of the service
provider and suggested alternative platforms.

Okechukwu Nwoye said, "Our government is not helping matters at
all.  Why can't Nigeria have her own? We can call it any name and
buy all those rights."

Another Facebook user, Sharp Adekunle, lamented what he alleged to
be the complicity of Nigerian leaders and the Dstv operators.

"When your leaders are their number one beneficiaries, what do you
expect? Even if you go to court, they have their seeds planted
there," he posted.

But the Managing Director, Multichoice Nigeria, John Ugbe, said
the decision was made after careful consideration into the market
and review of its business operations.

"We announced last year that we would do everything possible to
hold the price barring any extreme factors," he said in a press
statement.

"However, all our content is purchased in dollars and although we
have done everything possible to hold the prices even with the
price of everything else going up, we are now left with no choice
but to adjust our subscription prices from 1 May," he added.

"Our key priority is to put subscribers' needs at the heart of
everything we do and therefore, in determining the price
adjustment, we took into account many factors including, the
impact on the customer, current inflation which stands at 19 per
cent, programming costs and efficiencies within the company.

"Please be assured that we have worked really hard to keep this
year's fees manageable," he said.

In April 2015, Multichoice announced a twenty percent increase in
subscription fee across all its packages, amid public outrage.

In response, two Lagos-based lawyers, Oluyinka Oyeniji and Osasuyi
Adebayo, initiated a class action on behalf of millions of
Nigerians who criticised the new subscription rates as
exploitative and insensitive.

The duo sought the order of the court to stop MultiChoice or its
agents from implementing the 20 per cent hike in the fees charged
subscribers.

The protracted legal battle failed to effect any change.


MYPILLOW INC: Class Action Over BOGO Ads Pending in Oregon
----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Hawkins, writing for Lebanon Democrat, reports that during the
past several years, many Americans have seen infomercials
promoting a Minnesota-made product called "My Pillow."

My Pillow, Inc. has recently faced California and Oregon lawsuits
that alleged false and deceptive advertising.

The first My Pillow case addressed false advertising using
unsupported medical claims.  The second My Pillow case deals with
deceptive "BOGO" or buy one, get one free promotions.

Q. What happened in the first case involving My Pillow and
unsupported medical claims?

Consumers complained that My Pillow, Inc. used misleading claims
in its ads.  The company's website included testimonials claiming
that My Pillow had the ability to help alleviate or lessen
anxiety, migraines, acid reflux, menopause, multiple sclerosis,
cerebral palsy and post-traumatic stress disorder, all without any
scientific evidence.

The state of California's Food, Drug and Medical Device Task Force
sued to force My Pillow to stop its use of deceptive advertising.

My Pillow settled the case and paid $995,000 in penalties, and
donated $100,000 to nonprofit California agencies that deal with
homelessness and domestic violence.  My Pillow also agreed to stop
making or using any claims not supported by competent and reliable
scientific evidence.

Q. What is involved in the second case about false BOGO ads?

In Oregon, customers have filed a pending federal class action
lawsuit which claims that they were tricked by My Pillow's BOGO
advertising.

The lawsuit states that customers were led to believe they were
buying a first My Pillow at the regular price, and then getting a
second My Pillow for free.

Instead, the customers later learned that they had been charged at
or near the combined regular price for two pillows.

The Better Business Bureau has now revoked the accreditation of My
Pillow and has downgraded its rating from "A" to "F" because of
the many complaints of false advertising.

James B. "Jim" Hawkins is a Tennessee general practice and public
interest law attorney. This column represents legal information,
and is not intended to take the place of legal advice.  All cases
are different and need individual attention.  Consult with a
private attorney of your choice to review the facts and law
specific to your case. Please call 615-452-9200 to suggest topics
or questions for future columns.

NATROL LLC: "Stakutis" Sues Over Biotin Supplement Labels
---------------------------------------------------------
Erica Stakutis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Natrol, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01865, (N.D. Cal., April 4,
2017), seeks injunctive relief, a corrective advertising campaign,
attorneys' fees and costs and such further relief for violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions
Code and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Defendant manufactures, markets, sells, and distributes biotin
supplements, namely Biotin 5000 mcg Fast Dissolve, Biotin 10,000
mcg Maximum Strength, and Biotin 10,000 mcg Fast Dissolve. It's
labelling indicates "promotes healthy hair and strong nails."
Plaintiff argues that the body only needs a finite amount of
biotin on a daily basis, and does not subscribe to the notion of
"more is better" in the case of biotin, thus said biotin
supplements sold by Defendant are unneeded, superfluous and will
not provide any further benefits that are derived from the average
daily diet, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
     Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
     BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
     600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 798-4593
     Email: psyverson@bffb.com
            mmuecke@bffb.com

            - and -

     Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
     Carrie A. Laliberte, Esq.
     BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
     2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300
     Phoenix, AZ 85016
     Telephone: (602) 274-1100
     Email: eryan@bffb.com
            claliberte@bffb.com

            - and -

     Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
     Michael Chang, Esq.
     17 North State Street
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 236-0000
     Email: sweltman@siprut.com
            mchang@siprut.com


NEW JERSEY: "Wolf" Suit Transferred from S.D.N.Y. to D.N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled KARIN WOLF in propria persona; D
and G (by mother and next friend Karin Wolf); and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY;
COUNTY OF BERGEN, NEW JERSEY; NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF
THE COURTS; STUART RABNER, Chief Justice, in his official capacity
as Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court; PETER DOYNE,
Judge, in his official capacity as Judge of the Bergen County
Court; BONNIE J. MIZDOL, Judge, in her official capacity as Judge
of the Bergen County Court; WILLIAM R. DELORENZO, Judge, in his
official capacity as Judge of the Bergen County Court; JUDGE
GERALD C. ESCALA, Judge, in his official capacity as Judge of the
Bergen County Court; KATHY KATONA, ESQ., in her official capacity
as court mediator of the Bergen County Court; Peter Van Aulen,
Esq.; DR. JUDITH BROWN GREIF; BERGEN FAMILY CENTER; Northeast New
Jersey Legal Services; NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES; DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY; and FULL
CIRCLE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01624 (filed Mar. 3,
2017), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (Newark) on Mar. 30, 2017. The New Jersey
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02072 to the
proceeding.

New Jersey is a northeastern U.S. state with some 130 miles of
Atlantic coast. Jersey City, across the Hudson River from Lower
Manhattan, is the site of Liberty State Park, where ferries embark
for nearby Ellis Island, with its historic Immigration Museum, and
the iconic Statue of Liberty. The Jersey Shore includes notable
resort towns like historic Asbury Park and Cape May, with its
preserved Victorian buildings.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Jacoby & Meyers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment
of the district court dismissing, for failure to allege the
infringement of any cognizable constitutional right, the complaint
filed by Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, a limited liability partnership,
and Jacoby & Meyers USA II, PLLC, a related professional limited
liability company, challenging New York's rules, regulations, and
statutes prohibiting non-attorneys from investing in law firms.

The Plaintiffs assert that, were they able to do so, they would
act on that ability in the interests of the potential clients.
Because the laws currently restrict their ability to accomplish
those goals, they maintain, the state regime unlawfully interferes
with their rights as lawyers to associate with clients and to
access the courts--rights they see as grounded in the First
Amendment.

In 2011, the LLP sued the Presiding Justices of the New York
Supreme Court's Appellate Divisions (who administer Rule 5.4) and
others, asserting that the rule violates the First and Fourteenth
Amendments and the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution.  After an amendment of the complaint, a dismissal
for lack of standing, and a successful appeal to the Second
Circuit with respect to standing, the case was remanded to the
District Court, at which point the J&M Firms filed a second
amended complaint that attempted to articulate a constitutional
challenge to the entire New York regulatory regime.

The District Court again granted the state's motion to dismiss
holding that the J&M Firms' amended complaint failed to state a
claim for a violation of any constitutional right.

On appeal, the J&M Firms abandon many of the constitutional
challenges asserted in their prior complaints, and press only the
argument that New York's prohibition of non-lawyer investment in
law firms infringes their First Amendment rights to petition and
to association.

In an Order dated March 24, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/vtzbYW from Leagle.com, the Second Circuit held that
the J&M Firms they have failed to state a claim for relief because
they have neither plausibly alleged that they possess any First
Amendment rights implicated here nor that any First Amendment
right they might generously be assumed to have has been infringed.

The J&M Firms have no claim to the First Amendment rights of
association and petition that the Supreme Court has recognized in
political advocacy groups or in individuals seeking the
vindication of their own rights through not-for-profit counsel,
the Second Circuit held.  And the New York regulations at issue
here have at most an attenuated effect on the availability of
attorney services to the population at large, the Second Circuit
added.

The appeals case is JACOBY & MEYERS, LLP, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND
ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED ENTITIES AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE LAW
IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK; JACOBY & MEYERS USA II, PLLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE PRESIDING JUSTICES OF THE FIRST,
SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH DEPARTMENTS, APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN;
DIANE MAXWELL KEARSE, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF COUNSEL
FOR THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE SECOND, ELEVENTH AND
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTS; GARY L. CASELLA, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS CHIEF COUNSEL FOR THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT; GREGORY A. GREEN, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS CHIEF COUNSEL FOR THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT; GREGORY J. HUETHER, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS CHIEF COUNSEL FOR THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE
FIFTH, SEVENTH AND EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTS; PETER M. TORNCELLO,
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF ATTORNEY FOR THE COMMITTEE ON
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME
COURT, THIRD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT; MONICA DUFFY, Defendants-
Appellees, Case No. 15-2608 (2nd Cir.).

Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, et al. are represented by Douglas Gregory
Blankinship, Esq. -- GBLANKINSHIP@FBFGLAW.COM -- FINKELSTEIN,
BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP

Eric T. Schneiderman, et al. are represented by:

      Andrew Rhys Davies, Esq.
      Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
      Steven C. Wu, Esq.
      OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL
      120 Broadway Fl 25
      New York, NY 10271-0002
      Tel: (212) 416-8018


NORTHERN DYNASTY: "Schubert" Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------
Harry Schubert, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd., Ronald
William Thiessen and Marchand Snyman, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-02437 (S.D. N.Y., April 4, 2017) seeks damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Northern Dynasty engages in the exploration and development of
mineral properties in the United States. Its principal property is
the Pebble copper-gold-molybdenum mineral project located in
southwest Alaska. Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that the
said Pebble Project carries a negative net present value, is not
commercially viable, and is a low-grade deposit.

On this news, Northern Dynasty's share price fell $0.68, or
21.38%, to close at $2.50 on February 14, 2017. Plaintiff owns
Northern Dynasty stock. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

              - and -

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

             - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


OKLAHOMA: Federal Court Takeover of DHS Worst-Case Scenario
-----------------------------------------------------------
EnidNews.com reports that five years ago, we suggested legislators
needed to give the Pinnacle Plan a chance.

The proposed "overhaul" was a reaction to the deaths of several
children in state custody.

Oklahoma's longtime Department of Human Services director had
retired in 2012 after the state settled a class-action lawsuit
over the safety of foster children.

That settlement required major changes in the child welfare system
in the areas of child abuse and neglect, adoption, caseworker
visitation and workloads, and foster care.

As part of the settlement, DHS has prepared the Pinnacle Plan, a
series of reforms costing an additional estimated $100 million
over the next five years.

Every six months, a team checks and reports on our state's
progress.  If those monitors don't believe certain goals are
achieved, Oklahoma can be sued again and face even more stringent
sanctions.

"Having a federal court come in and take over our DHS system is
the worst possible solution because then it completely ties our
budgetary hands and would require us to spend money that we really
don't have," said House Minority Leader Scott Inman, D-Del City.
But, he said that could be a reality if Pinnacle Plan funding is
slashed to balance the budget.

State lawmakers have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into
bolstering the program to comply with the settlement.

Specifically, the state has hired nearly 900 new caseworkers and
supervisors, boosted the pay for those workers over three years
and increased reimbursement rates for foster families in an effort
to incentivize more Oklahomans to shelter displaced youth.
However, possible budget cuts are putting all that in jeopardy.

And it would be impossible to protect the program if a proposed 14
percent cut were to occur.

House Minority Leader Scott Inman, D-Del City, has warned such a
reduction could force a federal court to take over our DHS system.

A worst-case scenario, that outcome would tie our budgetary hands
and would require us to spend money that we really don't have.

We hope Pinnacle Plan funding remains a top priority for the
Oklahoma Legislature.


OMNICARE INC: May 2 Case Management Conference Set in "Esomonu"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IJEOMA ESOMONU, Plaintiff, v. OMNICARE,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-02003-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denied the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement and further set a
Case Management Conference on May 2, 2017.

The Court noted that the settlement agreement does not require the
Plaintiff to file a motion or any declaration before being awarded
$10,000 for her general release. Even if the Court ultimately
rejects the $5,000 enhancement award, the Court finds that an
award to Plaintiff of $10,000 compared to the $3.29 or even $18.18
award to class members undermines the overall fairness of the
proposed settlement.

The Court further noted the importance of careful drafting: If the
parties intend the $10,0000 general release payment to require
Court approval, then the settlement agreement should say so
explicitly and the class notice should similarly alert class
members that Plaintiff will seek such a payment.

A copy of the Court's Order dated March 31, 2017 is available at
https://goo.gl/9aMzXe from Leagle.com.

Ijeoma Esomonu, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Omnicare, Inc., Defendant, represented by Chad Daniel Bernard --
BernardC@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Scott Philip
Jang -- scott.jang@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.


ORANGE LAKE: Faces "Epps" Suit Over FCRA Violations in Va.
----------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Dean Epps, et al., for themselves and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. Orange Lake Country
Club, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00253-JAG (E.D.
Va., March 31, 2017) seeks damages, injunctive and declaratory
relief and attorneys' fees for violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

The complaint says Defendants systematically violate 1681b(b)(2)
of the FCRA by procuring consumer reports in the form of criminal
background reports and driving record reports using two
standardized consent forms which, among others things, require the
job applicant to agree, as a condition of employment, that
Defendants do not engage in discrimination. Defendants also
require applicants to notify Defendants within five days of a
challenge to the accuracy of the report (contrary to the provision
of the FCRA).

Orange Lake Country Club, Inc. operates a chain of clubs and
resorts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Colt North, Esq.
   William Downing, Esq.
   The Consumer & Employee Rights Law Firm, P.C.
   751-A Thimble Shoals Boulevard
   Newport News, VA 23606
   Tel: (757) 873-1010
   Fax: (757) 873-8375
   Email: cnorthlaw@aol.com


PAINTING FIRM: "Robinson" Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------
Melvis Juan Berlanga Villegas, Pedro Jose Serrano and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Painting Firm LLC, Charles R.
Ansaroff, Jennifer L. Ansaroff, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60665
(S.D. Fla., April 4, 2017), seeks double damages and reasonable
attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally, costs,
interest and any other relief as allowed by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Villegas and Serrano worked for Defendants as painters from
September 15, 2015 to March 31, 2017 and September 15, 2015 to
November 20, 2016, respectively. Both claim to have worked over 50
hours per week without being paid the necessary overtime premium.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: FTC Investigation into Venmo Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Nieh, writing for Crowdfund Insider, reports that on
March 24, 2017, shareholders of PayPal Holdings Inc., the parent
company of mobile-payment provider Venmo, filed a derivative suit
against its directors in the District Court of Delaware. A
derivative suit is a form of class action in which shareholders
can sue company officers or directors on behalf of the company.

2016 Investigations for Unfair and Deceptive Practices
In April and May of last year, Venmo was investigated by the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Texas Attorney General's
Office for engaging in unfair and deceptive practices.  Venmo
eventually settled with the Texas Attorney General for a $175,000
fine and assurances that they would update their business
practices.  The investigation by the FTC is still ongoing.

Current Allegations

The plaintiff shareholders claim in the suit that the directors of
PayPal willfully or recklessly caused PayPal to make false or
misleading statements which led to direct damages against PayPal.
The false and misleading statements are alleged to have been made
in PayPal's quarterly reports, annual reports, and proxy
statements which failed to disclose any of the alleged unfair and
deceptive business practice or the fact that those practices would
lead to increased regulatory scrutiny.

The suit alleges that as a direct consequence of those
investigations becoming public, the share price for PayPal
immediately dropped by up to 14.6% in the following months.

Defendants' answer is due by April 17.


PEOPLE'S WATER: Donaldsonville Residents File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
John Severance, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that many
Donaldsonville residents are not happy about the quality of water
and have filed a class action suit against Peoples Water Service.

In their suit filed March 3, Courthouse News reported, the
petitioners claimed the water service failed to take action or
report chlorine-dioxide levels four to five times the standard in
the water supply.  The petitioners alleged the water company
treated its supply with chlorine dioxide before distribution to
customers.  Chlorine dioxide is known to be harmful to humans at
particular levels.

The petitioners claimed that at about 4 p.m. March 22, 2016, the
Louisiana Department of Health notified Peoples to change
treatment of drinking water because elevated levels of chlorine
dioxide were found in the treatment system.  Donaldsonville Mayor
Leroy Sullivan declared a state of emergency that night.

They also claimed the water company failed to warn petitioners and
those others of test result readings above acceptable levels from
approximately September 2015 to March 2016.

"As it stands, the water supplied by Peoples is not safe to
consume in any manner by drinking and/or cooking for use in
cooking.  As a proximate result, petitioners and those others
similarly situated have been forced to use bottled water and have
therefore incurred damages in connection with obtaining water,"
the suit said.

On March 23, 2016, Peoples issued a warning to residents: "Peoples
Water is instructing its customers in Donaldsonville to not drink
their water, effective immediately until further notice.  Due to
high levels of chlorine dioxide, residents should not drink, cook
or ingest their water. Please go to a local retail/grocery store
and purchase water for these purposes.''

On March 26, 2016, the water was declared safe to drink after
tests were reportedly done at five different sample sites.

Petitioners are looking for compensation from the following
damages including "costs of and associated with obtaining another
water source, inconvenience, fear and fright, mental anguish,
discomfort, pain and suffering, emotional distress, medical and
pharmaceutical costs and any other damages to be proven at trial."

Listed on the petition were Horace Dorsey, Evelyn Dorsey, Brad
Dorsey, Larry Rosemond, Dionelle Dorsey, Gardenia Taylor, Sterling
Brooks, Blair Brooks, Carol Joshua, Idell Madison, Paul Madison,
Tresa Winchester, Sharon Nicholas, Gerald Nicholas, Crystal
Franklin and Malik Franklin.

Jeff Nicholson, a Baton Rouge attorney, filed the lawsuit for the
residents.


PIZZATI ENTERPRISES: "Nieto" Has Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned WENDY NIETO, on behalf of herself and
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PIZZATI
ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05352-
NJB-JCW (E.D. La.), the Hon. Nannette Jolivette Brown entered an
order:

   a. denying Defendants' motion to stay Plaintiff's motion for
      conditional class certification;

   b. granting in part and denying in part Nieto's motion for
      conditional class certification;

      The motion is granted in part to the extent that Nieto
      requests that the Court conditionally certify the proposed
      class, approve an opt-in period of 90 days, and require
      Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with the names and last
      known addresses of the potential opt-in plaintiffs within
      two weeks. The motion is denied in part to the extent that
      Nieto requests that the Court approve Plaintiff's proposed
      notice and consent form in its current form.

   c. directing Defendants that Notice shall be sent to:

      "all individuals who worked or are working performing
      manual labor for Pizzati Enterprises, Inc. or Pizzati
      Labor Services, Inc. during the previous three years, and
      who are eligible for overtime pay pursuant to the Fair
      Labor Standards Act, and who did not receive full overtime
      compensation"; and

   d. directing parties to submit a joint proposed notice and
      consent form within 10 days of the date of this Order. If
      the parties are unable to agree on a proposed notice and
      consent form, the parties shall submit: (1) their proposed
      notices and consent forms; and (2) their objections, with
      supporting authority, to the other party's proposed notice
      and consent form, within 10 days of this Order, and request
      an expedited status conference on the matter.

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


PLANET FITNESS: Court Refuses to Reconsider Prior Dismissal Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey denied plaintiff's motion for partial
reconsideration in the case captioned MARNI TRUGLIO, individually
and as a class representative on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PLANET FITNESS, INC.; FIT TO BE TIED II,
LLC d/b/a PLANET FITNESS; JOHN DOES 1-75; PLANET FITNESS
FRANCHISES 1-75; AND XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-10, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 15-7959 (FLW)(LHG) (D.N.J.).

On September 28, 2015, plaintiff Marni Truglio brought a suit
against defendants in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division. On October 19, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, setting forth claims, individually and on behalf of a
putative class, under the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract,
Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA), N.J.S.A. 56:12-14 to -18 (count
I), and the Health Club Services Act (HCSA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-39 to -
48, and the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -195
(count II).

The case started when plaintiff sought to enroll in a health club
membership in defendants' organization and was provided by
defendants with a membership agreement. Plaintiff executed the
membership agreement and contends that the agreement's terms
violated New Jersey law by failing to state that a bond or other
security was filed with the Director of the Division of Consumer
Affairs and that defendants failed to maintain such bond or other
security), by failing to conspicuously disclose plaintiff's total
payment obligation, by obligating plaintiff to renew her contract
and imposing misleading requirements to cancel her health club
membership.

Defendants removed the action to the District of New Jersey Court
on November 6, 2015, and moved to dismiss on December 4. On July
28, 2016, the court issued an opinion and order dismissing count
II, plaintiff's CFA and HCSA claims, without prejudice, and
dismissing count I, plaintiff's TCCWNA claim, with prejudice, to
the extent based on omissions in the membership agreement. The
court ordered defendants, within twenty days, to show cause why
the matter should not be remanded to the New Jersey state court
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the class action
fairness act. On August 9, 2016, defendant Planet Fitness, Inc.,
submitted a certification that, given the number of Planet Fitness
members included in the proposed class, plaintiff's surviving
TCCWNA claim continues to meet the amount in controversy
requirement for subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. Defendant
Planet Fitness joined in Planet Fitness Inc.'s certification by
letter, on August 10, 2016.

Plaintiff moved for partial reconsideration of the court's July
opinion and order on August 11, 2016. Plaintiff's motion requests
that the court reconsider its decision to dismiss plaintiff's
TCCWNA claim based on the omission of language allegedly required
by HCSA N.J.S.A. 56:8-42(b), or, in the alternative, requests that
the court dismiss that TCCWNA claim without prejudice so that
plaintiff may move for leave to amend.

Judge Wolfson held that plaintiff's motion clearly does not meet
the standard required for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). It
claims no intervening change of law, in fact claiming to follow
the persuasive authority of the Third Circuit in Watkins v.
DineEquity Inc., 591 Fed. Appx. 132 (3d Cir. 2014), which the
court itself considered and applied in its original opinion. It
presents no new evidence, relying upon the same facts alleged in
the amended complaint that were previously before the court.
Finally, it fails to identify any clear error of fact or law,
requesting only that the court reconsider its particular
application of the admittedly persuasive authority of the Third
Circuit in Watkins.

Judge Wolfson denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration under
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and L. Civ. R. 7.1.

A copy of Judge Wolfson's opinion dated March 31, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/oyGZJa from Leagle.com.

MARNI TRUGLIO, Plaintiff, represented by:

BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF, Esq.
JOSEPH K. JONES, Esq.
Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Tel: 973-227-5900
Fax: 973-244-0019

PLANET FITNESS, INC., Defendant, represented by CRAIG R.
TRACTENBERG -- KURT MICHAEL MULLEN -- kmullen@nixonpeabody.com --
at NIXON PEABODY, LLP

FIT TO BE TIED II, LLC, Defendant, represented by LOUIS A.
FELICETTA -- at CARLUCCIO LEONE


PLATINUM HOME: Faces "Severin" Suit in N.Y. Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Platinum Home Health
Care Inc. The case is captioned as Natasha Severin, Individually
and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated Who Were
Employed By Platinum Home Health Care Inc., the Plaintiff, v.
Platinum Home Health Care Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
153301/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Apr. 7, 2017).

Platinum Home was established in 2006 to provide home care
services to homebound individuals in Southeast Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Virginia & Ambinder, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, New York 10004
          Phone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Flushable Wipes Class Action Can Go Ahead
-----------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Caldwell, writing for Global Cosmetic News, reports that
a US Federal judge has given the go-ahead for a class action suit,
launched against several manufacturers of flushable wipes,
including Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark, according to a
report published by the Cincinnati Business Courier.

The suit is open only to applicants who purchased the contentious
wipes in the state of New York and will be divided into groups
according to the product purchased: P&G's Charmin Freshmates, any
flushable wipes from Kimberly-Clark's portfolio and Kirkland
Signature wipes from Costco.

The wipes are said to have caused back-ups across the US sewer
systems, causing wastewater to escape sewer overflows.
Complainants contend that the wipes are falsely marketed as
'flushable'.


RADIO RENTAL: Thorn Group Disputes Class Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Fergus Halliday, writing for ChannelNews, reports that The Thorn
Group, parent company of Radio Rental has defended claims that it
overcharged vulnerable or disadvantaged customers through its
"Rent Try $1 Buy" scheme.

The company pledged to defend itself in court in a statement
posted to the ASX.

"Thorn Australia will defend the claim in the ordinary course of
the class action process. It is anticipated that the process could
take a significant length of time, perhaps years, to run its
course."

"The company will update the market if there are any further
material developments."

A class action lawsuit was launched by compensation firm Maurice
Blackburn.

The law firm claim that Radio Rentals "imposes on its
disadvantaged customers onerous and unfair terms that avoid credit
laws that prohibit overcharging", forcing victims to pay up to
seven times the retail cost of the rented item.

They argue that if their case is successful, the outcome could
affect up to 200,000 people and refund a total of $50 million.
They say they'll be conducting the case on a "no win no fee" basis
and encourage those affected to participate as claimants with the
firm.


REAL TIME: Approval of $1.3MM "Tannlund" Case Settlement Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Michelle Lee Tannlund, et al., the
Plaintiff, v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
1:14-cv-05149 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an Order:

   1. preliminarily approving Settlement as fair, reasonable and
      adequate;

   2. preliminarily approving the Claim Form and the forms of
      Class Notice;

   3. setting a date and time for a Final Approval Hearing, not
      earlier than 135 days after entry of the Preliminary
      Approval Order;

   4. provisionally certifying a proposed Settlement Class under
      Rule 23 for the purposes of settlement only;

   5. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative;

   6. appointing undersigned as Class Counsel; and

   7. providing for such other and further matters as the Court
      deems just and proper.

The Settlement allows Settlement Class Members to receive a pro
rata cash payment from a $1.3 million common fund, after deducting
Class Counsel's fees and an incentive award for the named
Plaintiff. This payment is estimated at $25, derived by assuming
(a) a claims rate at 6% of approximately 425,000
class members; (b) attorneys' fees and costs at 50% of the common
fund; and (c) class representative's service award at $15,000. If
these assumptions are too aggressive -- especially the claims
rate, which at 6% may be high for TCPA class actions even with
direct notice by first class mail -- then the payout will be
higher as a result. For example, if the claims rate is the same as
in a recent settlement (0.97%), then the payout with the above
assumptions would be $154, which is six times higher. Even with a
conservative assumption of a 6% rate, the estimated payout
compares favorably with similar common fund TCPA cases.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BfVDo1Mr

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Ankcorn, Esq.
          ANKCORN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1060 Woodcock Road, Suite 128
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (321) 422 2333
          Facsimile: (619) 684 3541
          E-mail: mark@ankcornlaw.com


REPUBLIC SCHOOLS: Class Action Over Spam Texts Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Todd Kominiak, writing for TrustED, reports that schools pull out
stops to win students a lawsuit brought by public school parents
in Nashville, Tenn., against an area charter school network
received class-action status.

According to News Channel 5, the lawsuit accuses RePublic Schools
Nashville of spamming local parents with text messages aimed at
siphoning students from Nashville Metro Public Schools to the
company's for-profit charter school network.

In total, close to 4,000 parents received the texts. Attorneys
representing aggrieved parents are now seeking $1,500 in damages
for each message.

It remains to be seen whether the parents will win their legal
battle.  Either way, the story shines a light on a reality that
many public leaders suddenly face: Competition from charter
schools, private vouchers, and other alternatives is real. And
many of these schools are investing in marketing to attract
families.

Joel Gagne is president of Allerton Hill Consulting, a marketing
firm that contracts with public schools.  His take: Public schools
need to step up their game if they want to compete with other
providers.  "K12 leaders have to adopt the mentality that they are
competing for these students. And they must understand that this
is no longer a fair fight."

Every trick in the book

A quick Google search for "charter school marketing" produces
dozens of how-tos and handbooks for charter and private schools
looking to market their services to students.

In a new guide on school market share and competition released by
K12 Insight (K12 Insight produces TrustED), Mr. Gagne explains the
extent to which charter schools in one Ohio community were willing
to go to win market share:

"They were sending these cards statewide.  These guys are on
television.  They have Jack Hanna -- the famous zoo guy -- in
their TV ads.  They're actively marketing for students, not just
on television and in print, but through social media. They're
selling the promise of technology: Sign up for our charter school,
and you can get an iPad or a free laptop."

In one case, he says, a charter school provider gave out free ice
cream to students who signed up for their schools.

Sewickley Academy, Pittsburgh's oldest private school, uses
inbound marketing, social media, blog posts, and gated content
resources to attract new students, according to Emily Cretella of
Cursive Content Marketing.

School marketing works

Ms. Cretella says the Academy saw an increase in web traffic and a
30-percent jump in enrollment as a result of concentrated
marketing campaigns.

Charter schools, too, have seen a spike in enrollment -- a 62-
percent nationwide increase from 2011 to 2016, according to the
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

The appearance of competition doesn't mean that public schools
necessarily need to invest in advertising or put up billboards to
keep families from leaving.  But it does mean they need to do more
to demonstrate their value -- and to effectively nurture the
relationships they have with students and families.


RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: NJ Court Grants Bid to Dismiss FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the
case captioned, THOMAS E. ST. PIERRE, in his own right and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RETRIEVAL-
MASTERS CREDITORS BUREAU, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-2596
(FLW)(DEA)(D.N.J.).

In the putative class action, Plaintiff Thomas E. St. Pierre
alleges that defendant Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc.,
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
1692, et seq., because Defendant, a debt collector, mailed
Plaintiff, and other similarly situated debtors, envelopes with
glassine windows through which their account number and other
personal information was visible.

In the Amended Complaint are straightforward. Plaintiff alleges
that he contracted with New Jersey E-ZPass (E-ZPass) to
participate in its electronic toll payment program (Agreement),
which allows tolls to be collected from an E-ZPass account through
an electronic transponder. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant sent
him a collection letter, dated November 11, 2013, attempting to
recover $60.06, which "constituted a combination of unpaid tolls
and associated penalties. In his single-count Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant violated Section 1692f(8) of the
FDCPA "by sending E-ZPass collection letters to Plaintiff and
members of the putative Class in envelopes with glassine windows
through which their account numbers were made visible."

On August 17, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint, or, in the alternative, stay the action pending
the outcome of the Supreme Court's decisions in Campbell-Ewald Co.
v. Gomez, 136 S.Ct. 663 (2016) and/or Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136
S.Ct. 1540 (2016). On January 6, 2016, this Court ordered a stay
of the proceedings. After the Supreme Court decided Spokeo,
Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the stay of proceedings. On
June 16, 2016, the Court ordered that the stay be lifted, but
administratively terminated the pending motion to dismiss. On
August 19, 2016, at the instruction of the Court, Defendant
renewed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

Defendant argues that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed
because Plaintiff has failed to allege a concrete harm sufficient
to establish Article III standing. In the alternative, Defendant
contends that the obligation it seeks to recover -- the delinquent
toll charges and penalties -- is not a "debt" as defined by the
FDCPA. In response, Plaintiff contends that he has alleged
sufficient concrete harm because Defendant disclosed his private
information by sending two collection letters that made visible
his account number. Moreover, Plaintiff argues that Defendant was
attempting to collect a "debt" within the meaning of the FDCPA,
because the obligation to pay the outstanding tolls and penalties
arose from the E-ZPass Agreement, which is a consensual
transaction.

In an Opinion dated March 24, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/WEOoIt from Leagle.com, Judge Wolfson held that none
of the obligations that Defendant attempted to recover from
Plaintiff arise out of the Agreement and that Defendant was not
attempting to collect a "debt" within the meaning of the FDCPA.


Thomas E. St. Pierre is represented by Christopher Markos, Esq. --
cmarkos@wcblegal.com -- WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY

Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. is represented by Han
Sheng Beh, Esq. -- hbeh@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP


RICK WOLF LANDSCAPE: "Gomez" Sues for Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Victoriano Angeles-Gomez, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. Rick Wolf Landscape,
LLC, Frederic Louis Wolf and Virginia S. Wolf, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00009-BO (E.D. N.C., March 31, 2017) seeks to recover
overtime pay, attorney's fees, interest and costs for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs performed landscaping work for Defendants.

Defendant Rick Wolf Landscape LLC offers Landscaping Services.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Robert J. Willis, Esq.
   Law Office of Robert J. Willis, P.A.,
   West Hargett Street, Suite 404
   P.O. Box 1269
   Raleigh, NC 27602
   Tel: (919) 821-9031
   Fax: (919) 821-1763
   Email: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com


RJ AMERICAN: "Gentile" Seeks to Rescind Portfolio Transfer
----------------------------------------------------------
Frank Gentile, as trustee for the Frank Gentile Revocable Trust,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. RJ American Homes 4 Rent Investments LLC, and
American Homes for Rent, LLC, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC656070 (Cal. Super., April 3, 2017), seeks
damages, voiding of the transfer of Plaintiff's portfolio to
American Homes, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorney's fees
and such further relief arising from civil conspiracy, unjust
enrichment, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
breach of fiduciary duties and breach of contact.

RJ American Homes 4 Rent One, LLC owns and operates a specified
portfolio of 177 houses in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia,
Nevada, North Carolina and Texas. It acquires homes at favorable
pricing, then rent out the property to third-parties. To augment
the generation of cash flow from rental activity and capital
appreciation, it raised money from third-party investors,
including the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff's membership interest was purchased by American Homes
for Rent, LLC at an artificially undervalued price, allowing them
to acquire the portfolio at a price significantly less than its
true market value, says the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sarah L. Hennessy, Esq.
      Raquel A. Flaherty, Esq.
      FLAHERTY HENNESSY, LLP
      8055 W. Manchester Avenue, Suite 420
      Playa Del Rey, CA 90293
      Telephone: (310) 305-1280
      Fax: (310)305-1210


RUSHMORE LOAN: "Bovin" Class Certification Bid Denied
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned STEVEN BOVIN, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC, et al., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:16-cv-01055-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E.
Duffin entered an order terminating motion for class certification
for administrative purposes.

The Court said, "The plaintiffs filed what the court commonly
refers to as a "protective" or "placeholder" motion to certify a
class. Concurrently the plaintiffs requested to stay briefing on
the motion. The court grants plaintiffs' motion to stay briefing
on this motion. However, the court regards the motion as pending
to the extent a pending motion is required to satisfy the
plaintiffs' intended protective purpose in light of Damasco v.
Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), and Campbell-Ewald
Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016)".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2aLZ0L1U


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Kellas" Suit Over Washing Machines
--------------------------------------------------------------
CANDICE KELLAS, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated Plaintiff, vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, THE HOME DEPOT, INC., LOWE'S
HOME CENTERS, LLC, BEST BUY CO., INC., and SEARS HOLDING
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01232-MHC (N.D. Ga.,
April 5, 2017), is a case over the recalled models of Samsung top-
load washing machines (Recall # 17-028).

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other
purchasers of the Recalled Washing Machines in the United States
and its possessions or territories from March 2011 to November
2016. Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of: (1) an injunction
against Defendants preventing any further sales of the Recalled
Washing Machines and requiring such other remedial action as may
otherwise be requested herein; and (2) money damages to adequately
and reasonably compensate owners of the Recalled Washing Machines
who have, through no fault of their own, purchased defective and
dangerous Samsung washing machines.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. supplies consumer electronics
and digital products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David A. Bain, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC
     1230 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1050
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Phone: (404) 724-9990
     Fax: (404) 724-9986
     E-mail: dbain@bain-law.com

        - and -

     William B. Federman, Esq.
     FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
     10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
     Oklahoma City, OK 73120
     Phone: 405.235.1560
     Fax: 405.239.2112

        - and -

     2926 Maple Ave., Suite 200
     Dallas, TX 75201
     E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


SANTILLAN FOUNDATION: Faces "Barrera" Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Barrera, on behalf of himself individually and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dairon Bonilla d/b/a Santillan
Foundation, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01013 (S.D. Tex.,
April 1, 2017) is brought against the Defendant for non-payment of
overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Complaint says Defendant Dairon Bonilla d/b/a Santillan
Foundation have a policy, enforced at all of its locations, of
denying Plaintiffs and putative class members compensation at time
and a half, and paying only straight time for hours worked above
40 per week.

Plaintiff Julio Barrera worked for Defendants as an AC Installer.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
   The Foley Law Firm
   3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
   Houston, TX 77054
   Tel: (832) 778-8182
   Fax: (832) 778-8353
   Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


SCHACHTER PORTNOY: Romano Wants Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ROSARIA ROMANO, on behalf of plaintiff and a
class, the plaintiff, v. SCHACHTER PORTNOY, L.L.C., the Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-01014-ARR-CLP (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court that her motion for class certification be entered and
continued until such time as the Court has entered a schedule for
the litigation of the case.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZtAoUZ7Z

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-mail: courteel@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          44 Court Street, Suite 1214
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 373 9128


SCI DIRECT: Faces "Romano" Wage and Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------
Nicole Romano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SCI DIRECT, INC. and DOES 1 to 50,
Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BQ656654 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr.
6, 2017), seeks to recover compensation, damages, penalties and
interest to the full extent permitted by the Labor Code and
Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders.

The complaint challenges systemic illegal employment practices
resulting in violations of the California Labor Code, Business and
Professions Code, and applicable IWC wage order against employees
of Defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have acted intentionally and
with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard of the rights
of all employees in, among other things, failing to provide the
statutorily required meal and rest periods and failing to pay the
statutorily required meal period and rest period premium wages
when not provided, failing to pay all minimum, regular and
overtime wages due, failing to pay wages in a timely fashion,
including at the end of employment, mis-classifying employees so
as to avoid payment of wages, and failing to keep statutorily
required payroll records.[BN]

SCI Direct is a division of Service Corporation International that
is responsible for all direct cremation sales and services in
North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, 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
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


SIGNET JEWELERS: Faces "Mikolchak" Class Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------
Maria Mikolchak, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Signet Jewelers Limited, Mark S. Light and
Michael Barnes, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00923-B (N.D. Tex.,
March 31, 2017) seeks to recover compensable damages on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of Signet from August 29, 2013 through February 27,
2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

According to the complaint, Defendants released statements that
were materially false and/or misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects,
which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) approximately 250 former
employees of Sterling Jewelers, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Signet, claimed in sworn statements that Sterling executive
presided over a corporate culture that fostered rampant sexual
harassment and discrimination; (2) the current CEO of Signet,
Defendant Mark Light, was among those accused of having sex with
female employees and promoting women based upon how they responded
to sexual demands; (3) it was unlikely that Signet would be able
to avoid paying a sizable amount of damages in connection with the
class action lawsuit filed by Sterling employees and (4) as a
result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On March 7, 2017, the Financial Times published an article
entitled "Signet Jewelers is S&P 500's worst performer so far this
year". According to the article, Signet's stock drop of nearly 13%
on February 28, 2017, was "its biggest one-day drop in 8 years --
after the Washington Post reported that former employees of
Sterling Jewelers filed a private class-action arbitration case
alleging discrimination, among other claims."

Signet Jewelers Limited is a retailer of diamond jewelry. The
Company claims to operate thousands of stores in North America,
and some in the United Kingdom. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   R. Dean Gresham, Esq.
   L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq.
   Steckler Gresham Cochran
   12720 Hillcrest Rd, Suite 1045
   Dallas, TX 75230
   Tel: (972) 387-4040
   Fax: (972) 387-4041
   Email: dean@stecklerlaw.com
          krogers@stecklerlaw.com

        - and -

   Phillip Kim, Esq.
   Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
   The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
   275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 686-1060
   Fax: (212) 202-3827
   Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
          lrosen@rosenlegal.com


SKYLER ELECTRIC: "Patton" Seeks OT Pay, Missed Break Premiums
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keenan Patton an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Skyler Electric Co., Inc. and
Does 1 thru 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CG-17-557943,
(Cal. Super., April 4, 2017), seeks compensation for missed meal
breaks, overtime pay and reimbursement of business-related
expenses, compensatory damages and costs of suit for violation of
the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders.

Skyler Electric employed Patton as a Telecommunications
Technician. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric B. Kingsley, Esq
     Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
     KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
     16133 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1200
     Encino, CA 91436
     Tel: (818) 990-8300
     Fax: (818) 990-2903


SLATER & GORDON: Investors File Fresh Class Action Claim
--------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Slater and Gordon has been served with a fresh letter of demand
from aggrieved shareholders in a second class action.

The fresh claim includes allegations Slater and Gordon misled its
investors about its financial position between August 2014 and
February 2016.

The claim period takes in Slater and Gordon's $1.3 billion
acquisition of the professional services arm of UK group Quindell,
which blew up within months of being purchased due to accounting
irregularities.

But the claim also alleges Slater and Gordon's accounts included
mistakes well ahead of the Quindell acquisition.

ACA alleges that between August 12, 2014 and February 29, 2016,
Slater and Gordon made more than 20 statements to the market
relating to its financial results and profit guidance that
contained errors.

ACA Lawyers is understood to have sent the demand last week on
behalf of shareholders in the class action claim being run by the
firm.  A spokeswoman for Slater and Gordon said allegations are
denied and will be defended vigorously.

ACA principal Bruce Clarke said the letter to Slater and Gordon
listed "a number of accounting failures which we see as
fundamental".

"These relate to specific failures to identify intangibles in the
business acquisition, various understatements or overstatements,
both of which had a damaging impact, and a real failure despite
their assertion of adopting certain accounting guidelines to
properly recognise revenue in accordance with one of the
accounting standards and also applying a number of unreasonable
assumptions," Mr Clarke said.

According to Mr Clarke, Slater and Gordon also allegedly failed to
recognised the impacts of regulatory changes in the UK and did not
treat the end of the agreement between Swinton and the
professional services division of Quindell as an impairment
indicator.

"We've identified these and a number of other issues in respect to
what we see as accounting failures as representing either
misleading statements or a failure to comply with the continuous
disclosure rules," Mr Clarke said.

It's the second class action claim to hit the group over its
alleged lax disclosure of its accounting issues.  The first claim
was filed on behalf of shareholders in an action being run by
Maurice Blackburn.

Fairfax Media revealed last month that claim was expected to head
for mediation following concerns that Slater and Gordon's
impending restructure will be designed to affectively ring-fence
the assets in the group from claims from unsecured creditors,
including class action claimants.

According to the letter seen by Fairfax Media, ACA and its clients
in the claim have reserved their right to intervene in the
impending restructure of the group if Slater and Gordon won't
allow their claim into upcoming mediation discussions with Maurice
Blackburn.

"Of course it is unfair the shareholders who have supported the
company, supported the senior executive through those years, could
be left totally stranded [by the restructure]," Mr Clarke said.

Slater and Gordon is expected to restructure in coming weeks
through a debt for equity swap that is expected to be highly
dilutive for existing shareholders.

On March 31 the company revealed it had received a $72 million
boost from its new lenders, which are mainly made up of hedge
funds, by way of a $40 million capital injection and the agreement
to capitalise $32 million in interest payments due in June this
year.


SODEXO INC: "Piveronas" Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ROBERT PIVERONAS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. SODEXO, INC., the Defendant, Case No. G.D. 17-
003369, was removed on April 7, 2017 from the Court of Common
Pleas of Allegheny County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00446-RCM to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell.

Sodexo Inc. provides outsourced food and facilities management
services. The Company offers housekeeping, grounds keeping, and
plant operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Pietz, Esq.
          Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN, DOYLE,  PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281 8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281 1007
          E-mail: jpietz@fdpklaw.com
                  rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Maria Greco Danaher, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          One PPG Place, Suite 1900
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 394 3390
          Facsimile: (412) 232 1799
          E-mail: maria.danaher@ogletreedeakins.com


STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Faces "Kuckuk" Suit in Calif. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stephens Institute.
The case is entitled as KUCKUK, LINDA IN THEIR JOINT CAPACITIES AS
INTERSTATE SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST TO AARYN GOLDBERG, AN
INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED; and GOLDBERG, BENNETT IN THEIR JOINT CAPACITIES AS
INTERSTATE SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST TO AARYN GOLDBERG, AN
INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. STEPHENS INSTITUTE A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. CGC 17 557866 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Mar. 30, 2017).[BN]


SUMMONS REAL CARE: "Nesterenko" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
ALLA NESTERENKO, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by REAL CARE, INC., the
Plaintiffs, v. SUMMONS REAL CARE, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
153251/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Apr. 6, 2017), seeks to recover wages
and benefits which Plaintiffs were statutorily and contractually
entitled to receive pursuant to the New York Labor Law, New York
Codes, Rules, and Regulations, and New York Public Health Law.

The case is brought on behalf of the Named Plaintiff and a
putative class of individuals who are citizens of the State of New
York and are presently or were formerly employed by the Defendant
to provide personal care, assistance, health-related tasks and
other home care services to Defendant's clients within the State
of New York.

The Defendant has allegedly maintained a policy and practice of
requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of ten hours per
day, without providing the proper hourly compensation for all
hours worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread of hours" compensation.

Real Care is a family owned and operated organization that began
providing services to individuals with developmental disabilities
in 2007.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TGI FRIDAYS: "Calabrese" Suit Seeks Certification of Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ADAM CALABRESE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff(s), v. TGI FRIDAYS
INC., et al., the Defendant(s), Case No. 2:16-cv-00868-JCJ (E.D.
Pa.), Mr. Calabrese moves the Court for an order granting (i)
certification of a Pennsylvania Class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23,
(ii) certification of a New Hampshire Class pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, and (iii) issuance of Notice to all members of
the proposed Classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ezfs4W3l

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
          Robert J. Gray, Esq.
          CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
          2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 275
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (610) 822 3700
          Facsimile: (610) 822 3800
          E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com
                  rgray@cwglaw.com

               - and -

          Arkady "Eric" Rayz, Esq.
          Demetri A. Braynin, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite "A"
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364 5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364 5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com
                  dbraynin@kalraylaw.com


TITAN SOLAR: Faces "Payton" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN PAYTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. TITAN SOLAR POWER, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-02619 (C.D. Cal., April 5, 2017), accuses Defendants of
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff
to purchase Defendant's services in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, and related regulations, specifically the
National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.

Defendant, TITAN SOLAR POWER is an online marketing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOTAL GAS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Gas Price Manipulation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge John G. Koeltl of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss the case captioned, ALAN HARRY, LEVANTE CAPITAL, LLC,
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON (D/B/A CLARK
PUBLIC UTILITIES), and C&C TRADING, LLC, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOTAL GAS &
POWER NORTH AMERICA, INC., TOTAL, S.A., TOTAL GAS & POWER LIMITED,
and JOHN DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 1 OF 15-cv-9689
(JGK)(S.D.N.Y.).

The case is a putative class action under the Commodity Exchange
Act and the Sherman and Clayton Acts alleging manipulation of
prices for physical and financial natural gas contracts. Alan
Harry, Levante Capital, LLC, Public Utilities District No. 1 of
Clark County, Washington (d/b/a Clark Public Utilities), and C&C
Trading, LLC (the plaintiffs) engaged in transactions in the
physical and financial natural gas markets, including on the New
York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the Intercontinental Exchange
(ICE). The plaintiffs allege that Total Gas & Power North America,
Inc. (TGPNA), Total, S.A. (Total), and Total Gas & Power Limited
(TGPL) (defendants) manipulated the price of physical natural gas
at four regional hubs in the southwestern United States between
2009 and 2012. They further allege that such manipulation caused
economic harm to the plaintiffs' physical and financial natural
gas contracts -- which contracts were tied to natural gas prices
at a separate hub, the Henry Hub in Louisiana -- on the theory
that manipulation at the regional hubs inevitably impacts prices
at the Henry Hub.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of individuals who,
between June 1, 2009 and June 30, 2012 (the Class Period),
purchased and/or sold physical natural gas contracts or derivative
financial natural gas contracts either over-the-counter or on an
electronic platform or other exchange at prices "made artificial"
by the defendants' alleged manipulation. The CAC alleges that
plaintiff Alan Harry "entered into many hundreds of transactions
in natural gas futures and financial contracts throughout the
Class Period," including "natural gas futures, options and swaps
on NYMEX and ICE" during several bid weeks throughout the Class
Period.

All defendants now move to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint (CAC) for lack of Article III standing and failure to
state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Total and TGPL (the foreign defendants) also move to dismiss the
CAC under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction.

In an Opinion and Order dated March 27, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/zSzuVf from Leagle.com, Judge Keoltl held that the
CAC was insufficiently pled because plaintiffs failed to provide
details of their own positions in the market," their alleged
damages are "merely conceivable."

Alan Harry, et al. are represented by Bernard Persky, Esq. --
BPersky@RobinsKaplan.com -- Hollis L. Salzman, Esq. --
Hsalzman@RobonsKaplan.com -- and -- Kellie Lerner, Esq. --
Klerner@RobinsKaplan.com -- ROBINS, KAPLAN LLP -- Thomas W. Elrod,
Esq. -- telrod@kmllp.com -- David E. Kovel, Esq. --
dkovel@kmllp.com -- and -- Karen M. Lerner, Esq. --
klerner@kmllp.com -- KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP

Total Gas & Power North America, Inc., et al. are represented by
Aric Hugo Wu, Esq. -- awu@gibsondunn.com -- David Debold, Esq. --
ddebold@gibsondunn.com -- Jason J. Fleischer, Esq. --
jfleischer@gibsondunn.com -- Michael S. Marron, Esq. --
mmarron@gibsondunn.com -- and -- William S. Scherman, Esq. --
wscherman@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: California Judge OKs Class Rep Award of $15,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted the parties' joint motion
for final approval of the proposed class action settlement in the
case styled SONNY LOW, J.R. EVERETT and JOHN BROWN, on Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRUMP
UNIVERSITY, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, and DONALD
J. TRUMP, Defendants. ART COHEN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant, Case Nos. 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG, 3:13-cv-02519-GPC-WVG
(S.D. Cal.).

On December 19, 2016, the parties entered into a stipulation of
class action settlement, after arm's-length settlement
negotiations overseen by the Honorable Jeffrey T. Miller. On the
following day, the court, after determining the proposed
settlement to be fair, reasonable, adequate, and within the range
of possible approval, entered an order preliminarily approving the
settlement, directing dissemination of the class notice, and
setting a final approval hearing.

On January 17, 2017, Trump University's successor entity, Trump
Entrepreneur Initiative, paid the full $25 million settlement
amount to the escrow agent. The escrow agent distributed $4
million to the New York Attorney General for settlement of the
NYAG action pursuant to the agreement and the memorandum of
agreement. The remaining $21 million has been invested and is
earning interest for the benefit of class members. The settlement
administrator received a total of 4,090 claim forms from potential
class members submitted or postmarked by March 6, 2017.
On February 17, 2017, the parties jointly moved the court for
final approval of the proposed class action settlement. Plaintiffs
also moved for approval of class representative awards.

Judge Curiel concludes that the settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable and granted the parties' joint motion for final
approval of the settlement and granted plaintiffs' motion for
approval of class representative incentive award of $15,000 for
Sonny Low, J.R. Everett, John Brown, Art Cohen, and Tarla Makaeff.

The parties and the settlement administrator are directed to
implement the agreement according to its terms and conditions. The
parties are authorized for purposes of implementing the agreement,
without further approval from the court, to agree to and to adopt
such non-substantive amendments, modifications, and expansions of
the agreement. The actions, including the individual claims of
plaintiffs and class claims resolved therein, will be dismissed.

A copy of Judge Curiel's order dated March 31, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/LeLatb from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron M. Olsen -- aarono@zhlaw.com --
Amber Lee Eck -- ambere@zhlaw.com -- Alreen Haeggquist --
alreenh@zhlaw.com -- at Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP; Daniel Jacob
Pfefferbaum -- dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com -- Jason A. Forge --
jforge@rgrdlaw.com -- Maureen E. Mueller -- mmueller@rgrdlaw.com -
- Patrick J. Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- Rachel L. Jensen --
rachelj@rgrdlaw.com -- Thomas R. Merrick -- Brian E. Cochran --
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP

Donald J Trump and Trump University, LLC, Defendants, represented
by Daniel M. Petrocelli -- dpetrocelli@omm.com -- David Lee Kirman
-- dkirman@omm.com -- David Marroso -- dmarroso@omm.com -- Wallace
Moore Allan -- tallan@omm.com -- at O'Melveny & Myers LLP; Jeffrey
L. Goldman -- at Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP; Jill Ann
Martin -- at Trump National Golf Club

Trump University, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by Daniel M.
Petrocelli -- dpetrocelli@omm.com -- David Lee Kirman --
dkirman@omm.com -- at O'Melveny & Myers LLP; Jeffrey L. Goldman --
at Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP; Jill Ann Martin -- at Trump
National Golf Club

Tarla Makaeff, Counter Defendant, represented by Amber Lee Eck --
ambere@zhlaw.com -- at Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP; Rachel L.
Jensen -- rachelj@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Gellar Rudman & Dowd
LLP


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Sherman" Wage and Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
RYAN SHERMAN, as an individual and BC656880 on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., a Delaware corporation; RASIER-CA, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC656880 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 6, 2017),
seeks to recover all applicable penalties pursuant to Private
Attorney General Act (PAGA), for violation of Labor Code section
204, on behalf of the following aggrieved employees: all
current and former employees of Defendant who worked as Uber
drivers, and were paid wages at any time during the period of time
from January 19, 2016 to the present.

The complaint asserts that the Uber drivers are entitled to
between seventy-five to eighty percent of the fare charged to
customers, and Defendants retain a twenty to twenty-five percent
service fee, in addition to a booking fee of $1.65. However, when
Defendants pay drivers, Defendants do not pay drivers based on the
full amount of the actual fare charged to customers. Instead,
Defendants provide the driver with a wage that is based on a
percentage that is less than the actual fare charged to customers.

Uber is a transportation network company headquartered in San
Francisco, California, United States, operating in 570 cities
worldwide. It develops, markets and operates the Uber car
transportation and food delivery mobile apps.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Rimel" Suit Proceeds to Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT RIMEL, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC
and RASIER LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:15-cv-2191-Orl-41CEM (M.D.
Fla.), District Judge Carlos E. Mendoza adopted and confirmed
Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding's Report and Recommendation
granting the Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier LLC's
Motion to Compel Arbitration and Strike Class Action Allegations.

The Court noted that the Plaintiff does not challenge the
Magistrate Judge's finding that the Arbitration Provision and
Delegation Clause are enforceable under Florida Law. Instead, the
Plaintiff contends that the Delegation Clause and the Arbitration
Provision are unenforceable under California law and that the
Magistrate Judge erred by not applying the California choice of
law provision contained in the Services Agreement.

The Court further noted that the Magistrate correctly found that
(a) the Florida law, not California law, applies to the
Arbitration Provision; (b) the Arbitration Provision and the
Delegation Clause are not unconscionable; (c) the terms of the
Delegations Clause are clear and unmistakable; and, (d) the class
action waiver in the Arbitration Provision should be enforced.

The Court ordered that:

     (1) the Report and Recommendation is adopted and confirmed
and made a part of the Order;

     (2) the Defendants' Motion to Compel and Strike Class Action
Allegations is granted;

     (3) the parties shall proceed to arbitration within 30 days
of the Order and the action shall be stayed until such time as the
parties' arbitration proceedings have been completed;

     (4) on or before July 14, 2017, and every 90 days thereafter,
the parties shall file a status report as to the status of the
arbitration. Additionally, within 10 days of the termination of
the arbitration proceedings, the parties shall notify the Court;
and

     (5) the Clerk is directed to administratively close the file,
subject to the right of any party to apply to reopen the action
upon good cause shown.

A copy of the Court's Order dated March 31, 2017 is available at
https://goo.gl/OylaAv from Leagle.com.

Robert Rimel, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Weiner --
brittany@lawicm.com -- Imbesi Law PC, pro hac vice.

Robert Rimel, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Frederick Aylstock,
Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC, Douglass A. Kreis,
Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC, Justin Graem Witkin,
Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC, Neil Duane Overholtz,
Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC, Paul Brian Maslo,
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice, Salvatore Charles Badala,
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice, Stephen Herre Echsner,
Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC & Ephraim Samuel
Geisler, Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC.

Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by
Courtney B. Wilson -- cwilson@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC
& Melanie Andre Zaharias -- mzaharias@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, PC.


US PHYSICAL: Faces "Culhane" Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Maura Culhane, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc., Christopher J.
Reading, Lawrance W. McAfee and Jon C. Bate, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-02347 (S.D. N.Y., March 31, 2017) seeks to recover damages
on behalf of persons and entities that acquired USPh's securities
between May 8, 2014 and March 16, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), against the Defendants.

The Complaint says throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose: (1) that the Company had a material weakness in its
internal controls over accounting and financial reporting; (2)
that the Company improperly accounted for redeemable non-
controlling interests of acquired partnerships in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");(3) that, as a
result, the Company'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) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements
about USPh's business, operations, and prospects, were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On this news, the price of USPh common stock fell $3.85 per share
or 5.2%, to close at $69.90 per share on March 16, 2017, on
unusually heavy trading volume. The stock price continued to
decline in the following trading days, falling $1.75 per share
(2.5%) on March 17, 2017, $0.25 per share (0.3%) on March 20, 2017
and $3.15 per share (4.6%) on March 21, 2017, to close at $64.75
per share on March 21, 2017.

Defendant U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc. is incorporated in Nevada
and its headquarters are in Houston, Texas. USPh's common stock
trades on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the symbol
"USPH". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
   Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
   122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
   New York, NY 10168
   Tel: (212) 682-5340
   Fax: (212) 884-0988
   Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

        - and -

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


USAA CASUALTY: MAO-MSO Recovery Sues Over MAOs Reimbursement
------------------------------------------------------------
MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, a Delaware entity; MSP RECOVERY, LLC, a
Florida entity; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida entity, Plaintiffs,
vs. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Texas company, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-21289-JEM (S.D. Fla., April 5, 2017), alleges
that Defendant failed to fulfill its statutorily-mandated duty
under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Medicare Act
to reimburse Medicare Advantage Organizations ("MAOs") for medical
treatments or expenses paid by Plaintiffs and the putative Class
Members on behalf of Defendant's insureds.

USAA Property and Casualty Insurance Group is a private passenger
auto insurer and property insurer.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Frank C. Quesada, Esq.
     Christine M. Lugo, Esq.
     MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
     5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400
     Miami, FL 33155
     E-mail: Fquesada@msprecovery.com
             serve@msprecovery.com

        - and -

     Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
     Tracy L. Turner, Esq.
     Courtney L. Stidham, Esq.
     PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
     1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
     New Orleans, LA 70112
     Phone: (504) 355-0086
     E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com
             tturner@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
     Phone: (310) 207-3233
     Fax: (310) 820-7444
     E-mail: mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com
             rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
             pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com


VECTOR CAPITAL: Former Execs Lose Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of Delaware denied the individual
defendants' motion to dismiss and granted Vector defendants'
motion to dismiss the case titled IN RE SABA SOFTWARE, INC.
STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION, Consolidated C.A. No. 10697-VCS (Del.
Ch.).

Saba Software, Inc. was a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices in Redwood City, California. Saba provided
cloud-based human resources solutions, such as products and
services for employee training, performance evaluations, employee
planning, collaboration tools, succession planning and recruiting.
Saba's stock traded on the NASDAQ exchange until it was delisted
on June 17, 2013. Thereafter, it was traded over-the-counter until
it was deregistered by the SEC on February 19, 2015.

According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Saba, through
two of its former executives, engaged in a fraudulent scheme from
2008 through 2012 to overstate its pre-tax earnings by $70
million. Thereafter, Saba repeatedly promised regulators, its
stockholders and the market that it would get its financial house
in order. When Saba's board of directors ultimately sought
stockholder approval of the merger, after a months-long sales
process, the choice presented to stockholders was either to accept
the $9 per share merger consideration, well below its average
trading price over the past two years, or continue to hold their
now-deregistered, illiquid stock. Not surprisingly, the majority
of Saba's stockholders voted to approve the Merger.

The individual defendants are, Nora Denzel, Shawn Farshchi,
Michael Fawkes, William M. Klein, William N. MacGowan, William V.
Russell and Dow R. Wilson all served on the Board during the
timeframes that give rise to plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty
claims. Farshchi also served as Saba's President and CEO,
beginning in August 2013, after previously serving as Saba's
Interim CEO from March 2013 to August 2013 and Executive Vice
President and Chief Operating Officer from June 2011 to August
2013. Fawkes was the Chairman of the Board's Corporate Governance
and Nominating Committee and a member of the Strategic Committee.
Klein also served on the Board's Strategic Committee and the Ad
Hoc Transaction Committee. MacGowan served as Chairman of the
Board's Compensation Committee. Russell was the non-executive
Chairman of the Board, beginning in March 2013, and served on the
Ad Hoc and Strategic Committees. Wilson was a member of the Ad Hoc
Committee.

Defendant, Vector Capital Management, L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership, is a private equity firm that manages over $2 billion
in equity capital and focuses on value-oriented investments in
technology companies. Prior to the Merger, Vector Capital
Management, L.P. was one of Saba's lenders. Defendant, Vector
Talent II LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company and
affiliate of Vector Capital Management, L.P. Defendant, Vector
Talent Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is wholly-owned
by Vector Talent II LLC and an affiliate of Vector Capital
Management, L.P. The merger caused Saba to merge with Vector
Talent Merger Sub, Inc. with Saba surviving as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Vector Talent II LLC.

Plaintiff, Gary Poltash, was a stockholder of Saba who
beneficially owned over 80,000 shares of Saba stock prior to the
merger. He brought two claims, count I alleges breach of fiduciary
duty against the members of Saba's Board of Directors and count II
alleges aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the
Vector-affiliated defendants. He was appointed lead plaintiff on
or about April 8, 2015. Both sets of defendants filed a motion to
dismiss.

The Court of Chancery of Delaware concluded that the Board may not
invoke the business judgment rule under the so-called Corwin
doctrine because the complaint pleads facts that allow a
reasonable inference that the stockholder vote approving the
transaction was neither fully informed nor uncoerced. The Court
also concluded that plaintiff has pled a non-exculpated claim of
bad faith and breach of the duty of loyalty by stating facts that
support pleadings-stage inferences that the Board knowingly failed
to disclose material information to stockholders and was motivated
to approve the merger so that its members could cash-in on equity
options and restricted stock units that would otherwise have been
illiquid as a consequence of the deregistration of the Company's
stock. Plaintiff has failed, however, to state a claim for aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the Vector
defendants because he has failed to allege sufficient facts to
support a reasonable inference that Vector knowingly participated
in the breach of fiduciary duty.

The Court denied individual defendants' motion to dismiss and
granted the Vector defendants' motion to dismiss.

A copy of the Court of Chancery of Delaware's memorandum opinion
dated March 31, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/Z1ZQ3s from
Leagle.com.

Peter B. Andrews -- pandrews@andrewsspringer.com -- Craig J.
Springer -- cspringer@andrewsspringer.com -- at Andrews & Springer
LLC; Seth D. Rigrodsky -- sdr@rl-legal.com -- Brian D. Long --
bdl@rl-legal.com -- Gina M. Serra -- gms@rl-legal.com -- Jeremy J.
Riley -- jjr@rl-legal.com -- at of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.; Brian
J. Robbins -- brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- Stephen J. Oddo --
soddo@robbinsarroyo.com -- Nichole T. Browning --
nbrowning@robbinsarroyo.com -- at Robbins Arroyo LLP, Attorneys
for Plaintiffs

Gregory V. Varallo -- varallo@rlf.com -- Robert Burns --
burns@rlf.com -- Sarah A. Galetta -- galetta@rlf.com -- at
Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.; Erik J. Olson -- ejolson@mofo.com
-- Robert W. May -- rmay@mofo.com -- at Morrison & Foerster, LLP,
Attorneys for Defendants Shawn Farshchi, William V. Russell, Dow
R. Wilson, William M. Klein, William N. MacGowan, Michael Fawkes,
and Nora Denzel

Brian C. Ralston -- bralston@potteranderson.com -- Jordan A.
Braunsberg -- jbraunsberg@potteranderson.com -- Christopher G.
Browne -- cbrowne@potteranderson.com -- at Potter Anderson &
Corroon LLP; Alan S. Goudiss -- agoudiss@shearman.com -- Alethea
Sargent -- alethea.sargent@shearman.com -- Tiana Peterson -- at
Shearman & Sterling LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Vector Capital
Management, L.P., Vector Talent II LLC, and Vector Talent Merger
Sub, Inc.


VERIZON: Faces Class Action Over Cellphone Fraudulent Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Marsh, writing for New York Post, reports that Verizon
knowingly bills its customers for fraudulent charges until they
complain, according to a new class-action lawsuit.

Brooklyn lawyer and plaintiff Lowell Sidney told The Post that he
uncovered the money-grubbing tactic after noticing that his usual
$150 monthly Verizon bills had skyrocketed to as much as $230.

Since he'd enabled Autopay, he didn't catch the abnormally high
charges for about five months.  When he finally called Verizon, he
was directed to its Fraud Services Department, according to his
Brooklyn federal suit.

"Fraud Services said that on Oct. 22, 2016, an unknown person
entered a Best Buy store in Wesley Chapel, Florida, claimed to be
[Sidney], and ordered a cellphone and phone service from Verizon,"
the suit said.

"When the store requested basic identifying information, the
imposter fled the store."

But "in spite of having no proof of the identity of the imposter,
the payments for this new cellphone and related services, which
were ordered by the imposter, were attached to [Sidney's] bill in
New York," according to court papers.

Sidney's lawyer, Athas Ioannou, told The Post it was more than
clear to Verizon at the time that the other guy was a crook.  Yet
"they left whatever he requested on the bill, which is absolutely
absurd," Mr. Ioannou said.

"It's clearly an attempt to retain money that they know is not
theirs," the lawyer added.

Mr. Sidney's suit says that "when [he] inquired about Verizon's
failure to notify him of this deception, Fraud Services stated
that it was not Verizon's corporate policy to notify their
customers about potential or detected fraud.''

Mr. Sidney told The Post that during his Feb. 18 conversation with
Verizon, "The woman I spoke to was very candid that, 'That's our
policy.'"

He eventually was reimbursed for the fraudulent charges.  But
although he has been a Verizon customer for 17 years, he said he
plans on changing carriers when his contract expires.

"I am not sure if the competition provides comparable service, but
to my knowledge, they don't actively engage in defrauding their
own customers," Mr. Sidney said.

He is suing for at least $75,000 in damages on behalf of himself
and other Verizon customers who may have had similar experiences.

His lawyer said many Verizon customers are likely getting caught
in the alleged fraud dragnet because so many people use Autopay
and don't closely scrutinize monthly bills.

A spokesman for Verizon said he could not comment on pending
litigation.


WORTHY PARKING: "Potenzo" Sues Over Car Damage in Valet Parking
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Potenzo, Individually and on Behalf of all Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Worthy Parking LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 153173/2017 (N.Y. Sup., April 4, 2017) seeks compensatory
and punitive damages for fraud; treble damages, costs and
disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and post-judgment
interest and such other and further relief resulting from unjust
enrichment, common law fraud, breach of contract and violation of
the New York General Business Law and New York General Obligations
Law.

Defendant is a parking garage facility located at 545 Fifth
Avenue, New York, NY 10017. It is in the business of housing,
storing and parking vehicles for customers for which it charges a
fee. The garage is not self-serve. The customer must leave the key
to the vehicle with the garage attendant and the attendant parks
the car for the customer.

On November 21, 2016, Potenzo, brought his vehicle to be parked in
defendant's parking garage. Upon his return, Potenzo observed that
his vehicle sustained noticeable damage, prompting him to demand
for repairs. Defendants denied his claim. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Victoria Weinman, Esq.
     HARRY I. KATZ, P.C.
     61-25 Utopia Parkway
     Fresh Meadows, NY 11365
     Tel: (718) 463-3700
     Fax: (718) 886-3410


* Australian Gov't Cuts Toxic Firefighting Safe Exposure Levels
---------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Davidson, writing for The Guardian, reports that The federal
government has dramatically lowered the safe exposure levels of
toxic firefighting chemicals, following months of controversy over
contaminations detected near airports and military bases.

The new tolerable daily intake levels (TDIs) of the
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) chemicals 00 used in
firefighting foam for decades until the early 2000s but now known
to be toxic -- are now in line with US standards, but authorities
have warned the long-term effects of exposure remain unknown.

PFAS contamination has been detected up to 300 times the safe
levels near multiple Australian airports and a dozen Royal
Australian Air Force bases including Townsville and Oakey in
Queensland, Williamtown in New South Wales, Darwin and Katherine
in the Northern Territory, and Perth.

The April 3 announcement altered the maximum TDI of
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) from 150 nanograms per kilogram
of body weight per day to 20 nanograms.  The maximum TDI of
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was revised to 160 nanograms.

The guideline for maximum TDI of PFOS in drinking water has been
reduced by 7.5 times from 0.5 micrograms to 0.07 micrograms per
litre, and from 5 micrograms to 0.56 for PFOA.

The new tolerable levels, recommended by Food Standards Australia
New Zealand, changed interim guidelines which had been in place
since June.  At the time there was concern the levels had been set
in line with Europe rather than the 78 times lower limits set by
the US just one month prior.

The federal Department of Health said the previous levels were not
wrong, and that both sets of TDIs were protective of public
health.  The old TDIs were always intended to be replaced and were
appropriate as an interim measure, it said.

Authorities stressed the guidelines were precautionary measures
while research continued, because there was no consistent evidence
about the long-term effects of low-level accumulation in humans.

Most investigation into the effects of PFAS, particularly
overseas, relates to exposure at high levels in places where the
chemicals are produced.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand was contracted by the federal
government as a consultant, and was also tasked to consider what
regulatory options were available for food levels but was unable
to justify any based on the lack of conclusive evidence and
information.

"So it's not a standard, and food can still be sold in the
marketplace," said the Northern Territory director of
environmental health, Xavier Schobben.

Authorities and government have acknowledged that uncertainty
around the contamination as well as the lack of science on the
long-term effects was causing stress in affected communities.

More than 450 Oakey residents have reportedly launched a class
action against the Department of Defence over the contamination,
and another class action on behalf of Williamtown residents is
before the federal court.

The Department of Health has funded programs including mental
health, counselling services and voluntary blood testing in
Williamtown and Oakey, where contamination has been the worst.

Natasha Fyles, the Northern Territory health minister, said her
government was lobbying defence to provide similar support and
services to Katherine residents, the worst-affected area in the
NT.

Working with defence on the contamination issue had been an
"ongoing issue", she said, but was "cooperative".

"We remind defence that they need to certainly be at the table on
this issue in terms of providing information and resources to our
community.  I'm confident defence acknowledge their role to play,"
she said.

In the Northern Territory the worst contamination has been in
Katherine between the RAAF base and the edge of town, where more
than 40 properties which rely solely on bore water have been
supplied with bottled drinking water by defence.

Authorities said outside of those areas, the water in Katherine --
which relies on river water or a mix of river and bore water --
was safe to drink.

The concern for the main town was isolated to a short period of
time following the end of the dry season. At that time the new
rains flush the river and can bring uncontrollable levels of
bacteria, forcing the town on to 100% bore water.

No details of contingency plans in the event of Katherine
residents being told not to drink the water were provided, but
decisions would be made on the basis of further testing and
consultation, members of the joint agency taskforce said on
April 3.

The federal Labor opposition criticised the government for
inadequate national coordination on responding to the crisis.

An Environment Protection Authority summit is under way in
Melbourne to develop a national PFAS management plan.

The Department of Defence has been contacted for comment.


* "Right to Know" Bill May Impact Illinois Small Businesses
-----------------------------------------------------------
Todd Maisch, the president and CEO of the Illinois Chamber of
Commerce, in an article for The State Journal-Register, reports
that cloaked under the description of "privacy" legislation, a
package of bills under consideration in Springfield takes solid
aim at two of the state's key economic performers -- small
businesses and the burgeoning tech industry in Illinois.

These bills include complex compliance regulations, which would
apply to businesses of all sizes, but would place an enormous
burden on small businesses statewide.

The "Right to Know" bill (House Bill 2774) would require any
business with a website -- even a local flower shop or pizza
parlor -- to draft privacy policies longer and more confusing than
anything required by existing law and to create new IT systems --
at best, a complex and expensive undertaking; at worst, impossible
to implement -- to respond to consumer requests under threat of
liability.

What's more, any error would void the business's entire contract
with consumers, subjecting the business to an onslaught of
liability completely unrelated to the likely unintentional
violation.

Startups operating with only three or four people would have the
added stress of regulations that would demand attention they may
not be able to give.

If people are honest about it, requiring every small business in
the state to dramatically change its online terms of use and IT
systems under a threat of lawsuits is less in the interest of
consumers, and more in the interest of plaintiffs' lawyers.

There's even an amendment to the "Right to Know" bill intended
solely to preserve lawsuits, leading to a situation where Illinois
small businesses could potentially face two different class action
lawsuits over the same issue.

This is as thinly veiled as pro-trial lawyer legislation comes.

After peeling back the layers, it's clear that these bills would
give consumers a false sense of security regarding their privacy.
Consistent with federal and state laws in place, privacy policies
already explain how personal information is collected and shared.

Today's companies know they must be transparent about their
practices and offer consumers control, or they will lose their
most important asset -- consumer trust.  So they treat privacy and
data security as a competitive advantage and an area for
investment and innovation.

But under the "Right to Know" bill, businesses would be required
to implement a "one-size fits all" IT infrastructure just to
maintain consumer request channels that experience has shown are
neither useful to nor frequently used by consumers.  It's
wasteful, unworkable and unnecessary.

When private investors look to do business in Illinois, they will
see these heavy regulations as a red flag and look to invest in
another state.  Illinois deserves to be the beacon of innovation
and a hub for businesses when compared to other states, not merely
the low hanging fruit.

Illinois would be foolish to undercut the growing economic
potential of the state's tech and innovation economy with a
regulatory scheme far too focused on business liability.

In a 2017 KPMG report, global technology experts listed Chicago as
one of the top six cities worldwide most likely to become a
leading innovation hub over the next four years.  And Urbana-
Champaign, where hundreds of engineers and computer scientists
graduate each year, was cited as one of the most promising tech
hubs to watch.

The tech industry is not broken.  It doesn't need to be fixed. So
why would Illinois disqualify itself from more tech investment
with radical regulations on this growing tech sector? It makes no
sense.




                         *********


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  * * *