CAR_Public/170419.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Wednesday, April 19, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 78



                            Headlines

20/20 COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Cobble" Suit Over Unpaid OT Pay
25 DEGREES: Gutierrez Seeks to Send Class Notice
25 DEGREES: Court Granted Bid to Amend Misnomer in Case Caption
ADEPTUS HEALTH: May 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ADVANCE STORES: Whitehead et al. Seek Approval of Settlement

ALL AMERICAN HOME: "Cooper" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
ALLY FINANCIAL: Tillman Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass
AM (2015) LLC: Class Certification Bid in "Zeidel" Suit Granted
AMERICAN CENTURY: "Wildman" Suit Seeks Certification of Class

AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Court Dismissed Class Certification Bid
AMERICAN SCREENING: Court Strikes Motion for Class Certification
ANTHEM HEALTH: Class Notice Online Works Just Fine
ANZ SECURITIES: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in CALPERS Case
AOSS MEDICAL: Court Refuses to Certify Classes in PRS LLC Suit

APPLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Address Book Uploads Class Action
APPLE INC: Settles Privacy Class Action, May 25 Hearing Set
ARRIS INTERNATIONAL: Consumers Sue Over Defective Cable Modems
ASCENA RETAIL: Faces TCPA Class Action in New Jersey
ASSET MANAGEMENT: Vinson Asks Court to Certify Class of Vendors

ASSET RECOVERY: Class Certification Hearing Continued to May 24
AT&T CORP: Larson Seeks to Certify Services Technicians Classes
AUGUSTUS ENERGY: Judge Certifies Gas Royalty Payment Class Action
AUSTRALIA: Settlement Reached for Retta Dixon Class Action
BAJA SERVICES: Judge Denied Class Cert. Bid in Able Home Suit

BI INCORPORATED: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
BILL WHATCOTT: Class Action Against "Gay Zombies" Can't Proceed
BLUE STAR: Martinez Seeks Issuance of Notice to Harvesters
BOFI HOLDING: Pomerantz LLP Discloses Class Action Filing
BOFI HOLDING: June 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

BUMBLE BEE: Wins Bench Trial Over Product Labeling
BURGER BROTHERS: $575,000 Settlement Okayed in Cruz-Young Suit
CABLE NEWS: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit
CACTUS WELLHEAD: Faces "Bennett" Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
CALIFORNIA: Failed to Provide Salary Increases for Judges

CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Des Roches Seeks to Certify Class
CANADA: Settles W. Ross MacDonald School's Class Action
CANADA: Class Action Against WISB Over Workers' Benefits OK'd
CANADA: Ontario Court Certifies Former Crown Wards' Class Action
CANADA: Hockey Players' Sexual Assault Class Action Can Proceed

CANADA: Dismissed Navy Part of LGBT Purge Class Action
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Judge OKs Up to $18.9MM in Attorney Fees
CASCADE BANCORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
CCB CREDIT: Judge Certified Settlement Class in "Hyun" Suit
CENERGY INT'L: Faces "Cummings" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages

CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Set to Oust Female Attorney Involved in Case
CHILI'S GRILL: Judge Tosses Wage-and-Hour Class Action
CITIBANK: Justices Duck Big Question in Key Arbitration Battle
CLARK COLLECTION: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Continued
CLINTON ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert. Bid Denied in "Labriola"

COMCAST CORPORATION: "Patel" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
CONTINENTAL RESOURCE: Judge Grants Prelim OK on Settlement Deal
COUSIN VINNY'S: Deliver Driver Files Wage Class Action
COX COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Dismisses Installer's Class Action
CPI SECURITY: Foust Moves to Certify Class of Security Officers

CUMBERLAND RIVER: Price Wants to Proceed as FLSA Collective Suit
CVS PHARMACY: "Lowe" Suit Seeks to Certify Telemarketing Class
DAVID GLADIEUX: "Buroff" Suit Seeks to Certify Inmates Class
DEBT CUTTER: Class Action Mulled Over Undisclosed Fees
DENVER, CO: New Evidence Emerges in Homeless Sweeps Class Action

DIAL: Court Denies Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony
DIRECT ENERGY: Judge Denied Class Certification in "Richards"
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA: Scott Moves for Certification of Class
DOORDASH INC: Consumers File TCPA Class Action in California
DUNKIN' DONUTS: Settles Class Action Over Butter Substitutes

DUNKIN' DONUTS: Plaintiffs' Attorney Says Settlement Not Unfair
E-TRADE FINANCIAL: Class Action Over Trade Venue Selections Nixed
ELITE STAFFING: Baker's Bid to Certify Denied Due to Settlement
ETHICON: Canadians Join Physiomesh Hernia Mesh Class Action
EVERGREEN RECREATIONAL: Grimes Moves for Certification of Class

F.H. CANN: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed
FALONI & ASSOCIATES: Settlement Class Certified in "Maldonado"
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: Venkataram Seeks Class Certification
FIAT CHRYSLER: Seeks Dismissal of Emissions-Cheating Class Action
FIREEYE INC: August 4 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

FIRST CENTURY: Faces Class Action Over Prison-Release Cards
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
FLUIDMASTER: Faces Class Action Over Defective Toilet Water Line
FIRST STEP: Zeznanski Seeks Certification of Caregivers Class
FORD: Thai Vehicle Owners File Class Action Over Engine Defects

FORSTER & GARBUS: Feliciano Seeks to Certify Consumers Class
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Judge Denied Class Cert. in "Briggs" Suit
GEICO GENERAL: A&M Seeks to Certify Class of Healthcare Providers
GILEAD GROUP: "Adams" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
GOLDEN GRAIN: Loses Bid to Dismiss Slack Fill Class Action

GOODMAN FROST: "Combe" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE: MAO-MSO Seeks for Reimbursement
GRAEBEL VAN: Halts Operations Amid Driver's Wage Class Action
HAIR CLUB: "Forney" Suit Seeks Certification of Three Classes
HEALTH CARE: Cert. of Employees Class Sought in "Sawyer" Suit

HYANNIS, MA: Napoli Shkolnik Advertises Water Supply Class Suit
HYATT HOTELS: Livi Seeks to Certify Banquet Server Class
J.B. HUNT: Truck Drivers Want 9th Circuit to Revive Wage Suit
JOHNSON & BELL: Sues Edelson for Defamation, Self-Aggrandizement
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: First Xarelto Suit Set to Begin April 24

KIA: Recalls Faulty Engines Due to "Anticipatory Risk Concerns"
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: August 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LOS ANGELES: Customers Respond to Landmark Billing Settlement
LOUISIANA, USA: Court Denies Davis' Bid for Class Certification
LULAROE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Leggings

LULARO: Says Claims in Suit Over Quality Fabricated, Exaggerated
LUMOS NETWORKS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Merger
MAIBEC INC: Court Won't Allow Class Certification in "Stern"
MARK D. GUIDUBALDI: "Motiwala" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
MAYNE PHARMA: Court Strikes Amended Class Certification Bid

MGM STUDIOS: Faces Suit Over Missing Films From James Bond Set
MILLER & STARK: Court Terminated Class Certification Bid
MINOR LEAGUE: Judge Revives Baseball Players' FLSA Class Action
MORRIS-SHEA BRIDGE: "Falconer" Sues Over Non-Payment of OT Pay
MYLAN NV: Faces Class Action in Washington Over EpiPen Pricing

NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed
NAVIENT: Agrees to Stop Collection Activities From Barrowers
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Ponce's Bid for Class Certification Stricken
NEC TOKIN: July 6 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
NEW JERSEY, USA: Court Agrees to Reopen "Holmes" Class Suit

NORTHSTAR ALARM: Faces "Braver" Suit Over TCPA Violation
OMEGA PROTEIN: Faces "Diehl" Securities Class Action in NY
OPA-LOCKA: Faces Suit Over Corrupt & Messed Up Water System
PAPA JOHN'S: Court Denies Drivers' Class Action Certification
PEABODY ENERGY: Not Liable for Employees' Stock Losses

PISA GROUP: Faces TCPA Class Action in Missouri
PIZZATI ENTERPRISES: Bid for Conditional Cert. Granted in Part
POLLACK & ROSEN: Faces Class Action Over Collection Letter
PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: Asks Court to Deny FLSA Collective Action
PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: Asks Court to Decertify Wage and Hour Class

PTC INC: July 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Certification of Class Sought in "Hsu" Suit
PUTNAM INVESTMENTS: Judge Shuts Down Plaintiffs' Comparisons
QUAKER OATS: Judge Transfers Class Action Suit to Ill. Court
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Asks Court to Toss Class Action

REAL TIME: Tannlund Seeks Initial Settlement Approval
RENFREW POWER: Court Decertifies Cottage Owners' Class Action
ROMANOFF FLOORING: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
ROYAL CANIN: Seeks Dismissal of Pet Food Fraud Class Action
RUSHMORE LOAN: Court Terminated Motion for Class Certification

SALANDER ENTERPRISES: Williams Seeks Certification of 2 Classes
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces New Class Action Over Note 7 Defects
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Two Disability Groups File Suit Against BART
SANTA BARBARA, CA: Court Strikes Brislane's Bid for Class Cert.
SARATOGA DIAGNOSTICS: America's Health Seeks to Certify Class

SCHACHTER PORTNOY: Romano Wants Class Cert. Hearing to Continue
SCOTTS COMPANY: Motion for Preliminary Class Certification Sought
SILVERTREE MOHAVE: "Lewis" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
SIMON'S LAWN: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SP AUSNET: More Than $16MM Denied from Bushfire Victims

SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Gorss Motels Seeks to Certify Class
SQUARETRADE INC: Says Request for Forensic Copy Over Reaching
ST. JOHN REGIONAL HOSPITAL: CA$2.375MM Settlement Granted
TRUSTPOWER: Anger, Questions Over Flood Turns to Legal Action
ST. STEPHENS: Faces Class Action Over Negligence of Cemetery

SWISS-AMERICAN PRODUCTS: Sunscreen SPF Class Action Can Proceed
TAURUS PROCESSING: Faces Suit Over TCPA Violations
TESLA MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal of Unintended Acceleration Suit
TEVA PHARMA: Conspired to Jack Up Price of Diabetes Medication
TGI FRIDAYS: "Calabrese" Suit Seeks Certification of Two Classes

TGI FRIDAY'S: High Court to Decide on Drink Prices Class Action
TIBET PHARMACEUTICALS: Director Averts Class Action Over 2011 IPO
TIME WARNER: Judge Denied Bid for Class Certification in "Manigo"
TORONTO-DOMINION: Khang & Khang Files Class Action
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Soy-Based Wiring

TWITTER INC: Settles Privacy Class Action for $5.3 Million
TWO WAYS REST: Faces "Aydinoglu" Suit Over FLSA & NYLL Violations
UBER: Faces New Class Action Suit Over Driver Cheating Software
ULTRATECH INC: Rigrodsky & Long File Class Action
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Alderman" FDCPA Violations

US PHYSICAL: May 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Certifies Class in "Basile" Suit
VISA CANADA: Court Prohibits Fee to Stay Rival Class Action
VITAL RECOVERY: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
VIVENDI: Settles Remaining Shareholder Class Claims for $26.4MM

W. ROSS MACDONALD: Settlement Could Result in Compensation
WENDY'S CO: Loses Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Class Action
WEST COAST: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
WINS FINANCE: Faces Shareholder Suit
WISE FOODS: Sued Over Claims of Half Empty Pack of Chips

ZIMBABWE REP: Crowdfunding Campaign Raises Funds for Legal Actions
WINS FINANCE: June 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS: Faces Class Action Over Salmonella Outbreak

* "Right of Publicity" Class Actions Hit Data Aggregators
* Canada's Anti-Spam Law May Spark Class Actions
* Class Action Spending by Companies Continues to Increase
* Courts Evaluate Standing in Three Recent TCCWNA Class Actions
* D.C. Circuit Invalidates FCC's Solicited Fax Rule

* Final Vote Scheduled for Attorney Fees Issue in House Bill 1941
* H.R. 985 Bill Designed to Eliminate Securities Class Actions
* Mandatory Report of Data Breaches for Private Sector Urged
* Nullification of Opt-in Regulations Beneficial for Marketers
* Over 25 Settlements Approved by Ontario Superior Court

* Pierce Atwood Atty Comments on Proposed Changes to Rule 23
* Settlement Values for Accounting Class Actions Hit Record High
* Senate May Fail to Advance H.R. 985 Class Action Reform Bill


                            *********


20/20 COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Cobble" Suit Over Unpaid OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
James Cobble, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. 20/20 Communications, Inc., a Foreign Profit
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00053 (E.D. Tenn., April
5, 2017) is brought against the Defendant for unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant' failure to compensate
employees for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek as
required by the FLSA results from a policy or practice of failure
to assure the "Field Sales Managers" are/were paid for overtime
hours worked based on the Defendant's erroneous misclassification
of its "Field Sales Managers" employees as exempt from overtime.

Plaintiff was a "Field Sales Manager" employed by Defendant.

20/20 Communications, Inc. is a telecommunications company that
provides wireless Internet services for homes and businesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, P.A.
   600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
   Plantation, FL 33324
   Tel: 954-WORKERS
   Fax: 954-327-3013
   Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com


25 DEGREES: Gutierrez Seeks to Send Class Notice
------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MANUEL GUTIERREZ, on behalf of himself, and
all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, the
Plaintiff v. 25 DEGREES RESTAURANT, A/K/A 736 N CLARK CORP., A/K/A
TOUCH OF SUSHI, INC., MATTHEW BOUMAROUN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND JOSEPH
BOUMAROUN, INDIVIDUALLY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10868
(N.D. Ill.), Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
his unopposed motion to send notice to the Plaintiff Class, and
approve the content of the notice and consent forms.

The Plaintiff has filed his claim for unpaid overtime wages and
other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=h1QPmA7M

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853 1450


25 DEGREES: Court Granted Bid to Amend Misnomer in Case Caption
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John Robert Blakey in the lawsuit styled Manuel
Gutierrez, the Plaintiff, v. 25 Degrees Restaurant, et al., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-10868 (N.D. Ill.), granting
Plaintiff's agreed motion to amend a misnomer contained in the
case caption.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 3, 2017,
the Clerk is directed to correct the spelling of the individual
Defendants' names in the caption as follows: Matthew Boumaroun and
Joseph Boumaroun. The Plaintiff's unopposed motion to begin notice
to class members is also granted, and the proposed Notice and
Consent forms are approved. The April 4, 2017 Notice of Motion
date is stricken, and the parties need not appear.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=grAln3Nj


ADEPTUS HEALTH: May 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Adeptus Health Inc. (ADPT)
who purchased shares between April 29, 2016 and March 1, 2017.
The action, which was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, alleges that
the Company violated federal securities laws.

In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) Adeptus had material
weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting in the
areas of revenue recognition, accounts receivable, accounting for
a contribution to an unconsolidated joint venture, and accounting
for equity in (loss) earnings of unconsolidated joint ventures;
and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about Adeptus'
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Shareholders have until May 9, 2017 to petition the court for lead
plaintiff status.  Your ability to share in any recovery does not
require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to be an
absent class member.

If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain
additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by
telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-sa/adeptus-health-inc.

Joseph Klein, Esq. -- http://www.kleinstocklaw.com-- represents
investors and participates in securities litigations involving
financial fraud throughout the nation.


ADVANCE STORES: Whitehead et al. Seek Approval of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JORDAN WHITEHEAD and JANIE STAPLETON,
Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCE STORES COMPANY INC., d/b/a ADVANCE AUTO
PARTS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00250-RBD-PRL (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter a Final Order:

   1. approving Settlement Agreement;

   2. certifying a class defined as:

      "all current and former ASC employees whose PII was
      disclosed as a result of the Phishing Attack (Settlement
      Class); and

   3. granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to approve attorney's
      fees.

The Settlement provides identity protection services through
AllClear ID to all Settlement Class members for two years from the
date of the Phishing Attack. All Settlement Class members have
been automatically enrolled in AllClear Identity Repair (also
known as "AllClear Secure"), which provides identity repair and
restoration assistance. Additionally, all Settlement Cass Members
are able to enroll, free of charge, in AllClear Credit Monitoring
(also known as "AllClear PRO"), which includes, among other
benefits, credit monitoring and $1 million in identity theft
insurance. The retail cost of AllClear PRO is $14.95 per month
($358.80 per employee for two years coverage). In all, there are
approximately 101,400 eligible Settlement Class members who will
receive these services, resulting in $36,382,320 in benefits to
the Settlement Class members.

The Plaintiffs have fairly and adequately represented the class as
they negotiated a Settlement where Defendant agreed (i) to provide
to the Settlement Class members identity protection, credit
monitoring, and identity-theft insurance benefits valued at a
retail market price of over $36 million -- a significant portion
of the injunctive relief Plaintiffs sought in their complaint --
and, in addition, (ii) to fund up to $250,000 to reimburse
Settlement Class members who suffer certain out-of pocket costs
and document those costs through the Settlement Agreement's claims
process.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bggSdV7V

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
          Jason M. Melton, Esq.
          WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
          One Progress Plaza
          200 Central Avenue, No. 400
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 822 1111
          Facsimile: (727) 898 2001
          E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
                  lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
                  shelley@theFLlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert J. Baehr, Esq.
          Emmet J. Schwartzman, Esq.
          Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.
          P.O. Box 019101
          Miami, FL 33131-9101
          Telephone: (305) 530 0050
          Facsimile: (305) 530 0055
          E-mail: ESchwartzman@carltonfields.com

               - and -

          Michael B. Miller, Esq.
          Robert J. Baehr, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          250 West 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019-9601
          Telephone: (212) 468 8000
          Facsimile: (212) 468 7900
          E-mail Mbmiller@mofo.com
                  RBaehr@mofo.com


ALL AMERICAN HOME: "Cooper" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lavette Cooper and Ivory Cooper, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. All American Home Care
LLC, All American Hospice Care LLC and Michael Spivak, Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01563-PBT (E.D. Pa., April 6, 2017) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime premium, straight pay and liquidated
damages for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were employed as Home Health Aide in Philadelphia, PA.

AA Home Care is in the business of providing home health services
to its consumers, including the provision of Home Health Aides.

AA Hospice is a Medicare certified and state-licensed hospice that
provides "skilled hospice professionals that specialize in caring
for people at the end of life."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Marc P. Weingarten, Esq.
   Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
   Locks Law Firm
   601 Walnut St., Suite 720 East
   Philadelphia, PA 19106
   Tel: (215) 893-0100

        - and -

   Alvin F. de Levie, Esq.
   Law Offices of Alvin F. de Levie
   The Curtis Center
   601 Walnut St., Suite 720 East
   Philadelphia, PA 19106
   Tel: 800-292-0458

        - and -

   Adam H. Garner, Esq.
   The Garner Firm, Ltd.
   1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
   Philadelphia, PA 19102
   Tel: (215) 645-5955


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


ALLY FINANCIAL: Tillman Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled DONELL L. TILLMAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLY
FINANCIAL INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00313-UA-CM (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify the following class
and subclass of similarly situated persons:

Class:

   "all persons in the United States to whose cellular telephone
   number Ally placed at least two telephone calls using the same
   dialing system(s) it used to call Plaintiff, or an artificial
   or prerecorded voice, between April 25, 2012 and present,
    where Ally noted the number as Wrong Number or Do Not Call in
   its records"; and

Sub-Class:

   "all persons in the United States to whose cellular telephone
   number Ally placed at least two telephone calls using the same
   dialing system(s) it used to call Plaintiff, or an artificial
   or prerecorded voice, between April 25, 2012 and present,
   where at least one of those calls was made after Ally noted
   the number as Wrong Number or Do Not Call in its records".

The case is about Ally's use of prohibited technology ("Automatic
Telephone Dialing Systems" and "Prerecorded" voices) to place debt
collection calls to people, like Plaintiff, who have told Ally
that is calling the wrong number and/or to stop calling. This
conduct violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA),
which prohibits these robocalls to cellular telephone numbers
without express consent. The Plaintiff seeks classwide
adjudication for people with the same claim for statutory damages
and injunctive relief under the TCPA.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD
          55 W. Monroe St, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312-726 1092
          Facsimile: 312 726 1093
          E-mail: TSostrin@KeoghLaw.com

               - and -

          William Peerce Howard, Esq.
          Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
          TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
          210 A-South MacDill Ave.
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 500 1500
          E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
                  Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com


AM (2015) LLC: Class Certification Bid in "Zeidel" Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Freida Zeidel, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AM
(2015) LLC, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:13-cv-06989 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification;

   2. granting Plaintiffs' motion to file a sur-reply;

   3. granting Defendant's motion to file sur-sur-reply; and

   4. denying Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 30, 2017,
the case is set for further status on April 19, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.
to discuss pre-trial scheduling and the possibility of settlement.

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


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


AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Court Dismissed Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Charles P. Kocoras entered an order in the lawsuit titled
Caleb Baldwin, the Plaintiff, v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00848 (N.D. Ill.), dismissing
Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 30, 2017,
oral motion for extension of time is granted. Motion was due by
April 14, 2017. Response is due by May 25,2017. In court ruling is
set for June 29, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. Status hearing set for April 11
is stricken.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IB8b4Pc4


AMERICAN SCREENING: Court Strikes Motion for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled Podiatry In Motion, Inc., the Plaintiff, v. American
Screening, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07938 (N.D.
Ill.), striking Plaintiff's motion for class certification without
prejudice, according to the docket entry made by the Clerk on
March 30, 2017.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sKAtzt6K


ANTHEM HEALTH: Class Notice Online Works Just Fine
--------------------------------------------------
Amy L. Hurwitz, Esq., and Gary M. Pappas, Esq., at Carlton Fields,
in an article for Mondaq, wrote that in a case involving alleged
violations of ERISA and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction
Equity Act, the District Court of the Western District of Kentucky
certified a class of Anthem Health Plan insureds who were denied
coverage or reimbursement for Applied Behavior Analysis, a
particular treatment for Autism Spectrum Disorders. The court then
ordered plaintiff to submit a proposed draft notice to be sent to
class members. The parties agreed (for the most part) on the
content of the notice, but a dispute arose regarding the method of
delivery to the class members.

Plaintiff proposed direct mail notice supplemented with a class
website, which would serve as a central location for posting the
notice as well as any related class documents, including the
complaint, the order certifying the class, and future scheduling
orders or briefing on significant issues. Anthem opposed the
website, arguing that the class was not large enough to require
this medium and that using the website would put the onus on class
members to monitor the litigation. In addition, Anthem argued that
material posted online is at risk of "dissemination and
distortion" and proposed as an alternative that the website be
password-protected with unique passwords for each class member.

The court analyzed plaintiff's proposed notice under the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B), which
provides that "the court must direct to class members the best
notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including
individual notice to all members who can be identified through
reasonable effort." The court recognized that notice by mail is
preferred where, as here, the names and addresses of most class
members were known. But the court cited numerous opinions -- and
quoted from the Manual for Complex Litigation -- approving
websites as a useful, relatively low cost supplement to direct
individual notice in class action litigation.

As a result, the court rejected Anthem's objections. The court
also declined Anthem's alternative proposal to require password
protection for the website, finding no reason why passwords would
be necessary or beneficial under the circumstances of this case.
Wilson v. Anthem Health Plans of Kentucky, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-
743-TBR (D.KY., March 21, 2017. [GN]


ANZ SECURITIES: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in CALPERS Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that in a new Supreme
Court brief on behalf of underwriters accused of defrauding
California's state employees' pension fund, Paul Clement of
Kirkland & Ellis warned the justices not to be duped by the
pension fund's sleight-of-hand -- not on the real issue in the
case and not on underlying policy.

Mr. Clement's brief accused the California Public Employees'
Retirement System of "brazen disregard" for the Supreme Court's
framing of the question presented in the case.  And in the event
that his first use of "brazen" didn't make the point, Mr. Clement
repeated it later in the brief: "This court should not reward such
a brazen end-run around its explicit decision to limit the grant
of certiorari."

In response, CalPERS counsel Thomas Goldstein, Esq. --
tgoldstein@goldsteinrussell.com -- of Goldstein & Russell told me
in an email that he gets why the underwriters have resorted to a
"hopeless" argument: "Their argument on the merits of it is just
so bad that they had to try something,"
Mr. Goldstein said.

Peppery, right? Especially for a securities case that doesn't have
much of a public profile.

Here's the background, in case you somehow haven't been paying
attention to CalPERS v. ANZ Securities.  Mr. Clement represents
underwriters, including ANZ, of Lehman Brothers debt offerings
from 2007 and early 2008, before the investment bank went under.
Those underwriters were sued in a 2008 class action.  CalPERS
separately sued the defendants in 2011, and, when the class action
settled, opted out to continue with its own suit.  But in 2016,
the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that CalPERS had
waited too long to sue.  Reiterating its 2013 decision in In re
IndyMac, the appeals court said the Securities Act's three-year
statute of repose is an absolute time bar that gives defendants
the substantive right to be free of the specter of lawsuits after
a prescribed time.  The statute of repose, according to the 2nd
Circuit, cannot be tolled by the filing of class action.

The Supreme Court, as you know, ruled in 1974's American Pipe v.
Utah that the filing of a class action tolls the statute of
limitations in securities fraud litigation.  But the court has
also held, most recently and emphatically in 2014's CTS v.
Waldburger that the statute of limitations and the statute of
repose are distinct.

In 2016, a plethora of certiorari petitions asked the Supreme
Court to decide whether American Pipe tolling also applies to the
statute of repose.  The justices picked the CalPERS case as their
vehicle.  CalPERS' petition for certiorari presented two
questions: the first about American Pipe tolling and the statute
of repose; the second on whether, despite the statute of repose, a
member of an uncertified class action can file an individual suit
based on the same claims as those of the class. The Supreme Court
granted review only of the first question.

The issue of whether the statute of repose can be tolled is really
slippery.  It depends on the nature of repose, different flavors
of tolling (it can be equitable or legal) and interplay between
the Rules Enabling Act and the federal rule governing class
actions.

As Reuters' Alison Frankel reported last month, Goldstein &
Russell's merits brief for CalPERS offered a relatively easy way
to grab hold of the question.  Instead of grappling with the Rules
Enabling Act, equitable authority and substantive rights, the
brief said, the justices should simply apply their own American
Pipe terminology and conclude that the filing of a class action
"brings the action for all members, whether named or not." Under
that definition, CalPERS "brought" its case against the Lehman
underwriters when the class action was filed, well within the
three-year statute of repose for Securities Act claims.

That's the argument that Ms. Clement attacked as an improper end-
run in the underwriters' merits brief.  In effect, the brief
argued, Goldstein & Russell is trying to re-introduce the question
the Supreme Court decided not to review.  "Petitioner describes
this argument as the 'easiest path to reversal,' but that 'path'
faces a rather significant roadblock: namely, the fact that the
court expressly declined to grant certiorari on this issue," the
brief said.  "That was no accident, as the court was considering
multiple petitions, some raising one issue and others raising two
. . .  Undeterred, petitioner has now fully briefed both questions
(leading with the non-granted question, no less) despite this
court's explicit instructions to the contrary."

The underwriters contend this is actually an easy case.  American
Pipe established equitable tolling of the statute of limitations
when a class action has been filed.  The statute of repose is not
an equitable principle but a substantive legal right for
defendants.  If the Securities Act's three-year time limit on
claims is a statute of repose -- as the underwriters argue it is,
based, among other things, on the law's legislative history --
American Pipe doesn't apply.

"This court has made clear that statutes of repose confer
substantive rights on defendants to be free from suit after a
specified period," the brief said. "Under the Rules Enabling Act,
courts may not apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a
manner that would 'abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive
right.'"

The underwriters' brief also said CalPERS and its amici (who
include dozens of other institutional investors, law professors
and retired federal judges) have promulgated an evidence-free
argument that courts will be flooded with protective opt-out suits
by pension and healthcare funds if the Supreme Court agrees with
the 2nd Circuit.  CalPERS and its amici had said the 2nd Circuit
holding would undermine the efficiency class actions are supposed
to promote.  But according to the underwriters, CalPERS and its
friends have come up with only one example -- securities fraud
litigation against the Brazilian company Petrobras -- of a case
that has generated the predicted tsunami of opt-outs, even though
it has been several years since the 2nd Circuit first decreed that
class actions don't toll the statute of repose.

In fact, the underwriters argued, the Supreme Court has good
policy reasons to agree with the 2nd Circuit.  When Congress
enacted securities litigation reform in 1995, it encouraged
institutional investors to step up to lead class actions.  If the
Supreme Court allows big pension and healthcare funds to back out
of class actions whenever they please, the underwriters said,
smaller and less sophisticated investors will suffer.

"I'm sure we'll soon see amicus briefs echoing the underwriters'
policy contentions," Ms. Frankel said.  Oral arguments are
scheduled for April 17.


AOSS MEDICAL: Court Refuses to Certify Classes in PRS LLC Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Charles Ronald Norgle denied without prejudice the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit
captioned PRS LLC, on behalf of Plaintiff and the class members
defined herein v. AOSS MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Case No. 1:16-cv-07498 (N.D. Ill.).

PRS LLC filed the case on July 22, 2016, complaining that the
Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
alleging other state law claims.  The Plaintiff moves to certify:

   * All persons (1) who, on or after a date four years prior to
     the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658), (2) were
     sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant AOSS Medical Supply,
     Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale (3) and which
     did not contain a compliant opt out notice. By "compliant
     opt out notice" is meant one (i) on the first page of the
     fax (ii) that states that the recipient may make a request
     to the sender not to send any future unsolicited
     advertisements to a telephone facsimile machine (iii) that
     states that failure to comply, within the shortest
     reasonable time, as determined by the Federal Communications
     Commission, is unlawful; (iv) that provides instructions on
     how to submit an opt out request and (v) that includes a
     domestic contact telephone and facsimile machine number and
     a cost-free mechanism for the recipient to transmit such a
     request to the sender that permit a request to be made at
     any time on any day of the week. (Count I)

   * All persons with Illinois fax numbers (1) who, on or after a
     date three years prior to the filing of this action, (2)
     were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant AOSS Medical
     Supply, Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale (3)
     and which did not contain a compliant opt out notice. (Count
     II)

   * All persons with Illinois fax numbers (1) who, on or after a
     date five years prior to the filing of this action, (2) were
     sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant AOSS Medical Supply,
     Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale (3) and which
     did not contain a compliant opt out notice as described in
     47 U.S.C. Section 227. (Counts III, IV, and V)

"Because Plaintiff has not presented any evidence to support its
assumption that there are over forty recipients of Defendants'
faxes, it cannot satisfy the numerosity prong of Rule 23(a).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for class certification must be
denied.  However, Defendants have only recently answered and not
much, if any, discovery has occurred.  Because this litigation is
in its infancy Plaintiff is granted leave to refile a motion for
class certification in the future," Judge Norgle opined.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=G9ze0L8G


APPLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Address Book Uploads Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for Mediapost, reports that Apple is urging a
federal judge to shut down a false advertising class action
brought by iPhone and iPad users who say they were duped into
believing that phones would protect their privacy.

The company's request is the latest development in long-running
litigation over allegations that Twitter, Yelp and other app
developers uploaded people's address books.

The dispute dates to 2012, when researchers revealed that mobile
social network Path (now Kong Technologies) and Hipster (later
acquired and shut down by AOL) accessed and stored users' address
books without their knowledge.  Security researchers subsequently
accused other developers -- including Foodspotting, Foursquare
Labs, Gowalla, Instagram, Kik Interactive, Twitter and Yelp -- of
uploading users' address books.  Unlike Path, those other
developers reportedly asked people for permission to access their
address books, in order to help them connect with friends who also
used the service.  But Foodspotting, Yelp, Twitter and the others
allegedly didn't say they would keep the data in their servers.

iPhone user Marc Opperman, and other consumers, sued Apple and
more than a dozen developers for allegedly violating users'
privacy.  The app developers agreed to resolve the allegations and
are expected to detail the settlement terms later this month.
The claims against Apple include accusations that the company
misled users with ads touting security features that were supposed
to protect users' data.  The consumers have asked U.S. District
Court Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco to allow them to bring a
class action on behalf of everyone who purchased an iPhone, iPad
or iPod Touch before 2012.

In papers filed with Tigar on March 31, Apple calls the proposed
class "wildly overbroad," arguing that it would include "tens of
millions of people who never downloaded or used any of the eleven
apps that allegedly committed the privacy violations at issue."

The class would be made up of "people who never had their contacts
improperly accessed or uploaded and who could never have suffered
the claimed injury to privacy interests that Plaintiffs have long
said drove this litigation," Apple adds.

The company also argues that the consumers haven't shown that all
purchasers were "exposed to uniform misrepresentations" in ads,
and that it publicly acknowledged that some app developers might
violate Apple's policies.

If Apple prevails, individual users would still be able to sue,
but the cost of doing so tends to be prohibitively expensive.
Tigar is slated to explore Apple's request at a hearing in May.


APPLE INC: Settles Privacy Class Action, May 25 Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Twitter, Instagram and other app makers look likely to pay $5.3
million to settle class action claims that they uploaded Apple
device users' personal data without consent.

A motion for preliminary approval of the consolidated class action
settlement was filed on April 3.

The five-year-old litigation stretches back to March 2012 when
lead plaintiff Marc Opperman sued Apple and 17 app developers for
allegedly letting companies swipe users' address book data from
iPhones and other devices without permission.

The eight settling app makers include Twitter, Instagram, Yelp,
Foursquare, Foodspotting, Gowalla, Kik Interactive and Kong
Technologies, which acquired the social media app Path.

The settlement does not resolve claims against Apple, which denied
culpability for allowing apps to access users' contact lists
during a hearing in November 2016.  A ruling on Apple's motion for
summary judgment is still pending.

Last July, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar certified a nationwide
class of 480,000 Apple device users for claims against Apple and
Path.

In September, Judge Tigar refused to dismiss claims against Yelp,
finding the crowd-sourcing business review app failed to
explicitly disclose its intent to upload users' contact data.

The proposed $5.3 million fund will cover all aspects of the
settlement, including administering claims, incentive awards for
class representatives and attorneys' fees, according to the motion
for preliminary settlement approval.

Class members will receive payments as electronic credits for
Amazon.com, or as physical postcard checks for individuals who do
not shop on Amazon "because sending physical checks to all
claimants would be cost prohibitive," according to the motion.

Potential class members will be notified of the settlement through
a website, direct emails and "promoted tweet" advertisements on
Twitter, according to the motion for tentative approval.

Lead class counsel David Given -- dmg@phillaw.com -- of Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin, did not immediately return a phone call
seeking comment on April 4.

A hearing on the motion for preliminary settlement approval is
scheduled for May 25 in San Francisco.

The case is MARC OPPERMAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. PATH, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No.13-cv-00453-JST (N.D. Calif.).

Marc Opperman, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP.

Marc Opperman, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Scott Edwards,
Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of
Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP,
James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von
Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Judy Long, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
& Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Claire Moses, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Gentry Hoffman, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Steve Dean, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Alicia Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
& Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Alan Beueshasen, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards,
Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of
Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew
Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Scott Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
& Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Greg Varner, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Rachelle King, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Guili Biondi, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Jason Green, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M.
Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Nirali Mandaywala, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards,
Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of
Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew
Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Maria Pirozzi, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James S. Notis, Gardy &
Notis, LLP, pro hac vice, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP, Jennifer Sarnelli, Gardy & Notis, LLP, Michael John
von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Orin Kurtz, Gardy and
Notis, LLP, pro hac vice.

Oscar Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas A. Carlin,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon,
Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Russell Strange,
Strange & Butler, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, John Theodore Ceglia,
Strange & Carpenter & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP.

Francisco Espitia, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas A. Carlin,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon,
Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
& Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Haig Arabian, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas A. Carlin,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon,
Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Russell Strange,
Strange & Butler, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, John Theodore Ceglia,
Strange & Carpenter & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP.

Steven Gutierrez, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas A. Carlin,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon,
Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Russell Strange,
Strange & Butler, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, John
Theodore Ceglia, Strange & Carpenter & Michael John von
Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Lauren Carter, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew
Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Stephanie Cooley, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon,
Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew
Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Claire Hodgins, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew
Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Judy Paul, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Daniel Jack Veroff, Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew
Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt,
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Theda Sandiford, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon,
Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP &
Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Path, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Casas, Greenberg
Traurig, LLP, Jedediah Wakefield, Fenwick & West LLP & Tyler
Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP.

Twitter, Inc., Defendant, represented by James G. Snell, Perkins
Coie LLP, Lauren Beth Cohen, Perkins Coie LLP, Timothy L. Alger,
Greenberg Traurig LLP, John Randall Tyler, Perkins Coie LLP, Julie
Erin Schwartz, Perkins Coie LLP & Ryan T. Mrazik, Perkins Coie
LLP, pro hac vice.

Apple Inc, Defendant, represented by Alan D. Albright, Gray Cary
Ware & Freidenrich LLP, Clayton Cole James, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Jessica Adler Black Livingston, Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro hac
vice, Jessica S. Ou, Gibson Dunn, Robert B. Hawk, Hogan Lovells US
LLP & Stacy R. Hovan, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Yelp! Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Henry Page, Durie
Tangri LLP & Peter D. Kennedy, George & Donaldson, L.L.P..

Instagram, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lori R. Mason, Cooley
LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP & Michael G. Rhodes, Cooley
LLP.

Foursquare Labs, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Frank
McDowell, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison
& Foerster LLP & Molly A. Smolen, Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Gowalla Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Harmeet K.
Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., Krista Lee Baughman, Dhillon Law
Group Inc., Micah R. Jacobs, Dhillon Law Group, Inc. & Rachel
Kung-Lan Loh, Dhillon Law Group, Inc..

Foodspotting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Henry Page,
Durie Tangri LLP & Peter D. Kennedy, George & Donaldson, L.L.P..

Kik Interactive, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lori R. Mason,
Cooley LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael G. Rhodes,
Cooley LLP, Christopher Brian Durbin, Cooley LLP & Erin Elisa
Goodsell, Cooley LLP.

Instagram, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Dean Brown,
Cooley LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP & Erin Elisa Goodsell,
Cooley LLP.


ARRIS INTERNATIONAL: Consumers Sue Over Defective Cable Modems
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers on April 3 filed a class action lawsuit against Arris
International plc (NASDAQ: ARRS), claiming that the
telecommunications company sells cable modems containing a serious
defect that results in high spikes in network latency, degrading
users' Internet connections, according to Schubert Jonckheer &
Kolbe, which represents the consumers.

The lawsuit, filed on March 31, 2017 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, alleges that consumers
who purchased Arris's SURFboard SB6190 modem -- which promised
consumers "the fastest speeds" and "most reliable connection" to
the Internet -- suffer from severe network latency spikes.
Hundreds of users have complained in online forums, and Arris
itself has acknowledged the issue.  Arris, however, has failed to
fix the problem for SB6190 purchasers.

"Consumers paid top dollar for a high-end cable modem, but even
Arris now acknowledges that the SB6190 suffers from a serious
flaw," said Noah Schubert, Esq. -- rschubert@sjk.law -- a partner
at Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe.  "Arris and other cable modem
manufacturers shipping modems with the defect should recall the
affected models and issue refunds."

According to the lawsuit, the root of the problem is Arris's
decision to swap out the Broadcom chipset in this modem with the
Puma 6 chipset from Intel Corporation.  Arris told online
technology websites that the problem stems from Intel's Puma 6's
chipset, which causes cable modems to suffer from significant
jitter and latency on their network connections.

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP is actively investigating whether
other cable modems containing the Puma 6 chipset, including modems
from Netgear, Linksys, Cisco, and Hitron, also suffer from the
same severe network latency defect. To see if your cable modem may
be affected by this defect, please visit our website at
classactionlawyers.com/cablemodems.

If you purchased an Arris SB6190 or other cable modem containing
the Puma 6 chipset, you may be entitled to a refund of the
purchase price.  If you think you may be affected by this cable
modem defect, please contact us today to learn more.

                 About Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe represents shareholders, employees, and
consumers in class actions against corporate defendants, as well
as shareholders in derivative actions against their officers and
directors.  The firm is based in San Francisco, and with the help
of co-counsel, litigates cases nationwide.


ASCENA RETAIL: Faces TCPA Class Action in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Ascena Retail Group
Inc. d/b/a Dressbarn, citing alleged violation of telephone
harassment statutes.

Stewart Abramson filed a complaint on behalf of himself and all
persons and entities similarly situated March 7 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging
the New Jersey business contacted the plaintiff's cell phone for
the purpose of telemarketing.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on Feb. 12
he sustained damages from receiving unwanted calls and text
messages from Dressbarn on his cell phone.  The plaintiff holds
Ascena/Dressbarn responsible because the defendant allegedly
contacted the plaintiff using an automatic telephone dialing
system without prior consent.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks to enjoin the
defendant, as well as damages, court costs and any further relief
the court grants.  He is represented by Clayton S. Morrow of
Morrow & Artim PC in Pittsburgh.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Case
number 2:17-cv-00294-CB


ASSET MANAGEMENT: Vinson Asks Court to Certify Class of Vendors
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled BENNETT VINSON, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. ASSET MANAGEMENT
SPECIALISTS, INC., ASSET MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS, LLC; MORTGAGE
CONTRACTING SERVICES, LLC and DOES 1-25, Case No. 5:14-cv-00369-
DDP-AGR (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court for an order certifying a
class consisting of:

     All persons who at any time from February 26, 2010, up to
     and through June 30, 2015 (the "Class Period") (1) were
     designated by Defendants as independent contractors; (2)
     performed property preservation work in California pursuant
     to Defendants' work orders; and (3) while working for
     Defendants during the Class Period, did not work for any
     other entity more than 30% of the time (the "Class").

Mr. Vinson seeks to represent a class consisting of those vendors
whose primary source of work and income came from the Defendants
and who performed property preservation work pursuant to the
Defendants' work orders ("Vendors").  He also asks the Court to
appoint him as Class representative, and appoint Duckworth Peters
Lebowitz Olivier LLP and Shepherd Finkelman Miller and Shah, LLP
as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on September 11, 2017, at 11:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Q7nKiXGf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Duckworth, Esq.
          Monique Olivier, Esq.
          DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-0333
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6556
          E-mail: tom@dplolaw.com
                  monique@dplolaw.com

               - and -

          Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH LLP
          11755 Wilshire Boulevard, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (323) 510-4060
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER AND SHAH, LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (860) 526-1100
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER AND SHAH, LLP
          401 West A Street, Suite 2550
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 235-2416
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: csekino@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER AND SHAH, LLP
          1625 North Commerce Parkway Suite 320
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 515-0123
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: nzipperian@sfmslaw.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 9:30 a.m.

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, was
stricken and no appearance was required.

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


AT&T CORP: Larson Seeks to Certify Services Technicians Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KEITH LARSON, MIKE MARQUERING, ANTHONY
MINEER, CURTIS MITCHELL, HECTOR OLASCOAGA, TOM TRANSUE, JOHNNY
WESTPHAL, DAVID WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AT&T CORP., and DOES
1-200, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-04858-VC (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to enter an order certifying
classes of similarly situated members -- Services Technicians
based out of Sonoma County.

Since and before 2000, AT&T has allegedly engaged in uniform
unfair and unlawful employment acts and practices, and caused
resultant identical type of damages to Plaintiffs and the classes.
AT&T has knowingly denied Plaintiffs and Class Members lawful
wages by failing to provide Plaintiffs and Class Members meal and
rest breaks in blatant violation of state and federal law. AT&T's
misconduct is uniform and classwide. Eighty to One Hundred
employees are similarly situated to Plaintiffs and have been
denied statutory and lawful meal and rest breaks. Plaintiffs
demonstrate below that they satisfy all elements for
certification, but three salient points bear emphasis.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0ZpE3ZAq

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles A. Bonner, Esq.
          A. Cabral Bonner, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER
          475 Gate Five Rd, Suite 212
          Sausalito, CA 94965
          Telephone: (415) 331 3070
          Facsimile: (415) 331 2738
          E-mail: cbonner799@aol.com
                  cabral@bonnerlaw.com

               - and -

          H. Tim Hoffman, Esq.
          H. TIM HOFFMAN LAW
          5401 Fernhoff Rd.
          Oakland, CA 94619
          Telephone: (510) 207 5300
          E-mail: hth@hthmediate.com


AUGUSTUS ENERGY: Judge Certifies Gas Royalty Payment Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Goldberg, writing for Law360, reports that a Colorado
magistrate judge certified a class action filed by natural gas
royalty owners accusing Augustus Energy Resources LLC of
underpaying royalties, saying they'd established common
allegations that the driller improperly deducted post-production
costs despite varying language on the issue contained in lease
agreements.

Augustus had argued that the bid for class status filed by royalty
owners Melissa Crichton and Cristy Hedgepeth couldn't be sustained
because the language covering post-production costs differed in
overriding royalty agreements the company inked with royalty
owners.

However, U.S. Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix said that Colorado
courts have certified classes of royalty owners even if the
specific language in their royalty agreements wasn't the same. She
said Augustus' reliance on a pair of Tenth Circuit decisions
nixing royalty class actions was faulty because both decisions
concluded that the lease agreements in those cases weren't
adequately analyzed to answer the commonality question.

"Both of these cases were remanded to the district court not on
the merits, but for the district court to consider in the first
instance whether the varying lease language affected commonality,"
Judge Mix said.

As to the specific language of the lease agreements in the current
case, Judge Mix rejected Augustus' argument that the plaintiffs
haven't shown commonality because the agreements aren't all silent
as to the allocation of post-production costs between the company
and the royalty owner.

She cited the Colorado Supreme Court's decision in the 2001 case
Rogers v. Westerman Farm Co., in which the court held that
drillers have an implied duty to make the gas marketable and are
solely responsible for all post-production processing expenses to
make that happen if there aren't any "express lease provisions"
allocating post-production costs.

"On the court's review of the plaintiffs' lease chart and the
parties' briefing, it appears beyond dispute that the leases do
not expressly provide for allocation of post-production costs,"
the judge said.

Ms. Crichton and Ms. Hedgepeth have also satisfied the other
prongs of the class certification test, Judge Mix said, including
that their breach of contract claims are typical of the claims of
other class members.  They've also identified more than 700
potential class members, the opinion stated.

Ms. Crichton and Ms. Hedgepeth originally sued Augustus in
Colorado state court in March 2015, accusing the company of
breaching its contractual obligations starting in December 2009 by
improperly deducting post-production costs from the price the gas
was sold at, leading to underpaid royalties.  The case was removed
to federal court in April 2015, according to the opinion.

Counsel for Augustus declined to comment on April 3.  Counsel for
the plaintiffs couldn't be immediately reached for comment.

The royalty owners are represented by Stacy A. Burrows and George
A. Barton of the Law Offices of George A. Barton PC and Lance F.
Astrella of Astrella Law PC.

Augustus is represented by Michael J. Gallagher, Jacqueline V.
Roeder and Ericka F. Houck Englert of Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP.

The case is Crichton et al. v. Augustus Natural Resources LLC,
case number 1:15-cv-00835, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado.


AUSTRALIA: Settlement Reached for Retta Dixon Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Ellie Turner at NT News reports that some of the children who
lived in the old Retta Dixon home were stolen from their people,
some were surrendered.

But once they were in care under the Commonwealth's assimilation
policy, the non-denominational religious organisation that ran the
"half caste" home failed to ensure they were protected. Instead,
many vulnerable children were indoctrinated, humiliated and
exploited.

Some of the survivors of physical and sexual abuse at Retta Dixon
made history with a class-action lawsuit against the Commonwealth,
Australian Indigenous Ministries and convicted paedophile Donald
Henderson.

And a settlement has been reached.

The 71 former child residents of Retta Dixon involved in the civil
case will be compensated for the wrongs perpetrated against them
by people they should have been able to trust.

Irene Yanner, 65, sits in her leafy garden in northern Darwin, her
dog Jackson sitting at the gate and chickens pecking at the grass.
She has eight children and one adopted son, 38 grandchildren and
eight great grandchildren. Ms Yanner is proud of her family.

But she said being raised without parental affection in Retta
Dixon -- where she was sexually, physically and emotionally abused
-- contributed to her difficulty showing her children love as they
grew up and her discomfort at being touched.

Ms Yanner said she didn't see the compensation as closure.
"I would have liked to see all the people who hurt us prosecuted -
- not just the paedophiles, there were some sadistic missionary
women as well," she said.

"It would have helped knowing they were punished."

On the other hand. she said she was glad the settlement recognised
the wrongs perpetrated against children at Retta Dixon, even if it
didn't undo them.

Ms Yanner said one house parent forced her to kneel on bird seed
in a corner from lunch to dinner time one day because she refused
to pray.

"The seeds were embedded in my knees," she said.

She was also flogged incessantly, once to the point where her
injuries were so bad she ran away from Retta Dixon and hid at her
mum's house in Nightcliff, where she lived with a Hungarian man
who threatened to report the missionaries to police for the brutal
beating when they came looking for her. Ms Yanner had two babies
by the time she was 16 -- "a man tells you he loves you, and all
you want is to be loved," she said -- and met her partner Phillip
Yanner in 1969.

They moved to Burketown, where he was an indigenous community
leader, and he taught her about family.
"He kept me grounded," she said.

Phillip died in 1999 and Ms. Yanner moved back to Darwin, where
she was born, about 16 years ago.

The civil lawsuit began after the Royal Commission into
Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse heard evidence
alleging rape, sexual touching and horrific assaults from former
child residents of Retta Dixon in September, 2014.

The main alleged perpetrators were former house parents Desmond
Walter, George Pounder, Judy Fergusson and Donald Henderson.
There was also evidence some children were abused by other
children.

Retta Dixon became a focus for the Royal Commission after two
former residents, Barbara Cummings and Sue Roman, rounded up
others to tell their stories in private sessions.
Without their tenacity, the horrors that happened may never have
been aired.

Retta Dixon opened as a dormitory-style home at Bagot Reserve in
1946.

The home moved to Karu Park, on the corner of Bagot and Totem
roads, where cottages were built in the early 1960s.
It closed its doors in mid-1980.

Aborigines Inland Missions, as AIM was then known, employed "house
parents" and a superintendent to run the home, where children were
humiliated for displaying signs of trauma and distress, including
wetting the bed.

One house parent stabbed a child in the hand with a can opener,
and girls were groped, perved on in the shower and chained to
their beds.

When children were brave enough to report sexual abuse to
superintendent Mervyn Pattemore, he ignored them or caned them for
"lying" rather than reporting paedophiles to police.
The commission found AIM failed in its duty of care.

But the results were inconclusive when it came to the
Commonwealth's culpability, which the commission found couldn't be
determined due to a lack of evidence, with many records lost or
destroyed.

"A question remains as to whether it should have taken action to
protect the residents of the home from sexual abuse," it stated.
Federal welfare officers were aware children in Retta Dixon were
sexualised from the early 1960s, when a government worker reported
a 13-year-old girl got "12 strokes of the cane for sex play with a
little boy".

Former residents identified alleged rapist and convicted
paedophile Donald Henderson, who now lives in Queensland, as the
major sexual offender.

One man gave evidence at the Royal Commission that Henderson raped
him in the chook pen at Retta Dixon.

In 1975, Henderson was charged with seven offences against five
Retta Dixon home children but the cases collapsed.

In 1984, Henderson was convicted without penalty when he admitted
he indecently assaulted two young white brothers at Casuarina
Pool.

Eight years later he was declared a "person of interest" after
police received a report that he was lurking near boys at the
Anula shops in northern Darwin.

In 1998, four people came forward and alleged historic sex
offences against Henderson.

The commission found the four-year police investigation lacked
strength and resources, and the Director of Public Prosecutions
failed to follow procedure when withdrawing charges on the ground
conviction was unlikely.

One man, who asked to remain anonymous, was molested by a female
house parent after his non-indigenous father surrendered him to
authorities when he was about five-years-old.

He said he escaped the worst of Henderson.

"He was a charismatic man and a ruthless predator," he said.
The boys nicknamed Henderson "ticklefoot", due to his penchant for
sitting young children on his lap and tickling their feet with a
feather duster.

About a quarter of the people involved in the class action were
victims of Henderson.

The man reiterated the overarching feeling among his fellow
survivors -- that the settlement was more about AIM, the
Commonwealth and Henderson recognising wrongdoing and suffering
than the money.

Darwin lawyer Bill Piper, who ran the class action, said the final
deeds had been prepared and signed.

He said the settlement avoided the costs and stresses involved in
drawn-out civil litigation.

"This settlement happened in a 'flash', in legal timescales," Mr
Piper said.

He said he was uncertain if the case would open the door for other
lawsuits.

"It leaves open the question -- can institutionalised kids from
the stolen generation claim for failures of authorities to care
for them once they were placed in care?" he said.
"There was a huge raft of evidence available from the Royal
Commission that might not be present in other cases."
Mr Piper said the Royal Commission was a "third crack" for many
people who identified as "stolen generation".

The High Court decision of Kruger vs. the Commonwealth in 1997
found the old Commonwealth assimilation policy was constitutional;
The Federal Court decision of Cubillo and Gunner vs. the
Commonwealth found the way authorities implemented the
assimilation policy was not actionable;

But the findings of the Royal Commission made it clear that those
who suffered injury, loss or trauma would have reasonable
prospects in pursuing civil action.

The Federal Government has announced a sexual abuse victim redress
scheme. Mr Piper said the scheme could represent an alternative to
litigation for those with a Commonwealth connection.
He said Territorians who missed out on the class action may be
able to claim damages under the scheme.

Mr Piper said about 90 per cent of people involved in the class
action were in favour of a memorial to institutionalised children
across the NT at Karu Park. [GN]


BAJA SERVICES: Judge Denied Class Cert. Bid in Able Home Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Able Home Health, LLC Plaintiff, v. Baja
Services, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02627
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. John Robert Blakey denied Plaintiff's
preemptive class certification motion and motion to enter and
continue Plaintiff's class certification motion.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 7, 2017,
the class certification motion, filed in an effort to
address the concerns raised by the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 897 (7th Cir.
2011), is denied without prejudice. Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez,
136 S.Ct. 663 (2016) and Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d
783, 786-87 (7th Cir. 2015) expressly overruled Damasco. Plaintiff
argues that, despite Campbell-Ewald and Chapman, it is nonetheless
required to file such a placeholder motion to prevent Defendants
from picking off its claim and mooting the class claims. The Court
disagrees. See Brodsky v. Humanadental Insurance Co., No. 10 C
3233, 2016 WL 5476233, at 5 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2016) (Campbell-
Ewald "stands for the general proposition that plaintiffs, not
defendants, are the masters of their complaints."). The April 13,
2017 Notice of Motion dates are stricken, and the parties need not
appear.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bvxH9zYo


BI INCORPORATED: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled KAREL ALVAREZ and JUAN TELLADO,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. BI, INCORPORATED, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
02705-MSG (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to enter an
order conditionally certifying the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective composed of, and facilitating the sending of written
notices to:

   "all current and former ISAP Case Specialists employed by BI
   Incorporated who performed work in the United States between
   [three years prior to the date that the Court issues an Order
   granting Conditional Certification (minus sixty days of agreed
   upon tolling) and the present].

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kHFoE2EC

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Camille Fundora, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3033
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  cfundora@bm.net

               - and -

          Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
          WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
          1845 Walnut, 24th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 656 3679
          E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com


BILL WHATCOTT: Class Action Against "Gay Zombies" Can't Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arshy Mann, writing for Daily Xtra, reports that an Ontario judge
has ruled that a $104-million lawsuit against a notorious anti-gay
activist and his allies who crashed the 2016 Toronto Pride parade
can't go forward as a class action, but individuals could sue if
they wished.

But Bill Whatcott -- who has a history of crashing Pride parades
across Canada -- will have to reveal the identities of the other
people who snuck into the parade with him, as well as their
financial backers.

Mr Whatcott is one of Canada's most notorious anti-gay activists
and was found guilty of distributing hate literature by the
Supreme Court of Canada in 2013.

During last year's Toronto Pride parade, he dressed in a neon
green bodysuit and distributed anti-gay literature to the crowd as
part of the Gay Zombies Cannabis Consumer's Association, a group
fabricated in order to sneak into the event.

Former Ontario MPP George Smitherman, who plans to seek a city
council seat in 2018, and Christopher Hudspeth, the owner of
Pegasus Bar in Toronto's gay Village, had filed suit on behalf of
members of the federal and provincial Liberal parties, and the
500,000 estimated people who participated in the parade, for
defamation, conspiracy to injure and inflicting mental distress.

Judge Paul Perell concluded that the suit can't go forward as a
class action because only individuals who have been specifically
harmed can sue on those grounds.  He suggested that the plaintiffs
were trying to act as "public prosecutors for a hate crime," which
isn't appropriate for a civil court.

"Criminal law responds to crimes against the community," he wrote.

He also noted that some individuals who may have been defamed in
the anti-gay pamphlets may have grounds to sue, and the case could
continue if they came forward and if the plaintiffs submitted new
pleadings.

The individuals mentioned in the pamphlets include Prime Minister
Justin Trudeau, Premier Kathleen Wynne, former Liberal leader Bill
Graham, and Benjamin Levin, a former Ontario Liberal deputy
minister convicted of making and distributing child pornography.

Neither Pride Toronto nor the federal or provincial Liberal
parties participated in the lawsuit.

The judge did grant a motion that will force Whatcott to name his
associate marchers and their financial backers, who are currently
anonymous.

Throughout his ruling, Judge Perell chided both sides for making
improper pleadings, noting that they submitted "jeremiads,
diatribes, ad hominies, polemics, and propaganda pieces far
removed from proper pleadings and proper legal argument."

He specifically cited a press conference held by Mr Smitherman,
Hudspeth and their lawyer Doug Elliott when the suit was announced
as improper.

"It is lamentable that the Plaintiffs have pleaded and argued in
the fashion that they did and that they are making a public
spectacle of their antipathy to Mr Whatcott and what he stands
for," he wrote.


BLUE STAR: Martinez Seeks Issuance of Notice to Harvesters
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RICARDO MARTINEZ, et al., the Plaintiffs v.
BLUE STAR FARMS, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00681-RJJ-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to direct
the issuance of notice to Defendants' blueberry harvesters
employed from 2014 to 2016, in order to afford them an opportunity
to join this collective action as party plaintiffs pursuant to 29
U.S.C. par. 216.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Teresa Hendricks, Esq.
          Mariza Gamez-Garcia, Esq.
          Benjamin O'Hearn, Esq.
          MIGRANT LEGAL AID
          1104 Fuller Ave., NE
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 454 5055
          E-mail: thendricks@migrantlegalaid.com
                  mgamezgarcia@migrantlegalaid.com
                  bohearn@migrantlegalaid.com

               - and -

          Marni Willenson, Esq.
          WILLENSON LAW, LLC
          542 S. Dearborn St., Suite 610
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 546 4910
          E-mail: marni@willensonlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants

          Brion B. Doyle, Esq.
          VARNUM LLP
          Bridgewater Place, P.O. Box 352
          Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352
          Telephone: (616) 336 6000
          E-mail: bbdoyle@varnumlaw.com


BOFI HOLDING: Pomerantz LLP Discloses Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 3 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against BofI Holding, Inc. ("BofI" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:BOFI) and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Southern District of
California, and docketed under 17-cv-00667 is on behalf of a class
consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired BofI
securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased BofI securities between
April 28, 2016 and March 30, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have
until June 2, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained
at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert
S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and number of shares purchased.

BofI Holding, Inc. operates as the holding company for Bank of
Internet USA.  The Bank provides consumer and business banking
products in the United States.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) BofI was engaged in unlawful
conduct; (ii) the foregoing conduct, when it became known, would
subject the Company to heightened regulatory scrutiny and
potential criminal sanctions; and (iii) as a result, BofI's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On March 31, 2017, pre-market, the New York Post published an
article entitled "Feds probe Bank of Internet for possible money
laundering," disclosing that the Company was the subject of a
probe led by the Justice Department and involving the Securities
and Exchange Commission and the Treasury Department.

On this news, BofI's share price fell $1.45 or 5.26%, to close at
$26.13 on March 31, 2017.

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


BOFI HOLDING: June 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C., on April 4 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased BofI Holding, Inc. ("BofI" or the "Company") (BOFI)
securities between March 16, 2015 through March 13, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

BofI shareholders may, no later than June 2, 2017, move the Court
for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of BofI and would like to learn more about these
claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to
sign up online, visit: www.maniskas.com/case/bofi.

BofI Holding, Inc. operates as the holding company for Bank of
Internet USA.  The Bank provides consumer and business banking
products in the United States.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) BofI was engaged in unlawful
conduct; (ii) the foregoing conduct, when it became known, would
subject the Company to heightened regulatory scrutiny and
potential criminal sanctions; and (iii) as a result, BofI's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On March 31, 2017, pre-market, the New York Post published an
article entitled "Feds probe Bank of Internet for possible money
laundering," disclosing that the Company was the subject of a
probe led by the Justice Department and involving the Securities
and Exchange Commission and the Treasury Department.

On this news, BofI's share price fell $1.45 or 5.26%, to close at
$26.13 on March 31, 2017.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than June 2,
2017, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or
other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this
action.

For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C.
(Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by
email at rm@maniskas.com or visit: www.maniskas.com/case/bofi.
For more information about class action cases in general or to
learn more about RM LAW, P.C. please visit our website:
www.maniskas.com.

RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm.  RM LAW,
P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and
federal courts nationwide.


BUMBLE BEE: Wins Bench Trial Over Product Labeling
--------------------------------------------------
Undercurrent News reports that Bumble Bee Foods has won a bench
trial over claims it misled consumers about the health benefits of
its tuna products, reports Law 360.

The plaintiffs alleged that by labelling the products an
"excellent source" of omega-3 fatty acids and using the American
Heart Association (AHA) logo without disclosing it had paid the
organization, Bumble Bee misled consumers.

Yet in a March 30 decision, Santa Clara, California superior court
judge Peter Kirwan found that although Bumble Bee's omega-3 labels
weren't in line with the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA)
recommendations from a proposed rule, that's not enough to make
them illegal.

"Ultimately, the fact that Bumble Bee's conduct was contrary to
the proposed rule promulgated by the FDA and the recommendations
of its own compliance specialist does not render it unlawful," the
judge said.

In response to the judge's ruling, Bumble Bee senior VP and
general counsel Jill Irvin told Undercurrent News, "Bumble Bee
recognizes the importance of complying with FDA rules and
regulations.  It was clear to Bumble Bee that, even as FDA
proposed a new rule that would eventually disallow Omega 3 claims,
the excellent source claim remained permissible until such time as
a final rule was promulgated.  Once FDA issued a final rule
disallowing such claims, Bumble Bee promptly made the necessary
label changes to remain in compliance with FDA regulation."

Judge Kirwan's ruling marks an end to an April 2014 putative class
action launched by plaintiffs Patrick Garrett, Jeff Maines and
Linda Eustice.  The suit alleged that Bumble Bee misled consumers
by labeling its tuna products as an "excellent source" of omega-3
fatty acids, and by using the AHA logo without disclosures
starting in 2008.

Counsel for Bumble Bee said in a statement on April 3 they are
pleased with the outcome of the trial and declined to comment
further, Law 360 said.


BURGER BROTHERS: $575,000 Settlement Okayed in Cruz-Young Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MAURICIA CRUZ and KRISTINE YOUNG, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. BURGER BROTHERS RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., JEFF J. FROCCARO, an
individual, and JOHN FROCCARO, an individual, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:14-cv-03186-ARL (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Arlene R. Lindsay
entered an order:

   1. granting final approval of the $575,000 settlement
      memorialized in the Settlement Agreement;

   2. certifying following class for settlement purposes:

      "all individuals who worked as salaried Assistant Store
      Managers for Defendants in New York State between May 21,
     2008 and November 15, 2016;

   3. appointing Shulaman Kessler LLP as class counsel; and

   4. approving Fair Labor Standards Act settlement.

The Court finds reasonable the service payments of $7,500 each to
Named Plaintiffs Mauricia Cruz and Kristine Young, and $5,000 each
to Opt-in Plaintiffs Rachel Gomez and Yesenia Urrea in recognition
of the service they rendered on behalf of the Class. This amount
shall be paid from the Qualified Settlement Fund. The Court
approves the Claims Administrator's fees of no more than $25,000.
This amount shall be paid from the Qualified Settlement Fund. If
no individual or party appeals this Order, the "Effective Date" of
the settlement will be 35 days after the entry of this Order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0Lb9G0TS


CABLE NEWS: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
Randy Hall, writing for Newsbusters.org, reports that a lawsuit
filed against the Cable News Network and a number of its sister
companies -- including the Turner Broadcasting System and Time
Warner, Inc., -- claims that African-Americans receive lower
performance ratings in evaluations, that there are dramatic
differences in pay between similarly situated employees of
different races, and that the promotion of African-American
employees is blocked by a "glass ceiling."

Last December, those companies were hit with a proposed class
action in Georgia federal court.  The named plaintiffs include
Celeslie Henly, who says she worked as an executive administrative
assistant at CNN for seven years before she was fired five days
after she emailed the corporation's Human Resources Department
about discriminatory treatment.

According to an article posted by The Hollywood Reporter's Eriq
Gardner, the class action lawsuit filed against CNN on Tuesday,
March 4, is very broad and is spearheaded by Henley and Ernest
Colbert, Jr., a current TBS staff member.

"They claim that the companies 'have been mistreating black
managers since the late 1990s' in the legal action," Mr. Gardner
stated.

In addition, "Colbert claims that he is underpaid compared to his
white peers" and charges that "the internal policies ensure black
employees aren't promoted as often or to positions as high as are
white employees," the senior editor stated.

"As a result, jobs are filled without being posted, candidates are
handpicked in advance, and supervisors who make hiring decisions
have implemented 'preferred qualifications' to mask the
prejudicial preference in their candidate selection," writes
attorney Daniel Meachum in the complaint.

"Indeed," Mr. Meachum claimed, "although African-Americans make up
about 30 to 35 percent of the employees in the mid-level
managerial and staffing positions, they are extremely under-
represented at higher pay grades and senior positions."

The complaint cites hiring and advancement statistics while
alleging that African-American employees have endured slurs from
superiors, including: "It's hard to manage black people," and "Who
would be worth more, black slaves from times past or new slaves?"

Gardner added that "the case against CNN may soon become bigger by
many multiples."

"That's because after the defendants moved for dismissal or at
least a more definitive statement about specific allegations, also
raising the prospect that some of the claims may be barred by
statute of limitations or by plaintiffs not exhausting
administrative remedies, the plaintiffs' attorneys told the judge
of their wish to file an amended complaint," he reported.

A plaintiffs' motion to amend that was filed stated:

Since the filing of this action, counsels for the plaintiffs have
been contacted by more than 175 people, both former and current
employees of the Defendant, requesting to be members of the
putative class action, all having similar complaints of
intentional racial discrimination, discrimination impact and
discriminatory practices employed by the Defendants.

"The attorneys also wrote that many of the potential members
recently coming forward are within the administrative process at
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and awaiting their 90-
days-right-to-sue letter," Gardner added.

"Time Warner has been given until April 14 to respond to the
motion to amend the complaint," he stated while noting similar
legal problems the Fox News Channel is currently facing.

"Both Fox News and CNN are in court defending themselves from
racial discrimination, though the color of each suit is
different," he noted.

"The one against Fox News has garnered more recent attention,"
Gardner indicated, "perhaps thanks to questions that continue to
circle around how the cable news network has handled allegations
of harassment during the leadership of Roger Ailes."

Mr. Gardner added: "The suit, filed in New York Supreme Court by
Tichaona Brown and Tabrese Wright, alleges that the two women were
subjected to 'top-down racial harassment,' specifically from Fox's
longtime controller, Judith Slater, charged with making slurs and
derogatory comments like: 'Why are all black men women-beaters?'"

"The Fox News complaint, which came on the heels of Slater's
termination, further alleges that executives including Ailes and
current President Bill Shine allowed for "repugnant racial
discrimination to go unchecked," he noted.

"The suit picked up more publicity this morning thanks to word
that a third employee, Monica Douglas, was joining the legal
action and was under pressure not to report Slater's behavior."

As if that wasn't enough trouble, Julie Roginsky, a political
consultant and cable news commentator, hit Fox News with a lawsuit
on April 3 claiming retaliation over treatment in the wake of
alleged sexual harassment by Roger Ailes.

On April 3, Ms. Roginsky filed the suit in New York Supreme Court,
and Ailes' attorney Susan Estrich stated that the allegations are
"total hogwash" and "total nonsense."

Meanwhile, Mr. Gardner stated that he's not suggesting any
equivalence between the pair of legal actions.  "Only that the
growing lawsuit against CNN deserves attention, too."


CACTUS WELLHEAD: Faces "Bennett" Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Karl Bennett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Cactus Wellhead, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-01063 (S.D. Tex., April 6, 2017) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cactus Wellhead is an oilfield services company that manufactures
and services equipment for onshore oil and gas operations,
including wellhead systems and fracturing services.

Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Support Specialist. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Melissa Moore, Esq.
   Curt Hesse, Esq.
   Moore & Associates
   Lyric Center
   440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
   Houston, TX 77002
   Tel: (713) 222-6775
   Fax: (713) 222-6739


CALIFORNIA: Failed to Provide Salary Increases for Judges
---------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Ofgang at Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports the state
of California has failed to provide judges with salary increases
mandated by statute, the Court of Appeal for this district ruled
on April 5.

In an opinion by Justice Victoria Chavez of Div. Two, the panel
said Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle was correct when
he sided with the state's judges in a class action brought by
retired Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Robert Mallano.

Mallano filed suit in January 2014, four weeks before he retired
from the bench, naming then-state Controller John Chiang and
others as defendants. Berle ruled two years ago that that the
judges are entitled to a declaration that the state has not paid
them the amounts mandated by Government Code Sec. 68203.

That section provides that judicial salaries "shall be increased"
each year by the average percentage of salary increases of state
employees, and shall not be subject to the discretion of state
officials.

State employees, Berle noted, receive average salary increases of
0.97 percent for fiscal year 2007-08, and increases of 0.10
percent and 0.11 percent in the following two years. There were
then no increases for two years; and then increases of 0.22
percent, 1.83 percent, and 2.4 percent for FY 2013-14, 2014-15,
2015-2016, respectively, the judge said, citing California
Department of Human Resources ("CalHR") statistics.

The judges, he declared, are entitled to their mandated increases,
based on the CalHR statistics, plus interest of 10 percent per
year, court costs, and attorney fees of nearly USD660,000 pursuant
to the private attorney general statute.

Unpublished Opinion

Chavez, in an unpublished opinion, said Berle correctly
interpreted the statute, and that he did not abuse his discretion
by granting declaratory relief. Berle held that the state has been
out of compliance with the statute since 2008.

Chavez, like the trial judge, rejected the argument that
"decreases" in state employee compensation, including those
resulting from furloughs imposed during the fiscal years beginning
July 1, 2009 and July 1, 2010, should be figured into the
calculation.

"The plain meaning of the words 'salary increase" used in section
68203(a) is the amount by which a salary is made larger," the
justice wrote. If the Legislature had intended otherwise, she
said, it would have used phrases like "increase or decrease," "net
increase," or "change," as it has in other statutes.

She also noted that the statute has a provision that any dollar
limitation imposed on state employee increases will be similarly
applied to judicial salary increases. "There is no similar
provision limiting judicial salary increases during fiscal years
in which state employee salaries are effectively decreased, and we
decline to read one into the statute," Chavez wrote.

Another part of the statute, she noted, explains that the "salary
increases" used to calculate judicial pay are those reported by
the California Department of Human Resources -- known in
government parlance as CalHR -- and makes no mention of reporting
salary decreases.

Nor, she wrote, is the state's argument consistent with the
legislative history or with the calculations CalHR made during the
years prior to the filing of Mallano's suit.

Budget Trailer Bill

A budget trailer bill enacted last year, providing, among other
things, that "average pay" under  Sec. 68203 will take into
account dimunution or elimination of salaries through furloughs or
leaves, does not affect the result, Chavez went on to say. The
bill, she noted, says that the amendment is not intended "to
create an inference about the legal effect of the statute prior to
the enactment of this act."

The justice also concluded that the trial judge did not abuse his
discretion in awarding the plaintiff attorney fees, rejecting the
argument that the action only benefitted judges and not the public
interest. "Judicial compensation is a matter of statewide concern,
as it is the principal means of protecting the independence of the
judicial branch," she wrote.

The requisites for an award under Code of Civil Procedure
Sec. 1021.5 are further met, she said, because the litigation
preserved judges' vested constitutional rights to salary and
benefits, affected a large class -- at least 1,600 active judges
and justices, and at least 1,800 judicial retirees and survivors,
whose benefits are tied to judicial salaries -- and involved
issues well beyond Mallano's personal stake, which was less than
USD18,000.

She also rejected the contention that the award was improper
because Mallano was not personally obligated to pay his lawyers.
Nothing in the statute requires such an obligation, she explained.
Chavez declined to address a provision in the trailer bill stating
that "any award of interest on an order to pay unpaid salary or
judicial retiree benefits pursuant to this section shall not
exceed the rate of interest accrued on moneys in the Pooled Money
Investment Account." Mallano criticized the provision in a MetNews
interview last year, saying it would reduce the trial judge's 10
percent interest award to about 0.5 percent.

Chavez said the appellate panel couldn't consider the issue
because it was never before the trial court.

Mallano could not be reached for comment on April 5, but his
attorney, Raoul D. Kennedy -- raoul.kennedy@skadden.com -- of
Skadden Arps in Palo Alto, said in a statement:

"We are pleased with the result and hope we are nearing the point
where judges and pensioners will receive the long overdue amounts
to which they are entitled."

A spokesperson for Controller Betty T. Yee said "we are studying
the opinion and will be discussing the matter with the other state
defendants and the Attorney General's Office."

The case is Mallano v. Chiang, B272124. [GN]


CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Des Roches Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CHARLES DES ROCHES, on his own behalf and
on behalf of his beneficiary son, R.D., and all others similarly
situated, SYLVIA MEYER, on her own behalf and all others similarly
situated, and GAYLE TAMLER GRECO, on her own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA
PHYSICIANS' SERVICE d/b/a BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA; BLUE SHIELD
OF CALIFORNIA LIFE & HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY; HUMAN AFFAIRS
INTERNATIONAL OF CALIFORNIA; and MAGELLAN HEALTH SERVICES OF
CALIFORNIA, INC.-EMPLOYER SERVICES, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-
cv-02848-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for
class certification of:

   "all participants or beneficiaries of a health benefit plan
   administered by either Blue Shield defendant and governed by
   ERISA whose request for coverage (whether pre-authorization,
   concurrent, post-service, or retrospective) was denied, in
   whole or in part, between January 1, 2012 and the present,
   based upon the Magellan Medical Necessity Criteria Guidelines
   for any of the following levels of care: (i) Residential
   Treatment, Psychiatric; (ii) Residential Treatment, Substance
   Use Disorders, Rehabilitation; (iii) Intensive Outpatient
   Treatment, Psychiatric; or (iv) Intensive Outpatient
   Treatment, Substance Use Disorders, Rehabilitation."

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their parents,
subsidiaries, and affiliates, their directors and officers and
members of their immediate families; also excluded are any
federal, state, or local governmental entities, any judicial
officers presiding over this action and the members of their
immediate families, and judicial staff.

The Plaintiffs will also move the Court to appoint Plaintiffs as
Class representatives, and appoint Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, and Psych-Appeal, Inc. as Co-Lead Class
Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ExR06tVW

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Meiram Bendat, Esq.
          PSYCH-APPEAL, INC.
          8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 598 3690
          Facsimile: (888) 975 1957
          E-mail: mbendat@psych-appeal.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
          Kyle J. McGee, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Musarra, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, N.Y. 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722 8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722 8501
          E-mail:dberger@gelaw.com
                  kmcgee@gelaw.com
                  rmusarra@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          399 Park Ave., 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 704 9600
          Facsimile: (212) 704 4256
          E-mail: jcowart@zuckerman.com


CANADA: Settles W. Ross MacDonald School's Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Rick Zamperin, writing for 900CHML, reports that a settlement has
been reached in a class-action lawsuit launched by a school in
Brantford, Ont., against the provincial government.

The W. Ross MacDonald School for the Blind accused the province of
being negligent in the management and operation of the school,
resulting in systemic physical, sexual, and mental abuse and harm
to the former students.

The government denied the claims and both sides have agreed to an
$8-million settlement.

Students who attended the school between 1951 and May 4, 2012, can
apply for compensation.

The court will hold a hearing in the coming months to consider
whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best
interests of the students.

More information will be available at
www.kmlaw.ca/wrossmacdonaldclassaction or by calling 1-888-233-
2852.


CANADA: Class Action Against WISB Over Workers' Benefits OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judy van Rhijn, writing for Law Times, reports that the Ontario
Court of Appeal has revived the chances for recovery by workers
who have had their workers' compensation benefits cut because of
preexisting conditions.

A class action against the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board,
which was previously quashed by the Superior Court of Justice, is
alive again.

The case of Pietro Castrillo v. Workplace Safety and Insurance
Board, 2017 ONCA 121 related to the reduction of worker's benefits
because of the existence of pre-existing asymptomatic conditions.

This is alleged to have occurred because of an internal policy
made illegally in order to save WSIB money by reducing non-
economic loss awards.

"This decision is a significant victory for injured workers and
their supporters," says workers' compensation lawyer Gary
Newhouse.

"The proposed class action raises very serious concerns about how,
prior to policy changes introduced in November of 2014, the WSIB
administered non-economic loss claims of workers.  It was derailed
by the Superior Court when the court struck the statement of
claim.  The Court of Appeal has put the class action back on the
tracks -- but there's still a long way to go here."

The representative plaintiff had his award for a permanent
shoulder injury reduced for osteoarthritis, which he said had been
asymptomatic before the work-related injury and had never affected
his shoulder's functionality.  He was successful in an
administrative appeal and then became the face of the class
action, which alleges misfeasance in public office, bad faith and
negligence by the WSIB.

In early 2016, the case came up against a motion to strike based
on s. 118 of the province's Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. In
the provincial legislation, the "privative" clause states that
board decisions are not open to question or review in a court.

However, the motion judge, Justice Edward P. Belobaba of the
Superior Court of Justice, rejected this.

"On the facts of this case, and given the scope and content of the
s. 118 privative clause, it is plain and obvious and beyond doubt
that the bad faith and misfeasance in public office claims (and
the alternative claim in negligence) are not reasonable causes of
action," ruled Justice Belobaba.

Lawyer Richard Fink of Fink & Bornstein PC of Toronto, who is
representing the class, successfully appealed to the Court of
Appeal.

He received the decision penned by his Justice Peter Lauwers in
February 2017.

"The cases make it clear that, as a general principle, the
legislature cannot completely oust the jurisdiction of the
Superior Court, including, most pertinently, an allegation of
misfeasance in public office related to its use of statutory power
for an improper purpose. . . . If the WSIB has conducted itself in
a way that takes it outside of the shelter of the privative
clause, the argument is that the Board cannot shield itself under
s. 133 of the WSIA in respect of the damages claim," said Justice
Lauwers in the ruling.

Newhouse welcomes the decision.

"Injured workers often want to sue the WSIB for negligence and
acting in bad faith, but it has appeared that this is impossible,"
he says.

"This decision indicates that the door may no longer be bolted
shut."

Mr. Fink admits to being in a holding pattern right now, given
that the WSIB has 60 days to appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada. According to WSIB spokeswoman Christine Arnott, the
decision whether to appeal has not yet been made.

"We are discussing the decision with our legal counsel before
determining how we will respond.  It is important to note that the
decision concerns a procedural matter and makes no determinations
about the merits of Mr. Castrillo's case.  We continue to deny the
allegations made in the lawsuit," she says.

No matter what the final outcome of the case is, Fink is of the
opinion that this preliminary decision will have a lasting impact.

"The case is of astounding importance.  It is the first time in
Ontario that a court has indicated that the board cannot act with
impunity if it is outside the confines of obligations under the
statute," he says.

"This class action has implications well beyond the case itself.
The root of the problem is that the WSIB is not conducting itself
in good faith in general."

Mr. Fink says he's now reviewing his existing small claims files
and fielding many new enquiries from injured workers in the same
position.

"The loss isn't the money the WSIB took, which can be recovered
from internal appeals," he says.  "It's the money they had to
spend to attempt to recover the loss -- legal fees, transportation
and other outgoings."

Newhouse agrees about the importance of the decision.

"Although a great deal of evidence will have to be explored in the
proceeding, some important principles have already been
established," he says.

"One is that actions of the board may be open to challenge on the
basis of misfeasance in public office, notwithstanding the
privative clause in the legislation.  Another is that an
allegation of bad faith can be an element of or incidental to a
misfeasance claim.  And finally, the WSIB may be open to a
negligence suit in the proper circumstances."

Mr. Fink also sees a door opening in the realm of punitive
damages.  "Until this class action, workers couldn't get punitive
damages for misfeasance," he says.

"Workers' compensation is supposed to be quick and fair without
causation.  We still have the latter, but quick and fair have gone
out the window.  The board's mandate is not to minimize costs but
to treat workers fairly in accordance with statute. Instead, it
has adopted the same approach as insurance companies."

Mr. Fink points out that when entitlements are sought from an
insurance agency, the settlements often minimize amounts owing.

"That's fine in an insurance context," he says.  "There are
remedies in tort litigation and there are punitive damages."

Fink refers to the case of Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co, 2002 SCC
18, in which the Supreme Court of Canada ordered greater than $1
million punitive damages for the oppressive conduct of the
insurer.

"That applies to the WSIB now.  Before, what was the downside of
the WSIB not paying? If I appeal one of their decisions, there are
no legal costs," he says.

"There is currently a two-and-a-half-year waiting period.  A
dollar pushed off until tomorrow is a dollar saved.  If the worst
comes to the worst, they pay what they might have paid years ago.
That's why the Court of Appeal decision is still reverberating."

Despite these sentiments, Mr. Fink sees more prospects of success
in law reform as opposed to litigation.

"Lobbying work will be more assistance to the travails of injured
workers than my court case, glorious as it was for the day," he
says.

Mr. Fink anticipates that other groups will take up the fight.

"Will this case cause the WSIB to reform itself? No.  It will be
part and parcel of a greater effort.  Public unions and private
representatives will be more vociferous about having the WSIB
restored to trying to assist injured workers rather than
minimizing their entitlements.  It will be an uphill battle," he
says.


CANADA: Ontario Court Certifies Former Crown Wards' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jody Porter, writing for CBC News, reports that an Ontario court
has certified a $110-million class action lawsuit on behalf of
former Crown wards.

The suit alleges Ontario failed to protect the rights of children
taken into care by child welfare agencies and it helps them pursue
compensation for abuse.

Justice Helen Pierce issued her ruling on certification on
March 30.  It opens the door for the case to proceed through the
courts as a class action.

Currently, more than 500 people have contacted lawyers
representing the plaintiffs in the case.  More than 90,000 may be
eligible, according to lawyer Jonathan Ptak.

"We have waited long enough for justice.  Now we can go to trial,"
said one of the representative clients, Toni Grann, in a news
release from the law firm.

Through the suit, Ms. Grann and three other representative clients
who suffered criminal assault, neglect or abuse as children,
allege there was a province-wide failure to protect and advance
their claims for compensation through the Criminal Injuries
Compensation Board or in the civil courts.

None of the allegations has been proven in court.

In a separate report, TbNewsWatch.com says the case, which was
filed three years ago, includes children who were Crown wards at
any time after January 1966.  One of the lead plaintiffs is Toni
Grann from Thunder Bay.

Now that the class action is proceeding, all current and former
Ontario Crown Wards are encouraged to contact either the Toronto-
based law firm Koski Minsky, or Thunder Bay's Watkins Law Office,
to provide information and support the case.


CANADA: Hockey Players' Sexual Assault Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that two dozen players who were on the University
of Ottawa men's hockey team when the team was suspended after an
alleged sexual assault in 2014 have been given the go-ahead to
launch a class action lawsuit against the school.

The 24 former members of the 2013/14 team, all except the two
players facing sexual assault charges, are seeking a combined $6
million in damages alleging their reputations were damaged by the
cancellation of the season.

On April 3 an Ottawa Superior Court judge certified the lawsuit as
a class action, with former forward Andrew Creppin as its
representative plaintiff and Lawrence Greenspon as the lawyer.

The team was suspended in March 2014 and the 2014-15 season was
subsequently cancelled after the allegations of sexual assault
emerged against some players during a team trip to Thunder Bay.

The two players Greenspon is not representing, Guillaume Donovan
and David Foucher, were charged with one count of sexual assault
each in connection with an incident at a hotel in Thunder Bay in
February 2014.  Their trial is expected to begin in August.

The class-action lawsuit alleges the University of Ottawa was
negligent and damaged the reputations of the players and caused
emotional and/or monetary damage to them.

Mr. Creppin said in the lawsuit he and some other members of the
team were at the hospital with a teammate who may have drunk too
much alcohol and weren't at the hotel at the time of the alleged
assault.

But in its statement of defence filed in 2016, the university
alleges at least three players had sex with a woman in Thunder Bay
while some other team members "in various states of undress" and
drunkenness heard it, watched or sometimes took part.

None of the claims of the plaintiff or defendant has been tested
in court.

The class action lawsuit says the legal issues will be whether the
university owed the players a duty of care, what that duty was,
and whether it breached it by its actions.

If the court determines the school breached its care, the court
will have to decide how to assess the damages and whether punitive
damages are justified.


CANADA: Dismissed Navy Part of LGBT Purge Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Erik White at CBC News reports Bernie was proud to be a sailor --
and he didn't think it mattered what he did or who he was
attracted to when he wasn't wearing his uniform.

"I was doing my job. I wasn't doing anything bad," said the 56-
year-old Sudbury, Ont. man, who the CBC has agreed not to
identify.

"Besides, I didn't want anyone to know," he continued. "It was my
business, not theirs."

But it did matter. The military has many rules and at the time,
being heterosexual was mandatory.

Bernie, who grew up in Sudbury and served seven years in the army
reserves and the navy, was forced to leave a promising career in
1984.

He said he ended up homeless for a while, attempted suicide,
eventually married a woman and had two kids, but "that didn't
last."

"Pretty much stayed in the closet," Bernie said.

"And as one friend said to me: 'You're afraid people are going to
find out you're gay.' You're absolutely right. I'm petrified of
it."

He is now part of a class action lawsuit against the federal
government, seeking compensation for the so-called "LGBT Purge."

One of the lead lawyers on that suit is Doug Elliott, who is
originally from Elliot Lake, Ont. and has now moved back there
with his law firm Cambridge LLP.

The class action was filed because, while the federal government
and the military are aware of the impact of this policy, which was
done away with in the 1990s, little was being done to correct past
wrongs, Elliott said.

"Particularly the people who were the victims of the purge,
they're probably the people who have suffered the most from
government persecution in the LGBT community, they were crying out
for justice," Elliott said.

"It's not enough in my view to simply say we don't do that any
more, because there are people like Bernie who are still suffering
the consequences."

Elliott said they don't have a firm number on how many people
would be included in this class action, but added that his clients
are seeking an apology, want their pensions back and some
financial compensation.

"My experience with any government is that they're very much in
favour of equality as long as it's free," said Elliott, who is a
veteran of high-profile class action suits, including the Hislop
case on same-sex pension benefits and the suit filed on behalf of
victims of the tainted blood scandal.

The military declined to give CBC News an interview, but did
provide a statement:

"The Canadian Armed Forces is aware that the government has been
served with a class action lawsuit as stated in your request. The
government has been working hard with our partners in the
communities to come up with solutions to many of the issues
raised."

"We cannot comment specifically on the class actions as the
matters are before the courts." [GN]


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Judge OKs Up to $18.9MM in Attorney Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk at Cook County Record reports a Chicago federal
judge has signed off on an award of more than USD15 million -- and
potentially, as much as USD18.9 million -- in attorney fees for
lawyers who secured a USD76 million settlement from a cruise line
and other associated companies accused of using nonprofit surveys
to mask illegal telemarketing calls.

However, the award checks in at nearly USD9 million less than what
the plaintiffs' lawyers had asked the court to allow them to claim
for their work, after a judge partially sided with defendants in
the case and others who had argued the lawyers' original fee
request was "excessive" and "unreasonable."

On April 6, U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly issued an
order giving attorneys with the firms of Edelson P.C. and Loevy &
Loevy, each of Chicago, at least USD15.26 million in fees for
their work on the settlement of a class action that could
ultimately include payouts of USD500 or more to perhaps as many as
a million plaintiff class members.

The attorney fee decision comes as the latest step in the years-
long legal battle over accusations a group of defendants,
identified as Caribbean Cruise Line, phone polling and
telemarketing company Economic Strategy Group and timeshare
operators, including the Berkley Group and Vacation Ownership
Marketing Tours, attempted to skirt federal law prohibiting
telemarketing calls to consumers.

According to the lawsuit, plaintiffs alleged the defendants
violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by
placing about 1 million unsolicited calls through Economic
Strategy Group from 2011-2012. During these calls, an automated
voice told recipients they could be eligible for a "free cruise"
to The Bahamas if they took a political survey. At the end of the
call, those interested could be connected to a representative of
Caribbean Cruise Line. However, those receiving the ostensibly
free cruises were required to pay taxes and fees. They were
offered a different package if they were willing to tour a Berkley
Group timeshare facility.

The defendant companies had argued the calls were exempt from the
TCPA because they were made by a nonprofit group conducting
political surveys. That contention was rejected by the court,
setting the stage for a trial in the case, until both sides
presented the judge with a settlement agreement worth at least
USD56 million, and as much as USD76 million, depending on how many
people submit approved claims under the class action settlement.
Four named plaintiffs will each receive USD10,000, according to
the settlement.

Judge Kennelly signed off on that provision in his April 6 order.
However, the judge did not accept the request from the Edelson and
Loevy firms for a request to let them claim as much as USD24.5
million of the settlement for themselves.

Defendants and one class member, identified as Freedom Home Care
Inc., objected to that request, arguing the fee award should be
smaller and should be structured on a sliding scale, rather than
as a flat percentage equating to about one-third of the total
settlement.

Judge Kennelly agreed, ordering the fee award to be structured on
a such a scale, with "risk premiums" associated with various
"bands" of the settlement.

In this case, the judge said, as the legal proceedings wore on and
the likelihood of a large class certification and a finding of
liability against the companies increased, the likely size of the
settlement also increased, while the risk to the Edelson and Loevy
firms of being left with little to nothing, decreased.

"The magnitude of potential liability provided plaintiffs with
significant leverage, to be sure," the judge wrote. "But the
settlement negotiation history reveals that this was insufficient
to secure a significant offer from defendants at the litigation's
early stages.

"When plaintiffs did settle this case, their leverage derived in
large part from their pre-trial success and the fact that they had
advanced to the eve of trial."

So, in this case, the judge attached a 6 percent "risk premium" to
the first USD10 million "band" of the settlement; 5 percent to the
next USD10 million "band;" 4 percent to the next USD36 million;
and 3 percent to the remainder.

The judge said this worked out to a minimum payout of USD15.26
million to the plaintiffs' lawyers. However, should the number of
claims exceed the minimum USD56 million amount the defendants
agreed to pay under the settlement, the plaintiffs' lawyers could
earn more, up USD18.98 million.

That amount, he said, would give the Edelson and Loevy lawyers
about a quarter of the total settlement.

The judge said such a fee award is more in keeping with precedent
within the U.S. Seventh Circuit courts, which include federal
courts in the states of Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana.[GN]

The case is GERARDO ARANDA, GRANT BIRCHMEIER, STEPHEN PARKES, and
REGINA STONE, on behalf of themselves and classes of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC.,
ECONOMIC STRATEGY GROUP, ECONOMIC STRATEGY GROUP, INC., ECONOMIC
STRATEGY, LLC, THE BERKLEY GROUP, INC., and VACATION OWNERSHIP
MARKETING TOURS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 12 C 4069 (N.D. Ill.).

Grant Birchmeier, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan I. Loevy,
Loevy & Loevy.

Grant Birchmeier, Plaintiff, represented by Scott R. Rauscher,
Loevy and Loevy, Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Edelson Pc, Arthur R.
Loevy, Loevy & Loevy & Michael I. Kanovitz, Loevy & Loevy.

Stephen Parkes, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan I. Loevy, Loevy
& Loevy, Scott R. Rauscher, Loevy and Loevy, Alexander Glenn
Tievsky, Edelson Pc, Arthur R. Loevy, Loevy & Loevy & Michael I.
Kanovitz, Loevy & Loevy.

Regina Stone, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Glenn Tievsky,
Edelson Pc & Scott R. Rauscher, Loevy and Loevy.

Gerardo Aranda, Plaintiff, represented by Scott R. Rauscher, Loevy
and Loevy & Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Edelson Pc.

Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rebecca F.
Bratter, Greenspoon Marder, P.A., Richard W. Epstein, Greenspoon
Marder, P.A., Jeffrey Backman, Greenspoon Marder, P.A. & Timothy
A. Hudson, Tabet DiVito Rothstein.

Berkley Group, Inc., The, Defendant, represented by Vincent J.
Connelly, Mayer Brown LLP, Brian Patrick O'Meara, Forde Law
Offices LLP, Kevin Michael Forde, Forde Law Offices LLP, Kevin R.
Malloy, Forde Law Offices LLP & M. Peebles Harrison, Rose Harrison
& Gilreath, P.C..

Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Jeffrey Backman, Greenspoon Marder, P.A..

T-Mobile US, Inc., Third Party Defendant, represented by Debra Rae
Bernard, Perkins Coie LLP.

Service List,, represented by Brian Patrick O'Meara, Forde Law
Offices LLP, Brian J. Wanca, Anderson & Wanca, Christopher Lillard
Dore, Edelson PC, David Bradley Helms, Lewis Rice LLC, Emily
Yandle Rottmann, McGuireWoods LLP, Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Edelson P.C.,
George Lang, Anderson & Wanca, Jay Edelson, Edelson PC, Jeffrey
Backman, Greenspoon Marder, P.A., John S. Steward, Steward Law
Firm LLc, M. Peebles Harrison, Rose Harrison & Gilreath, P.C., Max
G. Margulis, Margulis Law Group, Nathan D. Leming, WILLIAMS AND
VENKER, Rafey S. Balabanian, Edelson PC, Rebecca F. Bratter,
Greenspoon Marder, P.A., Richard W. Epstein, Greenspoon Marder,
P.A., Ryan M. Kelly, Anderson & Wanca, Scott David Owens, Scott D.
Owens, Esq. & Steven P. Sanders, Sr., WILLIAMS AND VENKER.


CASCADE BANCORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on April 3 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon on behalf of holders of Cascade Bancorp
("Cascade") (NASDAQ:CACB) common stock in connection with the
proposed acquisition of Cascade by First Interstate BancSystem,
Inc. ("First Interstate") announced on November 17, 2016 (the
"Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Cascade, its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), and First Interstate, is captioned
Parshall v. Cascade Bancorp, Case No. 6:17-cv-00405-JR (D. Or.).

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

On November 17, 2016, Cascade entered into an agreement and plan
of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with First Interstate.
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Cascade shareholders will
receive 0.14864 shares of First Interstate's Class A common stock
and $1.91 in cash per share of Cascade (the "Proposed
Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a
registration statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 26, 2017.  The Registration Statement, which recommends
that Cascade stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, omits material information necessary to enable
shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote on the
Proposed Transaction, including material information with respect
to Cascade's financial projections, the opinions and analyses of
Cascade's financial advisor, and potential conflicts of interest.
The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on
behalf of holders of Cascade common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 2, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

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


CCB CREDIT: Judge Certified Settlement Class in "Hyun" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled HYUN SOON CHIJNG, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CCB CREDIT SERVICES,
INC.; and JOHN FINAL DOES 1 to 10, the Defendants, Case No.
2:1 5-cv05 1 98-KM-MAH (D.N.J.), the Hon. Kevin Cnulty certified a
Settlement Class of:

   "all Consumers who reside in the State of New Jersey to whom
   CCB Credit Services, Inc. mailed a written communication
   during the period beginning July 15, 2014, and ending July 15,
   2015, in an attempt to collect a debt on behalf of First
   National Bank of Omaha, 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".

The Court finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and finally approves the Agreement submitted by the
Parties, including the Release and payments by CCB. In accordance
with the terms of the Agreement, CCB shall make the following
payments:

   a. CCB shall create a class settlement fund of $6,000.00
      ("Class Recovery"), which the Settlement Administrator will
      distribute pro rata among those Class Members who did not
      timely exclude themselves from the Settlement
      ("Claimants"). Claimants will receive apro rata share of
      the Class Recovery by check. Checks issued to Claimants
      will be void sixty (60) days from the date of issuance. Any
      checks that have not been cashed by the void date, along
      with any unclaimed funds remaining in the Class Recovery,
      may be donated as a cy pres award to a recipient to be
      determined by the Court, if and as necessary.

   b. CCB shall pay Plaintiff $2,500.00.

   c. CCB shall pay Class Counsel $35,000.00 for their attorneys'
      fees and costs incurred in the action. Class Counsel shall
      not request additional fees or costs from CCB or the Class
      Members.

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

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges CCB violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, by mailing consumers collection letters
in windowed envelopes such that the file number or QR Code
containing the file number associated with the Debt was visible
from the outside of the envelope. The Plaintiff alleged CCB's
letters violated. CCB filed an Answer to the Complaint denying
liability to Plaintiff and the Settlement Class, and alleging
numerous affirmative defenses. During discovery, CCB produced
information regarding damages and that establishes there are
approximately 251 persons who meet the class definition, which is
set forth above and alleged in Plaintiff's complaint. On December
22, 2016, the Court entered an Order granting Preliminary Approval
to the Parties' Class Settlement Agreement which was amended on
December 28, 2016. The Order specifically found the proposed terms
of the Settlement satisfied all the elements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) and 23(b)(3), and preliminarily certified a defined class.
The Order further established a procedural framework for final
approval of the Settlement, and directed the Parties to implement
the Court's Notice Plan for providing notice to Class Members, set
deadlines and procedures for Class Members to request exclusion
from, or object to, the Settlement and set a date and time for the
final fairness hearing to approve the Settlement.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9AiJi8MV

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 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379 7500


CENERGY INT'L: Faces "Cummings" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donnie Cummings, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Cenergy International Services,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00484-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal., April
5, 2017) is brought against the Defendant for non-payment of wages
and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint says Defendant misclassified Plaintiffs as
independent contractors.

Cenergy International Services LLC staffs out workers, including
the Plaintiff, to Chevron Corporation.

Chevron Corporation is incorporated in Delaware, doing business in
and based in San Ramon, California. It is an oil company marketing
its products as Chevron Products and ChevronTexaco Global
Lubricants. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
   Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
   Nichols Kaster, LLP
   235 Montgomery St., Suite 810
   San Francisco, CA 94104
   Tel: (415) 277-7235
   Fax: (415) 277-7238
   Email: helland@nka.com
          dbrome@nka.com


CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Set to Oust Female Attorney Involved in Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vin Gurrieri, Andrew Strickler and Aebra Coe, writing for Law360,
report that Chadbourne & Parke LLP is preparing to oust from its
partnership the female attorney who lodged a $100 million proposed
class action accusing the firm of gender disparity in pay and
bonuses, a firm spokesperson confirmed on April 5.

Kerrie Campbell had filed a lawsuit in New York federal court
alleging that Chadbourne's male-dominated culture and management
structure resulted in gender disparity in pay and bonuses.
A representative for Chadbourne told Law360 in an emailed
statement that the firm's partnership will schedule a meeting to
vote on a motion to expel Kerrie Campbell.

Ms. Campbell, a litigation partner in the firm's Washington, D.C.,
office, had filed a lawsuit in August alleging that the firm's
male-dominated culture and management structure resulted in gender
disparity in pay and bonuses as well as the exclusion of female
partners from positions of authority.

The statement by Chadbourne, which announced in February that it
is merging with global legal giant Norton Rose Fulbright, said the
decision to hold the vote to oust Campbell was "the inevitable
result" of her own decisions since joining the firm.

"The firm has been exceedingly patient and sought to avoid having
a formal expulsion vote if other outcomes were possible,"
Chadbourne's statement said. "As Chadbourne prepares for a new
future, the choices Ms. Campbell has made have left the firm no
alternative but to seek to bring this relationship to an end in
this manner. No matter how she will try to mischaracterize it,
this decision is the inevitable result of the choices Ms. Campbell
has made."

In Campbell's August complaint, she said she was told in February
2016 that her partnership was being terminated. She also said she
remains employed as a "partner in transition" with no profit-
sharing, despite being required to make all mandatory payments
required of an equity partner.

In its statement on April 5, Chadbourne acknowledged that its
management committee "quietly and carefully" asked Campbell to
voluntarily leave the firm early last year, saying it was due to
her "failure to deliver in the way she represented when she joined
Chadbourne" as well as her exhibiting "questionable legal . . .
[and] poor personal judgment."

"She decided not to do so and, instead, chose to pursue baseless
claims in the cynical pursuit of a big and underserved payday,"
Chadbourne's statement added.

A Chadbourne spokesman could not immediately confirm the date of
the partnership meeting.

David Sanford -- dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- of Sanford Heisler
LLP, who represents Campbell, responded on April 5 by saying that
he will "pursue discovery to determine Norton Rose Fulbright's
role in directing or approving" Campbell's expulsion.

"Chadbourne's decision to inform the press that it is planning an
expulsion vote marks a new low," Mr. Sanford said in a statement.
"By calling the planned expulsion vote 'the inevitable result of
the choices Ms. Campbell has made' in bringing suit against the
firm, Chadbourne openly admits that the vote to terminate Ms.
Campbell is retaliatory.  Unfortunately for Norton Rose Fulbright,
this discriminatory and overtly retaliatory act is a liability
that will not disappear with the firm's upcoming merger."

Mr. Sanford also filed a letter on April 5 telling U.S. District
Judge J. Paul Oetken that the parties have been unable to reach a
settlement in the case.

Since Campbell filed suit, two other female attorneys at
Chadbourne have added their names to the proposed class action.

Former Kiev, Ukraine, managing partner Jaroslawa Johnson joined
the case in October, and Mary Yelenick, a retired former product
liability chair and 35-year veteran of the law firm, filed a
consent to join the case in late February.  Ms. Yelenick is
retired from the partnership and is currently an of counsel.

In a declaration to a New York federal court last month,
Ms. Yelenick said that insurance litigator and D.C. office leader
Joy Langford pressured Ms. Yelenick and various female partners
last year to sign a letter disavowing the lawsuit's allegations.
At the time, a firm spokesman denied the allegation when asked by
Law360.

Her declaration similarly alleges firm leaders gave male "billing
partners" millions in additional compensation for work generated
by institutional clients, and perpetuated a system in which those
clients were passed from male partner to male partner.

The plaintiffs are represented by David W. Sanford, Jeremy
Heisler, Andrew Melzer, Alexandra Harwin, Saba Bireda and Jennifer
Siegel of Sanford Heisler LLP.

Chadbourne is represented by Kathleen McKenna --
kmckenna@proskauer.com -- Evandro Cristiano Gigante --
egigante@proskauer.com -- and Rachel Sarah Fischer --
rfischer@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP.

The case is Kerrie Campbell, on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated, v. Chadbourne & Parke LLP, case number 1:16-
cv-06832, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.


CHILI'S GRILL: Judge Tosses Wage-and-Hour Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey
federal judge on April 3 freed Chili's Grill & Bar operator
Quality Dining Inc. from a proposed wage-and-hour class action
brought by a former New Jersey Chili's employee, ruling that the
arbitration agreement in the employee's contracts do not violate
the National Labor Relations Act.

U.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman granted Quality Dining's
motion to dismiss the suit and also dismissed former Chili's
worker Cynthia Cicero's motion for certification of a conditional
collective action challenging Quality's tip pooling and tip credit
policies.

The case is CYNTHIA CICERO, on behalf of herself and similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. QUALITY DINING, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Civil No. 16-5806 (NLH/KMW)(D.N.J.).

Cynthia Cicero, Plaintiff, represented by R. ANDREW SANTILLO,
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC.

Cynthia Cicero, Plaintiff, represented by MARK JUSTIN GOTTESFELD,
THE WINEBRAKE LAW FIRM LLC.

QUALITY DINING, INC., Defendant, represented by RACHEL FENDELL
SATINSKY, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. & HOLLY ELIZABETH RICH, LITTLER
MENDELSON PC.

Southwest Dining, Inc., Defendant, represented by HOLLY ELIZABETH
RICH, LITTLER MENDELSON PC.

GRAYLING CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by HOLLY ELIZABETH
RICH, LITTLER MENDELSON PC.


CITIBANK: Justices Duck Big Question in Key Arbitration Battle
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad at The Recorder reports in a case closely watched
by the class action bar, the California Supreme Court has punted
on deciding whether to jettison a long-standing rule that bars
consumer suits seeking broad injunctive relief from being pushed
into arbitration.

April 6's unanimous ruling, in McGill v. Citibank, sets the stage
for a potential clash before the U.S. Supreme Court, which has
repeatedly sided against California in key arbitration cases. One
such case was the 2011 Supreme Court decision in AT&T v.
Concepcion, which found that the Federal Arbitration Act pre-
empted California's ban on class action waivers in arbitration
clauses.

McGill addressed whether Concepcion and more recent U.S. Supreme
Court decisions, such as a 2013 ruling in American Express v.
Italian Colors, now require the California court to overrule its
previous decisions allowing consumers to avoid arbitration when
they bring injunctive relief claims on behalf of the public.
Groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Pacific Legal
Foundation and the International Association of Defense Counsel
urged the court to abandon what they view as a loophole in federal
arbitration policy. Public Citizen and the AARP backed the
plaintiff.

In its April 6 decision, the California Supreme Court declined to
decide the fate of the so-called Broughton-Cruz doctrine, named
for the two cases that established the rule forbidding compulsory
arbitration of claims for public injunctive relief. Instead, the
unanimous panel found that the arbitration contract at issue was
unenforceable because it made it impossible for the plaintiff,
Sharon McGill, to pursue injunctive relief "in any forum."

In so ruling, the state's high court leaned on a portion of the
Italian Colors decision that found the FAA does not apply to an
arbitration agreement that bans "the assertion of certain
statutory rights."

"Here, we likewise conclude that the FAA does not require
enforcement of a provision in a predispute arbitration agreement
that, in violation of generally applicable California contract
law, waives the right to seek in any forum public injunctive
relief" under California consumer laws, wrote Associate Justice
Ming Chin.

The court thus distinguished the case from Concepcion, which dealt
with the procedural tool of pursuing class actions, not statutory
remedies.

McGill's attorney, Glenn Danas, Esq. --
Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com -- a partner at Capstone Law in
Los Angeles, had argued against Citibank's position that the FAA
pre-empted the Broughton-Cruz rule. But he also presented the
narrower view that Citibank's arbitration provision at issue was
unconscionable.

"We are very pleased that the California Supreme Court unanimously
reversed the Court of Appeal in our favor, holding that
corporations like Citibank cannot force California consumers to
waive their right to seek public injunctive relief under
California's consumer protection statutes," Danas wrote in an
email. "This is the right result, and preserves a powerful tool
for maintaining corporate accountability."

Citibank's attorneys, Stroock, Stroock & Lavan's Julia Strickland,
a partner, and Marcos D. Sasso, special counsel, both in Los
Angeles, did not respond to a request for comment.
The Pacific Legal Foundation, which filed an amicus brief in
support of Citibank, called the decision the "latest slippery
evasion of federal arbitration law."

The court's "surprising result" will leave the Broughton-Cruz
rule's viability "in disarray," wrote Deborah LaFetra, a principal
attorney at the California-based advocacy group. Citibank, she
wrote, "almost certainly will petition the U.S. Supreme Court to
review this decision."

McGill filed a class action in 2011, alleging that Citibank misled
her in the marketing and handling of its "credit protector" plan,
which, for a monthly premium cost, defers payment in the event of
a major life event such as unemployment. She brought the case
under California's unfair competition law, false advertising law
and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, asserting claims that included
injunctive relief prohibiting Citibank from future illegal
conduct.

A judge in Riverside, California, granted Citibank's motion to
arbitrate the case in part, but found the arbitration agreement
unenforceable as to McGill's claims for public injunctive relief.
The decision relied on Broughton v. Cigna Health Plans, decided in
1999, and Cruz v. Pacificare Health Systems, decided in 2003. The
California Supreme Court cases held that claims for injunctive
relief on behalf of the general public cannot be forced into
arbitration.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the
FAA pre-empted the Broughton-Cruz rule under Concepcion.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has also addressed
the Broughton-Cruz rule in a series of cases, ruling in 2013 that
the rule could not be squared with Concepcion.

On Jan. 24, after oral arguments, the California Supreme Court had
asked lawyers to submit supplemental briefing on whether
Proposition 65, a ballot measure passed in 2004 to curb abusive
lawsuits brought on behalf of the public, eliminated the ability
of private plaintiffs to seek public injunctive relief. In April
6's decision, the panel found that it did not. [GN]

The case is SHARON McGILL, Plaintiff and Respondent; v. CITIBANK,
N.A., Defendant and Appellant, No. S224086 (Cal.).


CLARK COLLECTION: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Continued
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Gary Feinerman entered an order in the lawsuit styled
Daniel Petrich, the Plaintiff, v. Clark County Collection Service,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02396 (N.D. Ill.), granting
Plaintiff's motion to continue hearing on class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 9, 2017,
motion to certify class is entered and continued. The motion
hearings set for April 10 are stricken.

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


CLINTON ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert. Bid Denied in "Labriola"
-----------------------------------------------------------
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


COMCAST CORPORATION: "Patel" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MOUNANG PATEL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COMCAST
CORPORATION, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02570 (N.D.
Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "all natural persons domiciled in the United States or its
   territories who, on or after January 14, 2015, paid Comcast
   Cable a security or other deposit in lieu of a credit check
   when subscribing to Xfinity video, high-speed Internet and/or
   voice services and whose credit reports Comcast Cable
   nonetheless obtained".

Excluded from the Class are Defendants and any of their respective
officers, directors or employees, the presiding judge, Class
counsel and members of their immediate families, and persons or
entities who timely and properly exclude themselves from the
Class.

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

Ryan Boysen, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois consumer
hit Comcast Corp. with a proposed class action in Illinois federal
court on April 4, alleging the cable giant ran a credit check on
him and damaged his credit despite the fact that he'd paid a
deposit specifically to avoid having his credit checked.

Mounang Patel says he was in the middle of buying a new house when
signing up for Comcast's Xfinity service last month.  Because he
didn't want a credit check to interfere with the mortgage he was
negotiating, Patel agreed to pay a $100 deposit in lieu of a
check, the complaint says. Comcast then ran his credit anyway, he
says, causing problems with the loan.

"Despite promising customers they can avoid a credit check -- and
the potential adverse effects on their credit rating -- Comcast
Cable routinely obtains their credit reports. . . and collects the
security deposit from the customer paid to obviate the need for
such checks."

Mr. Patel seeks to certify a class consisting of all U.S. Comcast
customers who paid a security deposit in lieu of a credit check
and then had their credit checked by Comcast anyway, from 2015 to
the present.

His suit alleges breach of contract, violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, unjust enrichment and other things.  He is seeking
damages between $100 and $1,000 per person affected by the alleged
wrongdoing, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

"We brought this suit because we think consumers are rightfully
concerned about the impact unwanted credit checks can have on
their credit ratings," Mr. Patel's attorney, William M. Sweetman -
- wms@sweetnamll.com -- told Law360.  "My client and others have
the right to take Comcast at their word when they tell consumers
they won't run a credit check on them."

Mr. Patel says he spoke with Comcast on March 19 to get service at
the new home he was in the process of buying and that Comcast
recommended he pay the deposit so that a credit check wouldn't
interfere with his mortgage.

Nonetheless, a few days later, Mr. Patel was told by a credit
rating agency that Comcast had run a check on him the same day he
spoke with the company, which "resulted in the lowering of
plaintiff's credit score, thereby increasing the cost of credit
extended to him" and adversely affecting the mortgage, although
the complaint doesn't give details.

A similar suit, filed by Illinois resident Keith Santangelo, was
filed against Comcast in 2015 in Illinois federal court.
Mr. Santangelo says in his complaint he paid a $50 deposit to
avoid a credit check, but that Comcast ran one on him anyway.  In
February the judge in that case denied Comcast's motion to strike
Mr. Santangelo's class allegations, and allowed him to begin
conducting partial discovery.

"Our case is slightly different, in that it covers a class of
consumers who were affected only after that case was filed,"
Mr. Sweetman told Law360.  "The facts are very similar however.
I'm surprised they haven't stopped this practice yet."

Comcast did not respond on April 4 to a request for comment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
          SWEETNAM LLC
          100 North La Salle Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 757 1888
          E-mail: wms@sweetnamllc.com


CONTINENTAL RESOURCE: Judge Grants Prelim OK on Settlement Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Phillis at Law360 reports that a USD5.1 million deal to
settle a class action alleging oil producer Continental Resource
Inc. failed to pay interest on some well royalties received
preliminary approval from an Oklahoma federal judge on April 6.

The agreement to resolve the suit brought by Stamp Brothers Oil &
Gas LLC was initially reached in October. Stamp Brothers had
accused Continental of failing to calculate and pay interest
pursuant to the Oklahoma Production Revenue Standards Act on
certain royalties from a specific group of wells.

April 6's order by Chief District Judge Joe Heaton certifies a
class for the purpose of the settlement and provides time for
those who might object to the agreement to voice their disapproval
before it is finalized.

"Having considered the essential terms of the settlement under the
recognized standards for preliminary approval as set forth in the
relevant jurisprudence, the court preliminarily approves the
settlement, subject to the right of any member of the putative
settlement class to challenge the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of the settlement as memorialized through the settlement
agreement, and to show cause if any exists, why a final judgment
dismissing the litigation. . . should not be ordered after
adequate notice," the order said.

In addition to the USD5.1 million settlement fund, Continental is
on the hook for another USD1.55 million in plaintiff's attorneys'
fees and expenses, according to court papers.

The class members are composed of royalty interest owners in oil
and gas wells located in Oklahoma and operated by Continental from
the beginning of 2009 to mid-2015. The settlement claims are
limited to the recovery of interest for the defendant's alleged
failure to make the "first payment of royalties within six months
of the date of first sale of production."

It is unclear how many members are in the class. The agreement
calls for notices to be sent out to potential members, and those
who submit claim forms will be evaluated to see if they qualify
for part of the settlement fund.

Class members are able to object if they do not like the
agreement.

"To object, you must either deliver or send for filing . . . a
written statement advising as to the matter you object to," the
preliminary approval order said. Objectors who file will be able
to appear in a final fairness hearing.

The agreement also said the court finds the proposed settlement
resulted from extensive arms-length negotiations, that it was
agreed to only after counsel had conducted legal research and
discovery regarding the strengths and weaknesses of its claims and
that the agreement appears fair and adequate.

Neither party responded to a request for comment.

Continental Resources is represented by Gary S. Chilton --
gchilton@holladaychilton.com --  of Holladay Chilton & DeGiusti,
Mark D. Christiansen --  mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com --  and
Jodi W. Dishman -- jodi.dishman@mcafeetaft.com -- of McAfee &
Taft-OKC and Brooks A. Richardson of Continental Resources Inc.

Stamps Brothers is represented by Darrell W. Downs --
ddowns@sooneraw.com -- and Mark H. Ramsey -- mramsey@soonerlaw.com
-- of Taylor Burrage Foster Mallett Downs Ramsey & Russell and
Kandi J. Pate and Mark A. Wolfe of Pate & Wolfe.

The case is Stamps Brothers Oil & Gas LLC v. Continental Resources
Inc., case number CIV-14-0182, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma. [GN]


COUSIN VINNY'S: Deliver Driver Files Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Maytal Levi, writing for WDTN, reports that a federal lawsuit has
been filed against a local pizza company after an employee says he
wasn't paid fairly.

Riverside resident, Thomas Brandenburg worked for the Cousin
Vinny's Pizza restaurant in Huber Heights for nearly two years as
a delivery driver.  He says at times, he wasn't making minimum
wage, which is $8.15 in Ohio.

"I enjoyed the job of pizza delivering.  I get to meet people
under happy circumstances," said Mr. Brandenburg.

Mr. Brandenburg was making $6.50 an hour, plus tips and a delivery
fee.  However, sometimes he says when there were no deliveries to
be made he would work inside the store.  During that time, he says
his wage was never increased.

The attorney representing Cousin Vinny's, Samir Dahman said,
"Cousin Vinny's has gone out of its way to make sure everyone is
fairly compensated."

Mr. Brandenburg says in addition to his $6.50 wage, he would get
tips plus a one dollar delivery fee, no matter how far the trip
was. Both sides acknowledge at times Mr. Brandenburg would have to
drive to New Carlisle, about a 10 mile trip.  Mr. Dahman says
Brandenburg was compensated a total of $3 in delivery fees for the
longer trips, but Mr. Brandenburg says that's not true.

"We paid our own gasoline, our own automotive repairs, tires, oil
changes, things of that nature.  It never covered the cost of
operating a vehicle for the company," said Mr. Brandenburg.

"For the longer trips he would get an extra two dollars in
delivery fees.  So, that's $6.50, plus a dollar, plus the extra
two dollars, that's $9.50, plus tips," said Mr. Dahman.

2 NEWS reporter, Maytal Levi asked Brandenburg, "What is fair?".
He responded, "That's a good question. I'm not sure, but we have
laws in America, people rely on those laws."

Mr. Dahman says big box pizza companies are more equipped for
lawsuits like this and says it could be costly for Cousin Vinny's.

"We just want to get back to delivering good, affordable late-
night pizza to the Dayton area," said Mr. Dahman.

Brandenburg is being represented by Andrew Kimble, a Dayton native
with Markovits, Stock & DeMarco LLC.  Mr. Kimble filed the case as
a class action lawsuit, meaning he believes other employees might
be in the same situation as Mr. Brandenburg.  The judge has yet to
certify that paperwork.

There are 17 Cousin Vinny's Pizza restaurants throughout Ohio,
Indiana and Virginia.


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Dismisses Installer's Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Frankel at Fierce Cable reports Cox Communications won
dismissal of a class-action lawsuit filed in Louisiana by an
employee of an installation contractor who said he wasn't
compensated for overtime work.

According to Law360, Eastern District of Louisiana Court Judge
Janis van Meerveld granted the dismissal based on the fact that
plaintiff Scott Gremillion is an employee of installation
contractor Grayco Communications LP, not privately held MSO Cox.

Gremillion alleged in his suit that both Grayco and Cox violated
Louisiana law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
The suit was filed in June.

A Cox representative told FierceCable that the company doesn't
typically comment on litigation.

Suits by cable installation workers are common, with workers
alleging that MSOs engage in a range of unfair labor practices,
hiding behind third-party installation contractors.

Plaintiff attorneys have tried to implicate the operators
themselves with limited success.

"The model is illegal," David Blanchard, Esq. --
blanchard@bwlawonline.com -- of Blanchard & Walker PLLC, an Ann
Arbor, Michigan, attorney representing the employees of a Comcast
contractor, told FierceTelecom last year. "They try to pass on all
the risk to unskilled people who are often times sold on an idea
of independence. In the end, they work harder and don't make more
money. They don't have control over the jobs they do or the hours
they work. The law says they're an employee, and they're eligible
for overtime pay and compensation in case they hurt themselves on
the job." [GN]

The case is SCOTT MR. GREMILLION, v. COX COMMUNICATIONS LOUISIANA
ET AL., Civil Action No. 16-9849 (E.D. La.).

Scott Gremillion, Plaintiff, represented by George Brian Recile,
Chehardy,Sherman,Ellis,Murray,Recile,Stakelum&Hayes, LLP.

Scott Gremillion, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Arthur
Sherman, Chehardy,Sherman,Ellis,Murray,Recile,Stakelum&Hayes, LLP,
Patrick R. Follette,
Chehardy,Sherman,Ellis,Murray,Recile,Stakelum&Hayes, LLP, Preston
Lee Hayes, Chehardy,Sherman,Ellis,Murray,Recile,Stakelum&Hayes,
LLP & Ryan Paul Monsour,
Chehardy,Sherman,Ellis,Murray,Recile,Stakelum&Hayes, LLP.

Cox Communications, Inc., Defendant, represented by Martin E.
Landrieu, Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan, Annette A.
Idalski, Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Aughtry, pro hac
vice, Donna Phillips Currault, Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis
& Eagan, Peter N. Hall, Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams &
Aughtry, pro hac vice & Phillip J. Antis, Jr., Gordon, Arata,
McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan.


CPI SECURITY: Foust Moves to Certify Class of Security Officers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DONALD FOUST, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CPI SECURITY
SERVICES, INC., COMPLETE PROTECTION & INVESTIGATIONS, INC.,
LAWRENCE E. SANDERS AND CHRISTINE A. SANDERS, Case No. 5:16-cv-
01447-R (W.D. Okla.), asks the Court to conditionally certify this
class:

     All current and former Security Officers who worked for CPI
     Security Services, Inc., Complete Protection and
     Investigations, Inc., Lawrence Sanders and/or Christine
     Sanders, at any time from three years before the date of
     mailing of this notice and were not paid overtime.

Donald Foust, individually and on behalf of all opt-in plaintiffs
and other similarly situated current and former Security Officers
of the Defendants, filed the collective action lawsuit pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs owed to the
proposed class members, who worked for the Defendants over the
past three years and were paid an hourly rate with no overtime
compensation.

Mr. Foust also asks the Court to order that a judicially approved
notice be sent to all Putative Class members and to approve the
form and content of the proposed judicial notice and reminder
notice.  He further asks the Court to order the Defendants to
produce to the Plaintiffs' counsel necessary information for each
of the Putative Class Members.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noble K. McIntyre, Esq.
          MCINTYRELAW PC
          8601 S. Western Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73139
          Telephone: (405) 917-5250
          Facsimile: (405) 917-5405
          E-mail: noble@mcintyrelaw.com

               - and -

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


CUMBERLAND RIVER: Price Wants to Proceed as FLSA Collective Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charley Price asks the Court to authorize the case styled CHARLEY
PRICE, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
employees v. CUMBERLAND RIVER HOSPITAL, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-
00010 (M.D. Tenn.), to proceed as a collective action for overtime
violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and supplemental
Tennessee state law claims on behalf of non-exempt employees of
the Defendant during the last six years, who were subject to the
Defendant's automatic meal break deduction policy.

Ms. Price also asks the Court to issue an order directing the
Defendant to provide information of the putative class members,
and to post notice at its facility.  She further asks that opt in
plaintiffs Consent Forms be deemed "filed" on the date they are
postmarked.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Russell, Esq.
          Emily S. Emmons, Esq.
          GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
          341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37061
          Telephone: (615) 354-1144
          E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com
                  eemmons@gilbertfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cynthia A. Wilson, Esq.
          MADEWELL, JARED, HALFACRE, WILLIAMS AND WILSON
          230 North Washington Avenue
          Cookeville, TN 38501
          Telephone: (931) 526-6101
          Facsimile: (931) 528-1909
          E-mail: cynthia@madewelljared.com


CVS PHARMACY: "Lowe" Suit Seeks to Certify Telemarketing Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CARL LOWE and KEARBY KAISER, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CVS
PHARMACY, INC., MINUTECLINIC, LLC, and WEST CORPORATION, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-03687 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order:

   a. certifying a Telemarketing Class consisting of:

      "all persons in the United States whose cell phone CVS
      called using an unattended message on or after May 20,
      2010, where the message played, or intended to be played,
      included reference to a gift card or coupon".

   b. designating Plaintiffs as class representatives;

   c. appointing their attorneys as class counsel; and

   d. granting further and other relief the Court deems
      reasonable and just.

The Defendants have made billions of autodialed, prerecorded-voice
calls to American consumers, with the dual goal of corporate
efficiency and profits. Most calls were intended to notify CVS
customers that a prescription was ready for pickup. At some point
before 2011, however, CVS recognized a marketing opportunity: Use
the information in its database to try to increase foot-traffic
and sales of consumer goods at CVS locations, and to advertise
hyper-profitable flu shots. Those calls are the focus of this
lawsuit.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XC0q6FXW

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729 5288
          Facsimile: (312) 729 5289
          E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com
                  dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
          125 Summer St., Suite 1030
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738 7080
          Facsimile: (617) 830 0327
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
                  anthony@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P.MCCUE
          1 South Ave., 3rd Floor
          Natick, MA 07160
          Telephone: (508) 655 1415
          Facsimile: (508) 319 3077
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net

               - and -

          Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
          MURRAY MURPHY MOUL BASIL LLP
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488 0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488 0401
          E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com


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


DEBT CUTTER: Class Action Mulled Over Undisclosed Fees
------------------------------------------------------
Lorna Knowles and Jodie Noyce, writing for ABC, report that
Noelene Mayne was struggling with a $30,000 debt but she never
expected that a debt management company would take advantage of
her desperate position.

"At the time I was supporting my 38-year-old son, or partially,
the daughter that's living with me now, plus myself," Ms Mayne
said.

"So it was when I saw these ads saying, 'We can stop this, we can
stop the credit', I thought, 'that sounds good, I'll go down that
path'."

The 64-year-old single mother rang Debt Cutter and within hours,
an agent was knocking on her caravan door.

"He had this bit of paper, he told me it was going to cost $1,800
and I was going to start paying $300 a fortnight," she said.

Ms Mayne said she was told once she started paying the setup fee,
Debt Cutter would negotiate with her creditors to freeze the
interest on her loans and stop the debt collectors calling.

But a few months later, Ms Mayne received a debt agreement in the
mail that stated she would be charged an additional $8,000.

The document disclosed that while Debt Cutter had negotiated with
her creditors to reduce her debts down from $31,000 to $21,500,
Debt Cutter planned to charge her a $7,930 administration fee.

"And they asked me why and I said because you didn't tell me it
was going to cost me this much."

High fees, unrealistic budgets leaving people worse off

Ms Mayne said part of the debt agreement was already filled out
which claimed she had already tried to negotiate with her
creditors.

She cancelled the deal and got the $900 she had already paid to
Debt Cutter refunded.

Debt Cutter general manager Rasad Merchant said it did disclose
its fees to Ms Mayne and defended charging customers for services
that were available for free.

"Yes, you might have five other people out there providing free
services but at the end of the day, you always get what you pay
for," he said.

Ms Mayne said she now finds it hard to trust anyone.

"I just think they're underhanded, you see the ads, 'stop the
interest, low payments', but there's nothing about the behind-the-
scenes charges," she said.

Cat Newton from the Consumer Law Action Centre in Melbourne is now
helping Ms Mayne to manage her debts.

Ms Newton said she was seeing more people like Ms Mayne who said
debt management firms charged them high fees, placed them on
unrealistic budgets and left them worse off.

"This is an industry that is really preying on people in financial
difficulty and spruiking them services that aren't really
suitable," Ms Newton said.

"We're really concerned about debt vultures.  We see the impacts
on people of the kind of poor services and bad conduct that can
typify this industry".

Clients looking to recover up to $30 million in interest payments

Kelvin Turner is the lead claimant in a class action against
another debt management company, MyBudget.

He approached MyBudget for help in 2013 when his marriage ended
and he was struggling to pay his debts on a single income.

Like Ms Mayne, he was attracted by an advertisement he saw on TV.

"In their wording it was like they were going to take control of
your financial situation," he said.

"From that I gathered they would take your money and pay all your
bills, your debts, and relieve you of the stress and worry of
having to worry about. I actually felt relieved when I saw the
ad."

Mr Turner went to the MyBudget office in Parramatta and a
consultant told him they could help.

But the budget they designed for him was based on money he did not
have.

"They advised me that there was a $5,000 shortfall which I had to
make up through whatever means, that was $5000 over a year," he
said.

The interest MyBudget earned on his money was also withheld.

His lawyer, Alexandra Kelly from the Financial Rights Legal
Centre, said that money should have been paid to Mr Turner.

"MyBudget, at the moment, is skimming the pot and keeping that
money for themselves," Ms Kelly said.

"We say that they ought not to be doing that and, as a trustee for
consumers money, that money should really be going back to the
clients as part of their interests on their funds."

Ms Kelly said the class action would seek to recover up to $30
million in interest payments.

"MyBudget advertises that they've had 65,000 clients and a billion
dollars has gone through their bank accounts," she said.

"So a conservative estimate could be anywhere between $20 million
and $30 million of client interest that's been skimmed off the top
of some really vulnerable consumers who have gone to MyBudget to
help manage their finances, not realising that MyBudget is
actually withholding some of the interest that was accruing on
some of those funds."

MyBudget managing director Tammy Barton declined to be
interviewed, but said in a letter to 7.30 that Mr Turner's
complaints were "false and without foundation".

She pointed to a letter Mr Turner sent to the company in 2014,
terminating his contract, in which he thanked staff for their
"invaluable" support and advice.

Mr Turner said he was just being polite and looked forward to his
claims being tested in the Federal Court.

Mrs Barton said its contracts disclose that MyBudget retains the
interest earned on clients' money.

However, My Budget strongly disputes the interest earned on
accounts was between $20 million and $30 million, saying it was
more like $1.5 million.

"The bank fees associated with the processing of client
transactions during this period was approximately, but not more
than $1.5 million," lawyers for the company said.

"As such, MyBudget made no money from this standard practice."

See My Budget's full response here:

Lack of regulation a 'failure of Parliament'

Consumer advocates say that as the number of Australians in
financial stress rises, so too does the debt management industry.

They are concerned that these companies are operating in a
regulatory void.

Last year, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission
(ASIC) published a report on the burgeoning debt management
industry.

The report found that, too often, debt management firms charged
excessive fees for "poor or inappropriate" services that left
consumers worse off.

It found fees were "opaque" and "front loaded" or payable before
the service was delivered, increasing consumer commitment.

Despite these findings, nothing has changed.

South Australian Senator Nick Xenophon said it was about time
Parliament acted on the report.

"You have to wonder, why is it that consumers have to go to court
to enforce their rights, to highlight this issue when it's
something that the legislature, that the regulator should have
acted on?" Senator Xenophon said.

"It's something that really has been under the radar and that's a
failure on the part of all members of Parliament, including me, in
terms of dealing with this".


DENVER, CO: New Evidence Emerges in Homeless Sweeps Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Walker, writing for Westword, reports that last year, Denver
Police and other city departments conducted multiple sweeps of
homeless encampments.  The operations proved controversial,
especially given allegations by individuals experiencing
homelessness that at some of the sweeps, their personal belongings
were thrown away by the city without a means to retrieve them -- a
potential violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against
unlawful searches and seizures.

Now one of the sweeps that occurred on July 13, 2016, under the
code names "River Dance" and "Night Crawler," has resurfaced in
court proceedings for a class action lawsuit filed by attorney
Jason Flores-Williams.

During deposition hearings, Mr. Flores-Williams says that DPD
officer Ligeia Craven admitted that all items seized on July 13
were trashed.  In an e-mail statement, Flores-Williams explains:

Denver Police Officer Ligeia Craven, who was one of the main
members of the Homeless Out Reach Team, ("Hot" Team) that was
designed to outreach to the homeless community, admitted on the
record that there was no storage of anyone's property at the July
13, 2016 Arkins Court clean up and that all items seized were
trashed.

"Were they trashed?"

"Yes."

Furthermore, there was no city oversight of the Arkins court
homeless sweeps and the protocols that were in place for the March
8, 9 sweeps -- to the degree that they were implemented -- were
not in place for the July 13 Sweep.

Based on this admission, Plaintiffs will be filing a Motion for
Summary Judgment on the Fourth Amendment violation arising from
the sweep of Arkins Court, July 13, 2016. I t is a substantial
motion that will be filed by May 1, 2017.

Mr. Flores-Williams has shared with Westword additional evidence
that he obtained through discovery requests that suggests that the
Denver Department of Parks and Recreation, which participated in
the July 13 sweep, did not have any process in place by which
homeless individuals could retrieve seized items.

In an e-mail thread discussing how to answer questions sent by
Westword last year about the sweeps, Parks and Rec spokeswoman
Cyndi Karvaski wrote to Department of Human Services spokeswoman
Julie Smith: "During the clean-up that took place on July 13, we
did not catalogue or store any items for retrieval. In the case of
an item found such as a driver's license or I.D., those items were
turned over to the police."

When reporting this story last year, our requests to interview
Officer Craven and Karvaski were denied. Instead, all of our
requests were routed to DHS spokeswoman Julie Smith. Given what we
were able to gather through Smith, we wrote:

"Information about all that occurred during the July 13 sweeps is
limited by subjective accounts, what is handed over through open-
records requests and what officials knowledgeable about the
operation are willing to say about it."

With Mr. Flores-Williams's findings, there is a clearer picture of
what happened.  The lawyer says, "We will be filing a motion for
summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment violation arising from
the sweep of Arkins Court, July 13, 2016. It is a substantial
motion that will be filed by May 1, 2017."

When asked to comment about this case, a spokeswoman for Mayor
Michael Hancock's office declined to discuss the ongoing lawsuit.
Mr. Flores-Williams recently made a motion to compel Mayor
Hancock's testimony in this case -- which was later denied by a
federal judge.  But the case will continue in federal court.

"After a week of deposing city officials about the homeless
sweeps, what really happened has come into focus," Mr. Flores-
Williams says.  "The July 13 sweep of Arkins Court, when the city
thought no one was watching, was pure stormtrooper action.  The
police didn't confer with city officials, they didn't inform the
city council, they trashed people's IDs, blankets, papers, photos,
family heirlooms -- they didn't even pretend to store people's
property.  As we said in the complaint filed back in August, the
city's actions didn't just violate the Constitution, they violated
the Magna Carta.  What happened along the river on July 13 was a
sad day for the city of Denver."

A separate jury trial in county court began on April 4, for three
individuals who were cited for violating Denver's urban-camping
ban.


DIAL: Court Denies Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony
-----------------------------------------------------
Richard Keshian, Esq. -- Rkeshian@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), class action
defendants frequently have argued damages cannot be established on
a class-wide basis.  Conversely, attorneys representing class
action plaintiffs have endeavored to develop class-wide damages
models that satisfy Comcast.  A district court in a multidistrict,
consumer fraud class action recently rejected a defendant's motion
to exclude expert testimony, potentially giving class plaintiffs a
road map for developing expert testimony that calculates class-
wide damages in a partial refund or reimbursement case with
sufficient reliability.

In re: Dial Complete Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL
Case No. 11-md-2263-SM, 2017 DNH 051 (D.N.H. Mar. 27, 2017).

In a prior post on this blog, Jay Bogan analyzed two Ninth Circuit
decisions rejecting class certification of claims seeking damages
under a partial refund or reimbursement damages theory. In both
cases, the Ninth Circuit determined that damages could not be
measured on a class-wide basis, and thus ruled the predominance
requirement had not been met.

On March 27, 2017, the District of New Hampshire analyzed this
same issue in Dial Complete Marketing, a consolidated,
multidistrict class action brought by consumers in Arkansas,
California, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin.
Plaintiffs alleged that Dial misrepresented the antibacterial
properties of its "Dial Complete" branded soap, asserting various
state consumer protection and unfair trade practice claims, as
well as claims for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. Among
other claims, Plaintiffs disputed statements on the soap labels
that Dial Complete "kills 99.99% of germs," is "#1 Doctor
Recommended," and "kills more germs than any other liquid hand
soap."

Plaintiffs sought damages under the theory consumers had been
"deprived of a measurable monetary portion of the benefit of the
bargain they had struck with Dial by buying Dial Complete with a
superior efficacy claim on the label but, in fact, receiving a
product that did not provide the promised superior efficacy."  In
support of this theory, Plaintiffs' expert submitted a so-called
"conjoint analysis methodology" relying upon, among other things,
a consumer survey that "collected data from 2,000 qualifying
respondents."

Dial challenged the reliability of this model in a number of
respects, including attacking its failure to adequately take into
account and properly weigh other non-price attributes that may
well have been important to liquid hand soap consumers (such as
brand name, scent, shape, or color).  Relying on Comcast, Dial
argued the model was "incapable of measuring only those damages
attributable to plaintiffs' theory of liability."

In denying Dial's motion to exclude the expert testimony, the
district court stated "there is an important difference between
what is unreliable support and what a trier of fact may conclude
is insufficient support for an expert's conclusion."  The court
found that the challenges identified by Dial either could be cured
or went to the weight, rather than the admissibility, of the
expert testimony.  Having found that Plaintiffs' damages model
satisfied the reliability criteria of Comcast, the district court
granted certification of eight state-specific subclasses.


DIRECT ENERGY: Judge Denied Class Certification in "Richards"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Gary W. Richards, the Plaintiff, v. Direct
Energy Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-01724-VAB
(D. Conn.), the Hon. Victor A. Bolden entered an order denying
class certification and denying summary judgment, according to the
Courtroom Minutes prepared by Deputy Clerk.

A copy of the Courtroom Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=E68dFbxX

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A. Izard , Jr., Esq.
          Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
          IZARD NOBEL LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 215
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493 6295
          Facsimile: (860) 493 6290
          Website: www.izardnobel.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael D. Matthews, Jr., Esq.
          Hutson B. Smell, Esq.
          CARLSON, CALLADINE & PETERSON LLP
          Telephone: (415) 391 8736
          Facsimile: (415) 391 3898
          E-mail: mmatthews@ccplaw.com


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA: Scott Moves for Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled DEANGELO SCOTT, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. GOVERNMENT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00753-RDM (D.D.C.),
asks the Court to certify a class consisting of each person who:

     (i) in the period beginning three years before the date of
     filing of the original complaint in this case and going
     forward until the case is terminated; (ii) paid an
     assessment imposed on a criminal conviction or plea by a
     Superior Court judicial officer; (iii) became entitled to a
     refund of all or part of the assessment because the
     conviction on at least one charge was reversed by the Court
     of Appeals or otherwise vacated by any other court in the
     District of Colombia; (iv) who has not received a refund or
     notice and a hearing on entitlement to the refund of the
     assessment.

Mr. Scott also moves the Court to name him as the Class
Representative and to appoint William Claiborne, Esq., Jeffrey
Light, Esq., and Lynn Cunningham, Esq., as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rwqbKIl7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Claiborne, Esq.
          2020 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., #395
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 824-0700
          E-mail claibornelaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Light, Esq.
          1712 Eye St., NW, Suite 915
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 277-6213
          E-mail: jeffrey@lawofficeofjeffreylight.com


DOORDASH INC: Consumers File TCPA Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against an online
restaurant delivery company, citing an alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Gregory Angell filed a complaint individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated March 19, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, against DoorDash Inc.,
alleging the company violated the TCPA through intrusive and
unwanted text messages.

According to the complaint, Angell and others have suffered from
abuse and harassment, including invasion of their privacy and
intrusion on their seclusion, caused by the defendant's
transmission of unsolicited text messages inviting plaintiffs to
complete their DoorDash driver profile.  The company continued
sending unwanted text messages despite the plaintiff's opt-out
notice, the complaint said.

The plaintiffs hold DoorDash Inc. responsible because the
defendant allegedly sent messages to the plaintiffs with a
frequency that was meant to abuse or harass, contacted the
plaintiffs without express consent and invaded the plaintiffs'
rights to privacy and seclusion.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
the defendant.  They are asking the court certify the class
action, for $500 in statutory damages for every violation, $1,500
in statutory damages for every willful violation, injunctive
relief, and other relief the court may deem just.

They are represented by Abbas Kazerounian and Matthew Loker of
Kazerouni Law Group APC in Costa Mesa, Calif., Joshua Swigart --
josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- of Hyde & Swigart in San Diego and
Eric Kem of The Law Offices of Eric W. Kem in Los Angeles.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 17-cv-01478


DUNKIN' DONUTS: Settles Class Action Over Butter Substitutes
------------------------------------------------------------
FoxNews.com reports that a Dunkin' Donuts customer has settled his
lawsuits with a few franchise owners over their use of butter
substitutes in place of actual butter.

Jan Polanik, who lives near Worcester, Mass., brought the suits
against the Dunkin' Donuts owners after he learned they were
serving him a "margarine or butter substitute" on his bagels --
even when he specifically requested the real thing, reports The
Boston Globe.

"The main point of the lawsuit is to stop the practice of
representing one thing and selling a different thing,"
Mr. Polanik's lawyer, Thomas Shapiro, told the Globe.

Mr. Shapiro also acknowledged that Mr. Polanik's butter issue was
"a minor thing" and even admitted to waffling over whether to file
a lawsuit, but he said he ultimately chose to move forward for the
sake of consumers.

"If somebody goes in and makes a point to order butter for the
bagel . . .  they don't want margarine or some other kind of
chemical substitute," Mr. Shapiro said.

The Boston Globe reports that Mr. Polanik's lawsuits were filed
against two different companies who operate over 20 franchises in
Mass.  Each lawsuit was also looking to achieve class-action
status in order to represent any Dunkin' customers who felt
cheated upon receiving butter substitutes.

Michael Marino, a lawyer for one of the franchise groups,
confirmed that his clients have reached a settlement with
Mr. Polanik, although he declined to discuss the terms of the
agreement.

However, Mr. Marino did confirm that 17 of the franchises he
represents would be instituting "operational changes" concerning
their butter policy.

A representative for the second group of franchisees declined to
comment to The Globe.

The paper also points out that, in 2013, a separate Worcester
resident questioned the ethics of serving butter substitutes
without making it known to the consumer.

In that particular case, a representative for the company
responded by saying that the stores can't safely store butter at
spreadable temperatures, which is why they use substitutes. She
also claimed that stores are instructed to provide packets of
whipped butter for those who request it.


DUNKIN' DONUTS: Plaintiffs' Attorney Says Settlement Not Unfair
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Rocheleau, writing for Boston Globe, reports that on the
surface, it seems, something doesn't taste quite right about the
proposed settlement in the class-action case of a central
Massachusetts man who has sued over having butter substitute --
instead of the real butter he'd ordered -- on his Dunkin' Donuts
bagels.

He would get $500, and up to 1,400 other similarly-wronged
customers would get a few free buttered baked goods.

Meanwhile, his legal representation in the case would get up to
$90,000, according to terms of a proposed settlement filed in
court.

That's about 180 times the amount that would go to the man who
brought the suit, or about the equivalent of roughly 90,000
buttered bagels from Dunkin' Donuts.

But one of the man's attorneys said that the deal is not as unfair
as it may appear.

For one, the money would not go to any one lawyer or individual,
said the attorney, Thomas Shapiro.

"It's not like it all goes right into my pocket or any one
person's pocket," he said by phone on April 5.

Instead, it would be shared by the two law firms that backed the
class-action suit and used not only to compensate attorneys and
paralegals who worked on the case, but also to cover other
overhead costs the firms incurred.

Mr. Shapiro said that three or four attorneys, along with several
paralegals and other staff, helped on the case, which the firms
have worked on for more than a year.  And, Mr. Shapiro noted,
their work won't be done once, and if, a judge approves the
proposed settlement; there will be more to do to help class
members receive their free buttered baked goods.

"It's much more time consuming than one would imagine looking from
the outside," Mr. Shapiro said.  "When compared with the actual
time we put into the case, this is not actually a profitable case
for us."

"We did this because we thought it's an important principle," he
added.

As part of the settlement, Dunkin' Donuts would agree to notify
customers if they offer a butter substitute instead of the real
stuff.

"That was the main issue of the lawsuit.  And now there will be a
notice there, so people will be alerted to the issue," Mr. Shapiro
said.  "I think a lot of people will really appreciate that.  I
think most people were not aware before -- you don't think about
it."

The difference between butter and margarine may seem small, even
silly, but Shapiro said he's received emails from people thanking
him who claim that eating the butter substitutes caused them to
have an allergic reaction.

And the suit drives home a bigger point: that companies should
advertise truthfully.

"A lot of products are being sold around the country as 'all
natural' when they're not."

Such class-action cases "provide an important public service," he
said.  "The companies know they're going to be held accountable,"
he said.

Shapiro said the man who brought the case forward was happy with
the settlement terms.

"I don't think he did this for the money," Mr. Shapiro said.  "I
think he did it because it was wrong and he felt it should be
corrected."

Legal experts say that such scenarios -- where attorneys get a
huge payout but their clients get little or no money -- are far
from unusual in class action cases.

And some decry the practice as being unfair.

"In general, this is a systemic issue with class actions, where
lawyers structure settlements to benefit themselves rather than
the class," said Ted Frank, a lawyer and director of the Center
for Class Action Fairness at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
think tank in Washington D.C. "It's a consistent problem."

Mr. Frank said judges who must approve settlements in such cases
sometimes approve seemingly lopsided agreements, despite laws
designed to prevent attorneys from structuring settlements to
benefit themselves more than the class.

"Judges should be giving these settlements more scrutiny,"
Mr. Frank said.

Yet, others argue that class action lawsuits and settlements are
an important and beneficial tool for consumers -- even in cases in
which lawyers wind up taking home substantially more money than
their clients.

Besides financial payouts, there can be other benefits from such
cases, said Ira Rheingold, executive director of the National
Association of Consumer Advocates.

In the local bagel-toppings case, for example, "If the lawyers are
making Dunkin' Donuts change their policies, there's a certain
value to that," said Mr. Rheingold.  "It's kind of silly, but
nonetheless people do care if it's margarine versus butter."

"One individual making a complaint to a Dunkin' Donuts isn't going
to get the company to change their policies, but a class action
lawsuit can."

"Class actions are one of the ways to make sure that companies
actually abide by the laws and tell the truth," he added.  "It's
one of the ways the market can regulate itself.  We simply don't
have enough public regulators to hold every company accountable."

Mr. Rheingold also noted that attorneys who take class-action
cases are often taking on some risk because they typically only
get paid for the work if they win or settle favorably.

He acknowledged, the system doesn't always work the way it should.
There are cases where settlements clearly benefit lawyers much
more so than the people they represent.

"Like everything it doesn't work perfectly," Mr. Rheingold said.
"Do some judges approve class actions they probably shouldn't?
Yes."


E-TRADE FINANCIAL: Class Action Over Trade Venue Selections Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin O'Sullivan, writing for Law360, reports that a New York
federal judge on April 3 tossed a proposed class action alleging
that E-Trade Financial Corp. sent orders through trading venues
that paid rebates instead of selecting the most efficient
exchange, saying the proposed class claims can't proceed under the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act.

E-Trade customers in March 2015 alleged that the company was able
to earn tens of millions of dollars by preferring trading venues
that paid rebates regardless of the quality of service they
offered to clients or how efficiently they executed trades.  On
April 3, U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl granted a bid by
E-Trade to toss the case, since the suit is based on
misrepresentations by the company, among other factors, and SLUSA
doesn't support such claims.

"The action is predicated on material misrepresentations and
omissions that were designed to induce clients to execute ...
orders with E-Trade even though E-Trade allegedly had no intention
of fulfilling its purported fiduciary obligations," Judge Koetl
said.

The E-Trade customers had argued that the suit only targeted the
company's practices regarding the selection of venues to route
orders, but Judge Koetl said the complaint "alleges far more
deceptive conduct."

Ty Rayner first filed the suit in California federal court against
E-Trade and E-Trade Securities LLC, seeking disgorgement of the
millions of dollars E-Trade allegedly made off the rebates.

According to the suit, there are more than 50 public exchanges and
other trading venues that theoretically should compete for E-
Trade's business by providing the most efficient trades for E-
Trade clients.

Rather than make use of the wide variety of players in the system,
according to the suit, E-Trade in some fiscal quarters sent more
than 90 percent of standing limit orders to trading venues that
either made the largest payments to E-Trade or had prearranged
deals with the company.

In the third quarter of 2014, E-Trade routed more client limit
orders to Direct Edge, which paid it the most among venues for New
York Stock Exchange-listed securities, than to any other venue.
In contrast, E-Trade didn't send Direct Edge a single market
order, a kind of transaction for which it didn't pay rebates, the
customers said.

In 2012 and 2013, E-Trade made nearly $131 million off those kinds
of transactions, according to the suit, which was transferred to
New York in September by agreement of both parties.

The customers are represented by Timothy G. Blood, Leslie E.
Hurst, Thomas J. O'Reardon II and Paula R. Brown of Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon LLP, Brian J. Robbins, Leonid Kandinov, Ashley R. Rifkin
and Kevin A. Seely of Robbins Arroyo LLP and John K. Landay and
Malcolm B. Roberts of Landay Roberts LLP.

E-Trade is represented by Julia M. Beskin --
juliabeskin@quinnemanuel.com -- Patrick C. Doolittle --
patrickdoolittle@quinnemanuel.com -- Faith E. Gay --
faithgay@quinnemanuel.com -- Marc Greenwald --
marcgreenwald@quinnemanuel.com -- and Richard C. Worcester of
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.

The case is Rayner v. E-Trade Financial Corp. et al., case number
1:16-cv-07129, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


ELITE STAFFING: Baker's Bid to Certify Denied Due to Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on March 15, 2017, in the case titled
Starlet Baker, et al. v. Elite Staffing, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
03246 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable
Harry D. Leinenweber.

The minute entry states that the motion by Plaintiff Starlet Baker
to certify class is denied as moot given the Court's order
preliminarily approving stipulation of settlement and approving
certification.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=X6SyLBuD


ETHICON: Canadians Join Physiomesh Hernia Mesh Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Llamas, writing for Drugwatch, reports that as Americans
continue to file hernia mesh lawsuits, Canadians began their
hernia mesh class action claiming they weren't warned of the
implant's risks.

The device at the center of the claims is Ethicon's Physiomesh
Hernia Mesh which Health Canada recalled in 2016.  The Canadian
agency's action came after it learned that recurrence and
reoperation rates with the device were higher than those of other
meshes.

After the recall, Canadians who received Physiomesh suffered
severe pain and had to undergo additional surgeries to repair
hernias that reoccurred.

Canadian lawyer Jill McCartney is representing plaintiffs in the
class action.  She told CTV News that plaintiffs had their hernias
"come back with greater severity."

"It is our understanding that there are more people out there, and
there's probably more people that are experiencing these kinds of
side effects," Ms. McCartney said.

Hernia mesh recipients wonder how the product was approved for use
in the first place.

"I think there should be more testing on these products and not so
quick to get them onto the market if they're not ready," Colleen
Copland, one of the plaintiffs awaiting a second hernia surgery,
told CTV News.

Ethicon said it would defend against the lawsuits.  The company
voluntarily pulled Physiomesh from the U.S. market in May 2016 but
called it a withdrawal and not a recall.

Hernia Mesh Brands in U.S. Lawsuits

Americans who received Physiomesh are also facing the same
complications, including severe pain, abbesses, infections and
organ perforation.  Ethicon faces growing litigation from
Physiomesh in the U.S.

In addition to Physiomesh, other brands are also the subject of
lawsuits in state and federal courts.  Manufacturers include
Ethicon, C.R. Bard, Atrium and others.

About two dozen lawsuits are pending in the newly created Atrium
C-QUR hernia mesh multidistrict litigation (MDL) in New Hampshire
before Judge Landya B. McCafferty.  Judge McCafferty recently
appointed plaintiff's attorney D. Todd Matthews to lead the MDL.
Mr. Matthews is a part of a five-member Plaintiff's Executive
Committee.

"The injuries these plaintiffs have suffered are horrific. I
certainly plan to honor the court and the victims of this product
by working hard and doing everything in my power to see that
justice prevails," Mr. Matthews said in a statement.

According to Atrium's marketing, the fish oil coating on C-QUR
mesh is supposed to prevent it from adhering to the bowel.  But,
plaintiffs in the MDL allege Atrium's mesh sticks to the bowel and
other organs causing ulcers, infections, bowel obstructions and
other complications.

Hernia Mesh Maker Paid Millions in Settlements and Verdicts
C.R. Bard was one of the first companies to recall its hernia mesh
implant -- the Kugel Composix Hernia Patch.  Following the recall,
the company faced thousands of lawsuits.  In the second bellwether
trial, the jury found Kugel Patch was defective and awarded $1.5
million to the plaintiff Christopher Thorpe in 2010.

The following year, the company settled more than 2,600 lawsuits
for $184 million.

While Ethicon has not discussed settlement for any of its U.S.
Physiomesh cases, one of the first Physiomesh lawsuits filed by
Matthew Huff heads to trial in January 2018.


EVERGREEN RECREATIONAL: Grimes Moves for Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled MATTHEW GRIMES, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. EVERGREEN
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, LLC, KR ENTERPRISES, INC., and JMA, LLC,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00472-TLS-MGG (N.D. Ind.), moves for class
certification under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DDwr5obo

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
          Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: jar@outtengolden.com
                  rsr@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Vess A. Miller, Esq.
          Richard Shevitz, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          E-mail: vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
                  rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jonathan R. Slabaugh, Esq.
          Bradford R. Shively, Esq.
          SANDERS PIANOWSKI, LLP
          300 Riverwalk Drive
          Elkhart, IN 46516
          Telephone: (574) 294-1499
          E-mail: jslabaugh@riverwalklaw.com
                  bshively@riverwalklaw.com


F.H. CANN: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MICHELLE LEON, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. F.H. CANN AND
ASSOCIATES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00496-LA (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=PJ10WWJi

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FALONI & ASSOCIATES: Settlement Class Certified in "Maldonado"
--------------------------------------------------------------
in the lawsuit entitled ALFREDO MALDONADO and BORIS CONTRERAS, on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. LAW OFFICES OF FALONI & ASSOCIATES, LLC; DAVID A. FALONI, SR.;
DAVID A. FALONI, JR.; LVNV FUIDING LLC; SHERMAN ORIGINATOR, LLC;
RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P.; ALEGIS GROUP, LLC, and JOHN DOES
1 to 10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-02859-CLW (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Cathy L. Waldor certified a Settlement Class of:

   "all Consumers who reside in the State of New Jersey to whom
   Law Offices of Faloni & Associates, LLC mailed a written
   communication during the period beginning April 23, 2014, and
   ending April 23, 2015, in an attempt to collect a debt on
   behalf of LVNV Funding LLC and arising out of a HSBC Bank
   Nevada, N.A. account, which were mailed in a windowed envelope
   such that the file/reference number, registration code, or
   identification number associated with the debt was visible
   from the outside of the envelope".

The Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and hereby finally approves the Agreement submitted by
the Parties, including the Release and payments by Defendants. In
accordance with the terms of the Agreement, Defendants shall make
the following payments:

   a. Defendants shall create a class settlement fund of
      $2,000.00 ("Class Recovery"), which the Settlement
      Administrator will distribute pro rata among those Class
      Members who received the Class Notice and did not exclude
      themselves from the Settlement ("Claimants"). Claimants
      will receive a pro rata share of the Class Recovery by
      check. Checks issued to Claimants will be void 60 days from
      the date of issuance. Any checks that have not been cashed
      by the void date, along with any unclaimed funds remaining
      in the Class Recovery, will be donated as a cy pres award
      to The Center for Social Justice at Seton Hall School of
      Law.

   b. Defendants shall pay each Plaintiff $1,000.00.

   c. Defendants shall pay Class Counsel $23,000.00 for their
      attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the action. Class
      Counsel shall not request additional fees or costs from
      Defendants or the Class Members.

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

The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges Defendants violated the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by mailing consumers
collection letters windowed envelopes such that the file number or
QR Code containing the file number associated with the Debt was
visible from the outside of the envelope. The Plaintiffs alleged
Faloni's letters violated 15 U.S.C. par. 1692f(8). The Defendants
deny violating the FDCPA and deny all liability to Plaintiffs and
the Settlement Class. Defendants desire to settle the claims
brought solely to avoid the expense, burden, and uncertainty of
further litigation, and to put to rest all claims related to their
collection letters.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=54bG6CKZ

The Plaintiffs are 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 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379 7500


FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: Venkataram Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled NATARAJAN VENKATARAM, the Plaintiff, v.
FEDERAL BEREAP OF PRISONS, B.H. ROMERO, TRACIE JENKINS, J.
HOLLINGSKORTH & CHRISTIXE DYNAK, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
24502-RNS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for class
certification.

The Plaintiff believes that the Class of Hindus incarcerated past,
present or future at any of the Federal Bureau Prisons' 194
facilities meets the requirements both 23(b)(1)(A) and 23(b)(2).
Myriad Hindu inmates prosecuting separate actions against the
Federal Bureau of Prisons would create a risk of inconsistent or
varying adjudications with respect to individual class members
that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the
party opposing the class. And, the party opposing the Class, the
Federal Bureau of Prisons, has acted or refused to act on grounds
that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief
or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the
class as a whole. The Plaintiff believes that he has set forth a
credible prima facie case for certification of the class of Hindu
incarcerants: past, present and future within the Federal Bureau
of Prisons' 194 + facilities and requests the court to Grant the
Class Certification. The alternate and if necessary, the Plaintiff
stands ready to submit a Memorandum of Law in support of his Rule
23 Motion should the court deem that appropriate.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1Zp5SUmR

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Seeks Dismissal of Emissions-Cheating Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Amaral and Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, report that
Fiat Chrysler on March 31 asked a federal judge in Michigan to
dismiss a proposed class action suit over alleged emissions
cheating on Dodge Ram vehicles outfitted with Cummins engines,
finding faults in the 700-page complaint and the alleged testing
the proposed class did on a single vehicle.

FCA US LLC said in its own 80-page motion that the proposed class
of truck buyers did not, despite its voluminous allegations,
outline any plausible lies FCA had made about emissions
performance in selling the vehicles.  The testing that the
proposed class used to buttress its allegations of emissions
cheating are woefully insufficient, the automaker said.

"Fatal to plaintiffs' claims, there are no allegations plausibly
demonstrating that any of these statements were false, most
significantly because their alleged falsity is premised solely on
their lawyers' self-serving, unregulated test of a single
vehicle," the company said.

The 15 named plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of people
who bought 2007 to 2012 Dodge Ram 2500 and 3500 trucks with
Cummins Inc. 6.7-liter diesel engines.  The suit alleges that the
trucks emitted nitrogen oxides exceeding state and federal
standards.

According to the complaint, the Dodge Ram trucks at issue included
a technology to limit the amount of nitrogen oxides escaping in
the exhaust of their engines.  But the trucks exceeded
environmental guidelines for emission of nitrogen oxides when the
trucks were traveling for long distances or up hills, the
complaint said.

But those test results aren't good enough, FCA said.  The proposed
class didn't say when or where the test was carried out, who
performed it, whose truck it was or anything else about the truck.

"In fact, plaintiffs do not even allege that the one tested truck
belonged to any of them," FCA wrote.  "Despite their silence on
these basic facts, plaintiffs ask the court to take the
extraordinary step of sustaining a sprawling nationwide putative
class action based on nothing more than their own uncorroborated
test, shrouded in mystery, of one used truck belonging to some
unknown person."

The complaint includes civil racketeering allegations, which
requires proving that FCA committed at least two predicate acts.
In this case, the proposed class alleged mail and wire fraud, but
not with the sort of particularity that survives dismissal, the
automaker said.

"Plaintiffs provide only conclusory allegations of categories of
'mail and wire fraud' that purportedly took place, without any
requisite details," FCA said.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act allegations
also require the named plaintiffs to differentiate FCA from
Cummins, the engine-maker, and prove predicate acts as to each of
them.  The complaint, however, lumps FCA and Cummins together, the
car maker said.

"Without identifying which defendant allegedly engaged in which
acts, plaintiffs' scattershot accusations amount to an
impermissible attempt to lump the 'RICO defendants' together," FCA
said.  "Because 'each defendant is entitled to an individualized
analysis of . . . its own RICO liability,' plaintiffs' RICO claims
must be dismissed," FCA said, citing a previous civil racketeering
suit in Michigan federal court, Kerrigan et al. v. Visalus Inc. et
al.

Representatives for FCA declined to comment and FCA counsel didn't
respond to a request for comment on April 3.  Representatives for
the proposed class also did not respond to a request for comment.

FCA US LLC is represented by Robert J. Giuffra Jr. --
giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- William B. Monahan --
monahanw@sullcrom.com -- and Darrell S. Cafasso --
cafassod@sullcrom.com -- of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and Japes P.
Feeney -- jfeeney@dykema.com -- of Dykema.

Cummins is represented Michael D. Leffel -- mleffel@foley.com --
Jeffrey A. Soble -- jsoble@foley.com -- Lauren M. Loew --
lloew@foley.com -- and Vanessa L. Miller --
vmiller@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner LLP.

The proposed class is represented by Steve W. Berman and Jerrod C.
Patterson of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Christopher A.
Seeger of Seeger Weiss LLP, James E. Cecchi of Carella Byrne
Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC, Robert C. Hilliard of Hilliard
Munoz Gonzales LLP, and E. Powell Miller and Sharon S. Almonrode
of The Miller Law Firm PC.

The case is James Bledsoe et al. v. FCA USA LLC et al., case
number 2:16-cv-14024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.


FIREEYE INC: August 4 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott LLP Announces Class Action Settlement Affecting All
Persons Who Purchased Shares Of Common Stock Issued By FireEye,
Inc. ("FireEye") In FireEye's March 6, 2014 Secondary Public
Offering (The "Secondary Offering"), And Who Were Damaged Thereby
(The "Class")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on August 4,
2017 at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Peter H. Kirwan, Superior
Court of California, County of Santa Clara, at the Santa Clara
County Courthouse, Department 19, 191 North First Street,
San Jose, CA, 95113, to determine whether: (1) the proposed
settlement (the "Settlement") of In Re FireEye, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 1-14-cv-266866
("the Action") for $10,250,000 in cash should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the Final Judgment as
provided under the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
("Stipulation") should be entered, dismissing the Amended Class
Action Complaint filed in the Action on the merits and with
prejudice; (3) the release by the Class of the Released Claims, as
set forth in the Stipulation, should be provided to the Released
Defendants' Parties; (4) to award Plaintiff's Counsel attorneys'
fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the
Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice"),
referenced below); (5) to grant Lead Plaintiff's request for an
incentive or service award in connection with its role in
prosecuting this action on behalf of the Class out of the
Settlement Fund; and (6) the Plan of Allocation should be approved
by the Court.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SHARES OF FIREEYE COMMON STOCK
(ticker symbol: "FEYE") IN THE MARCH 6, 2014 SECONDARY OFFERING,
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim to the
address below that is postmarked on or before July 8, 2017.  Your
failure to submit your Proof of Claim by July 8, 2017 will subject
your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the
recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action.  If you
are a Member of the Class and do not request exclusion therefrom,
you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release
entered in the Action, including, but not limited to, the Final
Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more fully
describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including
your right to object to the Settlement), or a Proof of Claim form,
you may obtain these documents (as well as a copy of the
Stipulation, which contains the complete terms of the Settlement
and the definitions of all capitalized defined terms used in this
Summary Notice) online at www.FireEyeSecuritiesLitigation.com, or
by writing to:

FireEye Securities Litigation Settlement
c/o KCC Class Action Services
P.O. Box 43034
Providence, RI 02940-3034
Phone: (844) 330-1118
www.FireEyeSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for a copy of
the Notice or Proof of Claim form, may be made to Plaintiff's
Counsel:

SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
William C. Fredericks
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169-1820
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION BY JULY 14, 2017, IN THE MANNER AND FORM
EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO DO NOT
PROPERLY REQUEST EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE
SETTLEMENT ENTERED IN THE ACTION EVEN IF THEY DO NOT FILE A TIMELY
PROOF OF CLAIM.

Dated: March 10, 2017

HON. PETER H. KIRWAN
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA


FIRST CENTURY: Faces Class Action Over Prison-Release Cards
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paybefore reports that on March 28, a proposed class action
lawsuit was filed in the District Court for the Southern District
of California by a Georgia man stemming from a prepaid card he was
given upon his release from custody.  The lawsuit filed against
First Century Bank N.A. and Stored Value Cards Inc. claims that
cash belonging to persons detained in a correctional facility is
returned to those persons upon their release via prepaid cards
without the person ever being a given a choice.  The complaint
further alleges that the plaintiff's card was subject to various
unauthorized transaction fees and a weekly maintenance fee, which
were never disclosed.

The use of prepaid cards to disburse funds to individuals released
from correctional facilities has come under some scrutiny. As a
result, some states have begun to introduce bills proposing
requirements for these products.  For example, Oregon has a
proposed bill, OR S 355, which would prohibit correctional
facilities from releasing funds in the form of a prepaid card
unless the card does not impose inactivity fees or a fee when the
card is used in a "transaction," which the bill defines as a
"purchase, a funds withdrawal or transfer and a card balance
inquiry."

In 2015, 18 U.S. senators led by Cory Booker (D-N.J.), sent a
letter to the CFPB urging protections for prisoners released from
jail who receive prepaid cards when they exit incarceration.  The
CFPB responded that it would not make special rules for prison-
release cards but that such cards would fall under its final rule
on prepaid accounts.


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Flotek Industries Inc. (NYSE: FTK) announced on April 4 that the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has granted
Flotek's motion to dismiss the securities class action that had
been filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

Plaintiffs alleged that Flotek and its managers intentionally
manipulated third-party data to overstate the efficacy of their
patented Complex nano-Fluid(R) chemistry products on well
performance in an interactive computer model developed for clients
as a value validation tool.

But U.S. District Judge Alfred H. Bennett concluded that the
plaintiffs failed to show any deliberate or fraudulent intent by
Flotek to manipulate the data.  "Having considered the arguments
and the applicable law, the Court grants Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss," Judge Bennett wrote in his March 30 ruling.

John W. Chisholm, Chairman and CEO of Flotek, said he had been
confident of the strength of the company's case.

"This is a resounding victory for Flotek as we continue to partner
with our clients to enhance ultimate recoveries through our
prescriptive chemistry technology and position ourselves for
growth in the rebounding U.S. oil and gas industry," he said.

The case is 4:15-cv-03327 in United States District Court Southern
District of Texas Houston Division.


FLUIDMASTER: Faces Class Action Over Defective Toilet Water Line
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Chicago federal judge has sunk a bid by a group of plaintiffs to
float a nationwide class action under California consumer
protection law against plumbing products maker Fluidmaster over
supposed defects in toilet and sink water supply lines, which
allegedly cause the lines to fail, rupture and leak, causing
damage to homes in which they were installed.

On March 31, U.S. District Judge Robert M. Dow denied the request
by the plaintiffs in the massive class action to certify a class
of all potentially harmed by the allegedly faulty water supply
lines under California law, regardless of where they may live or
may have bought or installed the product.

In his 133-page ruling addressing several motions, Judge Dow
further flushed several other attempts to certify plaintiffs
classes in the legal action, chiding plaintiffs' attorneys for
trying a variety of angles to turn the case into a nationwide
class action on at least some point, claim or issue.

"To say that Plaintiff's class certification arguments have been a
moving target would be an understatement," the judge wrote. ". . .
Whether refinement of Plaintiffs' opaque liability theories and
indefinite class contours will ultimately show that a class is in
here somewhere, the Court cannot say."

The legal action first landed in federal courts in 2014, when
plaintiffs filed suit in Chicago, as well as in federal courts in
California, Arizona, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.  The cases
were later consolidated by a federal judicial panel into a Multi-
District Litigation (MDL) and transferred to Dow in Chicago.

Named plaintiffs in the action included Karen Rhyne, whose suit
was transferred to the MDL from the U.S. District Court of the
Northern District of Illinois, and Steve Rensel, whose case
originated in the Central District of California in Los Angeles.

Plaintiffs are represented in the action by attorneys with the
firms of Wexler Wallace LLP, of Chicago; Greg Coleman Law P.C., of
Knoxville, Tenn.; and Berger & Montague P.C., of Philadelphia.

As part of their action, plaintiffs asked the court to expand the
litigation to include potentially thousands of others--or more--
who purchased and installed Fluidmaster's so-called "No Burst"
water supply lines since 2011 and may have suffered damage in
their homes when the supply lines allegedly failed.

The plaintiffs argued the supply lines were manufactured by
Fluidmaster in California, and were then sold to wholesalers and
retailers, like Home Depot and Lowes, who then distributed the
products to consumers nationally.  Thus, the plaintiffs argued,
California's Legal Remedies Act -- that state's "Lemon Law"
consumer protection statute -- should apply to all plaintiffs, no
matter in which state they may have purchased or installed the
Fluidmaster products.

Judge Dow, however, torpedoed those arguments, saying he believed
legal precedent, as well as the California law itself, dictated
claims against Fluidmaster must be brought under each state's
consumer protection laws, which can differ "significantly" on a
number of questions, including when lawsuits can be brought
against manufacturers, who can bring those lawsuits and how liable
a manufacturer may be for products that fail, in part, because the
products were misused or installed incorrectly.

Judge Dow said allowing California law to apply nationwide,
regardless of the laws of the other states, would impair others
states' "compelling interest" in enforcing its laws, and
subordinate their laws to California's. And he noted the
California law itself places weight on "the place of the wrong" --
meaning where the product failure and damage allegedly occurred.

"Here, no wrong implicated by a consumer protection law could have
occurred until the consumer purchased Defendant's product in their
home state," the judge wrote.

With this determination in hand, the judge also dismantled the
plaintiffs' other attempts to certify class actions, saying none
of their attempts meet the legal standards needed to convert the
case to a nationwide class action.

He noted the claims even within states would likely prove too
dissimilar to allow such class actions to move forward. Some
claims could involve failure of the water supply line hoses, while
others involve failures involve failure of the supply lines'
coupling nuts

Further, the judge noted, Fluidmaster would argue most of the
purported claims would involve failure attributable to consumer
misuse or improper installation.

"And here is where individualized issues overwhelm the common
ones," Dow wrote. "Defendant's claims rate shows that 99.9 percent
of Defendant's sold products do not result in a claim of failure
being reported (and the potential number of unreported failures
does not appear to meaningfully change this percentage).

"Once the parties wade through the class members to find the
roughly 0.1 percent of claims that experienced a failure,
individualized inquiries into each consumer's installation,
maintenance, misuse, causation, and the damages attributable to
the failure would be required.

"Because customer misuse will be directly relevant to Plaintiffs'
efforts to recover property damages under their CLRA claim, these
issues present predominance problems. And because these varied
individualized issues will swamp any common questions of law or
fact, Plaintiffs have failed to show predominance for their
nationwide CLRA claim."

Fluidmaster is defended in the action by attorneys with the firms
of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, with offices in Los
Angeles and New York, and Lowis & Gellen, of Chicago.


FIRST STEP: Zeznanski Seeks Certification of Caregivers Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STEPHANIE ZEZNANSKI, Individually and on
behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff v. FIRST
STEP, INC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-06023-SOH (W.D. Ark.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "all caregivers employed by Defendant First Step, Inc., since
   February 24, 2014".

The Plaintiff brought the suit to recover overtime wages and other
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, among other
claims.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          S. Brent Wakefield, Esq.
          James D. Robertson, Esq.
          BARBER LAW FIRM PLLC
          3400 Simmons Tower
          425 West Capitol Avenue
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3414
          Telephone: (501) 372 6175
          E-mail: brent.wakefield@barberlawfirm.com
                  jrobertson@barberlawfirm.com


FORD: Thai Vehicle Owners File Class Action Over Engine Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sasiwan Mokkhasen, writing for Khaosod English, reports that
hundreds of Ford Fiesta and Ford Focus owners launched a class-
action lawsuit on April 3 demanding millions in compensation from
Ford Thailand for false advertising and engine defects that
allegedly resulted in cars catching fire.

Filing a class-action lawsuit representing all affected consumers,
400 Ford Fiesta and Ford Focus owners on April 3 demanded the auto
maker buy back their cars and compensate them with 24 million baht
for their defective vehicles.

Alleging the Consumer Protection Board took too long to make
progress on their claims, Ford users decided to take the case to
the Civil Court themselves.

Owners allege the two Ford models are substandard and accuse the
company of false advertising.  They said the models shared safety
problems such as faulty gears and clutch systems, forced engine
shutdowns, braking problems as well as engine problems which led
to them catching fire.  All of them have put drivers at risk, they
said.

There are no reports of injuries or deaths resulting from the
alleged defects.

The lawsuit comes one week after the Ford Motor Co. recalled
360,000 vehicles, including some Fiesta models, in North America
and Europe for similar engine fire issues.

Since last year, hundreds of Fiesta and Focus owners have filed
complaints with the Consumer Protection Police Division, Consumer
Protection Board and the Prime Minister's Office.  They said they
have yet to obtain satisfactory compensation.

After the longstanding fight, Ford owners took the case to the
Civil Court and filed a lawsuit under the 2013 Consumer Protection
Act after deeming the government process slow and not transparent.

"Today we see that authorities are unlikely to help us settle,"
Kobsak Numnoi said, expressing his doubts over the Consumer
Protection Board, where he and other affected people filed
complaints in August. "So we have to rely on a private lawyer."

On March 14, one of the car owners took a shovel to his car,
smashing it in front of Ford Thailand's Sathon district
headquarters, where 200 Ford owners had gathered to protest the
company.

Ford Thailand later issued a statement blaming the customers for
not installing new clutches in their cars even though the company
offered to cover the costs of the replacements.

The motor company also said the car owners asked to buy their cars
back at 80 percent of their original price, which they deemed
unreasonable because some were already more than four years old.

The civil court is scheduled to decide on July 3 whether the case
will be tried as a class-action -- meaning any affected customers
will receive the same compensation without having to go through a
separate legal process.


FORSTER & GARBUS: Feliciano 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 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: Judge Denied Class Cert. 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


GEICO GENERAL: A&M Seeks to Certify Class of Healthcare Providers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves the Court for an order certifying the action
styled A&M GERBER CHIROPRACTIC, LLC a/a/o Conor Carruthers on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. GEICO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 0:16-cv-62610-BB (S.D. Fla.),
as a class action on behalf of:

     All healthcare Providers who submitted claims for no-fault
     benefits under PIP policies to which Endorsement FLPIP
     (01-13), and any subsequent policies with substantially
     similar language that were in effect since January 1, 2013,
     (the "Class Period"), where GEICO utilized the Code BA with
     respect to the payment of any claim.

A&M also asks to be appointed as class representative and to
appoint its counsel as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mEQG86V3

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd S. Payne, Esq.
          Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
          Michael T. Lewenz, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
          110 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 2150
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
          E-mail: tpayne@zpllp.com
                  ezebersky@zpllp.com
                  mlewenz@zpllp.com

               - and -

          Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS
          & LEHRMAN, P.L.
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: steve@pathtojustice.com
                  mark@pathtojustice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Peter D. Weinstein, Esq.
          Gregory Willis, Esq.
          Omar A. Giraldo, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 500
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 473-1112
          E-mail: peter.weinstein@csklegal.com
                  Gregory.Willis@csklegal.com
                  omar.giraldo@csklegal.com


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. 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


GOLDEN GRAIN: Loses Bid to Dismiss Slack Fill Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins, writing for Law360, reports that a California
judge refused on April 5 to toss a putative class action against a
PespiCo Inc. subsidiary alleging it deceptively underfills its
Near East rice, couscous, quinoa and tabbouleh products, saying
the complaint is adequately pled and any amendments to it would be
a "waste of time."

Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow rejected an argument made by
PepsiCo subsidiary Golden Grain Inc. that the buyers' allegations
aren't specific enough.  The judge said that under the state's
pleading standards at this point in litigation he doesn't have to
consider the allegations' plausibility and therefore they're
sufficient to move forward without amendments.

"I just don't think we can do much more to the complaint and it
would be a waste of time to amend [it]," the judge said.

The judge's comments came at the end of a hearing in San Francisco
on Golden Grain's bid to toss the putative class action that was
filed by lead plaintiffs Jackie Arcala and Debra Tuitele in
October.  The "slack-fill" suit alleges that Golden Grain duped
consumers into paying higher prices for the Near East boxed grain
products under the belief that they are receiving a greater volume
because of unnecessary extra packaging.

The suit asserts violations of California business statutes and
seeks to certify a class of California Near East buyers who
purchased the grain products during the four years preceding the
suit.  It also seeks restitution, pre and post-judgment interest
and an injunction, barring the company from continuing to engaging
in the allegedly deceptive practices.

But on April 5, Golden Grain's attorney Daniell K. Newman --
newmandk@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig LLP urged Judge Karnow
to toss the suit, arguing that the allegations are "bareboned" and
don't identify specifically which products the plaintiffs
purchased.

The buyers argue that any slack fill is improper, but that can't
be the case, because some space is needed to account for any grain
movement and settling that might occur while the boxes are in
transit.  The complaint doesn't make a distinction between
functional and non-functional slack fill, he said.

"All they do is say there's space in the box, which is true
frankly about every product on the market," Newman said.

The buyers' attorney Miranda P. Kolbe of Schubert Jonckheer &
Kolbe LLP responded that the buyers adequately alleged that there
is additional space in the boxes that doesn't just protect the
grains. Any additional facts would be evidentiary and they aren't
required to be included in complaints under California statutes,
she argued.

"To require us to plead more . . . would be imposing an undue
burden on the plaintiffs and is simply unnecessary under
California law," Ms. Kolbe said.

Judge Karnow sided with the buyers, saying he'd adopt his
tentative ruling overruling Golden Grain's demurrer.

The buyers are represented by Robert C. Schubert, Miranda P. Kolbe
and Kathryne Schubert of Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP.

Golden Grain is represented by Rick L. Shackelford --
shackelfordr@gtlaw.com -- and Daniell K. Newman of Greenberg
Traurig LLP.

The case is Jackie Arcala v. Golden Grain Co. et al., case number
CGC-16-555084, in the Superior Court of the State of California of
San Francisco.


GOODMAN FROST: "Combe" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CHARLES D. COMBE, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v.
GOODMAN FROST, PLLC, ROBERT J. GOODMAN, TIMOTHY J. FROST, and
CORPORATE DOE-1, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-12857-BAF-APP
(E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify a class of:

   "all persons who were sent a letter from August 3, 2015 to
   August 3, 2016, that was not returned, on a debt alleged to be
   owned by Kaftan Enterprises, where the debt included an amount
   for a releasing fee ($500) and the apartment was not re-rented
   during the term of the lease, or double monthly rent was
   included in the total balance alleged to be owed".

The Plaintiff further asks that he be appointed as the class
representative, and his co-counsel, Curtis C. Warner, is appointed
as counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5uhPFljC

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
          WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
          350 S. Northwest HWY., Ste. 300
          Park Ridge, IL 60068
          Telephone: (847) 701-5290
          E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal

               - and -

          John A. Evanchek, Esq.
          KELLEY & EVANCHEK PC
          43695 Michigan Ave.
          Canton, MI 48188
          Telephone: (734) 397-4540
          E-mail: john@kelawpc.com


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE: MAO-MSO Seeks for Reimbursement
---------------------------------------------------------------
MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, a Delaware entity, et al., Plaintiffs v.
Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), a Maryland company
and its affiliates, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00964-JFM (D.Md.,
April 6, 2017) seeks to recover reimbursement for those medical
expenses paid for by the Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members
that should have been paid, in the first instance, by Defendant
under the Medicare Act.

The Complaint says the Medicare Beneficiaries entered into
settlement agreements with Defendant for the injuries that
Defendant had primary responsibility to pay. These settlements
demonstrated Defendant's responsibility to reimburse Plaintiffs
and the putative Class Members under the Medicare Act. As such,
Defendant, the primary payer, was required to make appropriate
reimbursement for the conditional Medicare benefits advanced by
Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members on behalf of the
Medicare Beneficiaries. However, Defendant failed to pay or
reimburse the Medicare Beneficiaries' MAOs for the payments made.

GEICO is an American auto insurance company headquartered in Chevy
Chase, Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Cara J. Luther, Esq.
   Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, P.C.
   2101 L Street, N.W., Suite 800
   Washington, DC 20037
   Tel: (202) 466-0513
   Fax: (202) 466-0527
   Email: cluther@baumhedlundlaw.com

        - and -

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

        - 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
   Tel: (504) 355-0086
   Email: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com
          tturner@pbclawfirm.com
          cstidham@pbclawfirm.com


GRAEBEL VAN: Halts Operations Amid Driver's Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Whitsett, writing for The Trucker, reports that Graebel Van
Lines, a 65-year-old carrier of household goods based in Dallas,
has ceased operations, according to multiple reports.

The company, which had 875 drivers in 2015, is in liquidation,
Graebel stated in a letter sent to its creditors March 22.

"Graebel Van Lines, LLC and its affiliates . . . are ceasing
ongoing operations, effective immediately and will begin winding
down their affairs," the letter stated.  "Stored items will be
transferred to a new service provider or made available for pickup
by the owner.

"The assets of Graebel Van Lines and all of its operating
affiliates are subject to the liens of a secured creditor.
Therefore, Graebel Van Lines and its affiliates are cooperating
with the secured creditor to conduct an orderly liquidation of the
Companies' assets . . . Please note that this is not a notice of
bankruptcy, and no bankruptcy proceeding is pending at this time.

We regret that the circumstances of recent months have led to this
result, and we ask for your cooperation in our efforts to manage
this liquidation with a minimum of administrative expense."

The "circumstances" include a class-action lawsuit filed in Los
Angeles Superior Court by attorney Joshua Haffner on behalf of
Graebel driver Fidel Coronel and others, charging failure to
provide state-mandated breaks, minimum wages, expenses, overtime
and for related issues.

Graebel laid off 50 people in Wisconsin in November and has closed
other satellite offices recently.

Graebel Companies, Inc. sold Graebel Van Lines effective January
1, 2015, to an independent set of investors, a Graebel Companies
spokesperson said. Since the divestiture, Graebel Van Lines is no
longer a business owned by Graebel Companies, Inc. or any entity
related to the Graebel Companies.  For more than two years,
Graebel Companies and Graebel Van Lines have been completely
separate companies with different management teams.
Mr. Haffner, reached on April 4, told The Trucker that the lawsuit
will go on.

"I notice they aren't saying they are filing bankruptcy since they
mentioned they will be 'ceasing ongoing operations . . . and
will begin winding down their affairs,'" he said.

"A business that closes still must pay its employees. The
misclassification class action will proceed."

Commenting earlier, Haffner defended the basis for the class-
action lawsuit.

"State laws supplement federal laws regarding labor, and the
justification for them is federalism," he said. "Each state has
the right to regulate labor relations."


HAIR CLUB: "Forney" Suit Seeks Certification of Three Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CARNEISHA FORNEY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HAIR
CLUB FOR MEN LTD., INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and
each of them, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-09640-R-AJW (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order granting
Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

   "all persons within the United States who received any
   solicitation/telemarketing telephone calls from Defendant to
   said person's cellular telephone made through the use of any
   automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
   prerecorded voice and such person had not previously consented
   to receiving such calls within the four years prior to the
   filing of this Complaint";

   "all persons within the United States who received any
   solicitation/telemarketing telephone calls from Defendant to
   said person's cellular telephone made through the use of any
   automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
   prerecorded voice and such person had revoked any prior
   express consent to receive such calls prior to the calls
   within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint;
   and

   "all persons within the United States registered on the
   National Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 30 days, who had
   not granted Defendant prior express consent nor had a prior
   established business relationship, who received more than one
   call made by or on behalf of Defendant that promoted
   Defendant's products or services, within any twelve-month
   period, within four years prior to the filing of the
   complaint.

The Plaintiff will also move the Court for appointment of
Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for appointment of
Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiff filed the motion for class certification to
procedurally preserve Plaintiff's rights pursuant to the decision
in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (U.S.
2013), although Plaintiff disagrees that the Genesis decision
applies to class actions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HEALTH CARE: Cert. of Employees Class Sought in "Sawyer" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JEFFREY SAWYER v. HEALTH
CARE SOLUTIONS AT HOME INC. and LINCARE INC., d/b/a LINCARE, Case
No. 5:16-cv-05674-JKG (E.D. Pa.), pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, asks the Court for entry of an order:

   (1) conditionally certifying an FLSA Collective defined as:

       All current and former drivers, customer service
       representatives, and other hourly employees who worked for
       Health Care Solutions at Home Inc. and/or Lincare Inc.
       d/b/a Lincare in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at any
       time in the last 3 years;

   (2) requiring the Defendants to identify all putative members
       of the proposed Collective by providing their names, last
       known addresses, dates and locations of employment, job
       titles, cellular phone numbers, and email addresses in an
       electronic and importable format (e.g., .xls), within 10
       days of the entry of the order;

   (3) approving the form and content of Plaintiff's proposed
       Notice and Consent forms and allowing Plaintiff's counsel
       to distribute the Notice and Consent Forms to putative
       members of the FLSA Collective via first-class mail and
       e-mail;

   (4) approving the form and content of Plaintiff's proposed
       Text Message Notice, and allowing Plaintiff to send one
       text message containing this language to the cellular
       phone number of putative class members of the FLSA
       Collective; and

   (5) allowing 60 days from the Plaintiff's counsel's
       distribution of the Notice and Consent Forms for putative
       members of the FLSA Collective to file written consent
       forms.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uYsJ7adF

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com

The Plaintiff's counsel also sent notification to:

          Todd S. Aidman, Esq.
          Ashwin R. Trehan, Esq.
          FORD HARRISON LLP
          101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 900
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 261-7800
          E-mail: taidman@fordharrison.com
                  atrehan@fordharrison.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Saloman, Esq.
          FORD HARRISON LLP
          300 Connell Dr., Suite 4100
          Bereley Heights, NJ 07922
          Telephone: (973) 646-7300
          E-mail: msaloman@fordharrison.com


HYANNIS, MA: Napoli Shkolnik Advertises Water Supply Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Spillane at Cape Cod Times reports a Manhattan-based law
firm is seeking clients who believe they may have been poisoned by
contamination of the Hyannis water supply.

Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC began running advertisements on Facebook
this week in connection with the planned class action. In
addition, letters to residents and businesses in the Hyannis Water
District are being mailed, according to Louise Caro, a partner in
the firm who specializes in litigation involving exposure to
hazardous soil, water and air contaminants.

The firm has created a website for the potential action:
massachusettswater.napolilaw.com.

"It is not uncommon for these so-called mass tort law firms to
reach out with public announcements to identify potential
clients," Barnstable Assistant Attorney Charles McLaughlin said.

Barnstable town officials have issued public health advisories for
the Hyannis water system twice since 2015. In both instances,
levels of the perfluorinated chemicals PFOS and PFOA above the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency health advisory limits were
found in wells serving 18,000 residents and businesses in Hyannis,
Hyannisport and West Hyannisport.

The chemicals are typically found in the types of firefighting
foams that have been used in the past at the Barnstable County
Fire and Rescue Training Academy and Barnstable Municipal Airport.
The temporary advisories warned pregnant women, nursing mothers
and infants to avoid consuming water from the public water supply.
Carbon treatment systems have since been installed and the water
is again safe to drink, according to town officials.

Perfluorinated chemicals have been linked to health problems that
include thyroid disorders, developmental effects on fetuses during
pregnancy, liver damage and testicular and kidney cancer.

"Residents of Hyannis have been unknowingly poisoned by the town
water for years. It is time that those responsible for making and
releasing those contaminants into our water system clean it up and
help those people who developed cancers," read a Napoli Shkolnik
Facebook ad that appeared online on April 5. "Did you drink the
water? Get started filing your claim today!"

Caro said she expects the filing of a class-action lawsuit, which
has already been drafted, to occur quickly.

"Once we start receiving responses, we will go to Hyannis and have
a town hall-style meeting with a toxicologist attending by Skype,"
she said. "This can happen very fast, in just a couple of weeks."
While water advisories in the Hyannis water supply area have been
issued only in recent years, Caro suspects some residents may have
had long-term exposure to the contaminants, since firefighting
foams containing the contaminants could have been used for decades
at the fire training academy and airport.

"We are looking back a long time for exposure," Caro said. "We
suspect it was significant."

She said there also are potential health dangers for those who
drank the contaminated water for only a short period of time.
"The damage can have a latency period," Caro said. "People could
get sick down the line and develop conditions in the future. What
the advisory talks about -- thyroid issues, testicular and kidney
cancers -- rings true. They are all happening."

Caro said the firm would pursue medical monitoring for litigants,
enabling them to receive screenings for most of their lives to
catch any potential cancers at an early, and hopefully treatable,
stage.

Initially, the suit would be targeted toward the manufacturers of
the firefighting foams, including industrial giant 3M, but the
town or county could also be added as defendants, Caro said.
A Facebook ad posted by Napoli Shkolnik earlier this week
referenced a 3M plant on Cape Cod -- a plant that never existed --
as a source of the contamination, but has since been corrected.
"I'm not surprised to see (the possible class-action lawsuit),"
Barnstable County Administrator John "Jack" Yunits, Jr. said.

"When the EPA lowered the health advisory levels to such a degree,
this PFOS problem could become a PFOS epidemic very quickly. In
turn, that could be a boon for product liability lawsuits across
the country."

According to the Napoli Shkolnik website, the firm is involved in
similar cases in Colorado, Delaware, New Hampshire, New York,
Pennsylvania and Vermont.

If a class-action lawsuit is filed, it will be the latest in a web
of active court cases being pursued in the wake of the Hyannis
water system contamination.

The town filed a lawsuit against the county last summer seeking
several million dollars in compensation for cleanup of the Hyannis
wells.

"Negotiations are continuing," McLaughlin said on April 6.

In addition, the town and county have filed separate lawsuits
seeking damages from vendors of firefighting foams containing the
toxic chemicals.

Most recently, the county went a step further and added Entergy
Nuclear Generation Company, the Hyannis Fire District and the
Barnstable County Fire Chiefs Association -- all users of the fire
training academy -- as defendants in the case that has been
brought by the town. Entergy owns the Pilgrim Nuclear Power
Station in Plymouth and trained at the fire and rescue training
academy located on South Flint Rock Road north of the airport.
[GN]


HYATT HOTELS: Livi Seeks to Certify Banquet Server Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned NANCY LIVI, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HYATT HOTELS
CORPORATION, HYATT CORPORATION d/b/a HYATT AT THE BELLEVUE,
BELLEVUE, INC., and BELLEVUE ASSOCIATES, the Defendants, Case No.
2:15-cv-05371-AB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff seeks class
certification of:

   "all individuals currently or formerly employed in Banquet
   Server positions by Defendants at Hyatt hotels in
   Pennsylvania, beginning four years from the date of filing of
   this action through the date of final judgment in this case".

The Defendants allegedly failed to pay their Banquet Servers,
including Plaintiff Nancy Livi, time-and-a-half for overtime hours
worked, in violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968
(PMWA). Defendants also improperly withheld from Banquet Servers
portions of the service charges paid by banquet event customers,
in violation of the PMWA, Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection
Law (WPCL), and the common law of unjust enrichment. Thus, during
the Class period, Defendants had common policies and practices to
deny Plaintiff and Class members overtime pay and to withhold from
them portions of the service charges which customers paid for
banquet events. Indeed, Defendants do not challenge the existence
of these policies and practices, only whether they are permissible
under Pennsylvania law.

Defendants were the owners, operators, and managers of three
"Hyatt" branded hotels in Pennsylvania. Each of these hotels
hosted banquet events such as wedding receptions, parties, and
meetings. Defendants employed servers, to serve guests food and
drinks at banquet events.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1tQPSnwA

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc A. Goldich, Esq.
          Noah Axler, Esq.
          AXLER GOLDICH LLC
          1520 Locust St., Suite 301
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 534 7400
          Facsimile: (267) 534 7407
          E-mail: mgoldich@axgolaw.com
                  naxler@axgolaw.com


J.B. HUNT: Truck Drivers Want 9th Circuit to Revive Wage Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal and Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, report that
J.B. Hunt truck drivers urged the Ninth Circuit during oral
arguments on April 4 to revive their decade-old certified class
action alleging the company shorts them on wages and rest breaks,
arguing the trial court relied on a since-reversed case in finding
the claims were preempted by federal law.

During a hearing in Pasadena, Calif., Stanley Saltzman of Marlin &
Saltzman, representing named plaintiffs Gerardo Ortega and Michael
D. Patton, urged a three-judge panel to reverse U.S. District
Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell's rulings disposing of his clients'
claims that J.B. Hunt Transport Inc.'s "activity-based pay" system
ends up not paying them for all hours worked, and deprives them of
paid rest breaks.

Mr. Saltzman argued that the trial court had ruled the California
labor laws underlying those claims were preempted by the Federal
Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 after looking at
another district court's holding in Dilts v. Penske -- a holding
the Ninth Circuit reversed shortly after the instant case was
disposed of.  The Ninth Circuit held in the 2014 Dilts ruling that
California's meal and rest break laws were not preempted by the
FAAAA, according to the plaintiffs' appeal brief. Saltzman argued
that Dilts holds only laws "directed at and with respect to the
transportation of property," are preempted by the FAAAA, which
means his clients' claims must be revived.

"We're kind of tired of this case, it's been certified for
literally eight years with notice not having gone out, it's been
stayed because of Brinker [v. Superior Court] and then it's been
slowed down because of Dilts, it's time to move this certified
class forward," Mr. Saltzman said.  "It's important ... to have
the Ninth Circuit embrace the concept that the laws that are
preempted be limited to those that are actually 'directed at and
with respect to the transportation of property.'"

Former J.B. Hunt drivers Ortega and Patton first launched suit in
late 2007, alleging that J.B. Hunt, one of the largest
transportation logistics companies in North America, used a so-
called activity-based-pay, or ABP, compensation system that ran
afoul of California's wage laws.  A class of current and former
drivers was certified in 2009.

Instead of paying an hourly wage or a straight salary, J.B. Hunt's
ABP system compensated drivers by allotting a rate per mile
driven, in addition to other payments for specific non-driving
activities, such as delivering a load of freight, also known as a
"drop," according to court documents. Drivers might get hourly
pay, however, in situations where they're waiting during excessive
customer delays.  Accordingly, there are certain activities for
which drivers are not directly compensated -- by hourly pay or
otherwise -- such as loading and unloading freight, completing
paperwork, performing inspections or waiting for a customer,
according to the plaintiffs.

J.B. Hunt had argued that its ABP system allowed for greater
efficiency and productivity, and that forcing it to comply with
California's wage laws to the letter would drive up its labor
costs.

Judge O'Connell in October 2013 granted J.B. Hunt judgment on the
pleadings as to the meal and rest break claims and in June 2014
granted J.B. Hunt summary judgment on the wage claims, both times
on grounds that the claims were preempted by the FAAAA.

The judge said in her second ruling that forcing J.B. Hunt to
modify its ABP payment system by providing at least minimum wage
for each hour worked would affect the company's services and
prices in more than a "tenuous, remote, or peripheral" manner,
which wouldn't square with the FAAAA.

On April 4, Kevin Lilly -- klilly@littler.com -- of Littler
Mendelson PC, representing J.B. Hunt, urged the appellate court to
uphold both rulings, arguing that Judge O'Connell was correct in
her analysis of ABP, because the increased efficiency it creates
is the exact reason, "for which deregulation was created, [and]
conversely a rule that prevents it from doing so is an impediment
to that."

Lilly added that given the "patchwork" of rest and meal break laws
around the country, his client faces a challenge in which a driver
starting in Boston and going to Los Angeles faces a different
legal environment than a driver doing the opposite route.

Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, however, questioned whether the
circuit court can be the one to resolve this issue, because the
specific language of the FAAAA doesn't appear to preempt the laws
at issue in the suit.

"The problem is you're going to have to bring this argument to the
Supreme Court, because it's intent as opposed to language and it's
policy as opposed to how we've previously interpreted this
particular language," she said.  "And we can't skip the words of
the statute and go to an ascribed intent.

And during Saltzman's rebuttal argument, the plaintiffs' attorney
pushed back on the idea that his clients' intent in the suit is to
kill the ABP system, it's only to make sure it functions so that
drivers are paid for all work done, such as post-trip inspections,
and are given paid rest breaks, as required by California law.

"Plaintiffs do not attack activity-based pay, what we attack is
activity-based pay that does not pay for all time worked," he
said.  The defendant in running its business, if it loves
activity-based pay that much and it helps everybody out that much
. . . let them do that, but make them pay for all of the primary
tasks."

The panel took the matter under submission.

Circuit Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw and Consuelo Maria Callahan sat
on the panel that heard the April 4 arguments with U.S. District
Judge Virginia M. Kendall, sitting by designation.

The drivers are represented by Stanley D. Saltzman and David C.
Leimbach of Marlin & Saltzman and Paul T. Cullen of The Cullen Law
Firm.

J.B. Hunt is represented by J. Kevin Lilly, Scott M. Lidman --
slidman@littler.com -- and Fatemeh Mashouf -- fmashouf@littler.com
-- of Littler Mendelson PC.

The amici trucking associations are represented by American
Trucking Associations in-house counsel Richard Pianka.

The case is Geraldo Ortega, et al v. J. B. Hunt Transport, Inc.,
case number 14-56034, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.


JOHNSON & BELL: Sues Edelson for Defamation, Self-Aggrandizement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a Chicago law firm has sued Edelson PC for defamation,
accusing the class action boutique and its founding partner, Jay
Edelson, of conflicts of interest and "numerous violations of
their ethical duties."

Johnson & Bell, which Chicago-based Edelson sued last year in a
high-profile data security class action, is seeking $1 million in
damages, plus an unspecified amount of punitive damages.  The
complaint, filed on March 28 in Cook County, Illinois, Circuit
Court, accuses the Edelson attorneys of using the courts to
"further their own self-aggrandizement."

"The Edelson defendants are attorneys who fashion themselves as a
'leader in privacy and tech-related class actions,'" Joseph
Marconi, a partner at Johnson & Bell, wrote in the suit.  "In
fact, their 'practice' largely consists of nothing more than
preying upon unsuspecting businesses, conjuring up nonexistent
issues, and then attempting to extort settlements that benefit no
one but themselves through payments for their nuisance lawsuits."

Calling the data security case against Johnson & Bell one such
"nuisance" suit, Marconi accused Edelson of going on a "self-
serving publicity tour spreading their lies and defamatory
statements about" Johnson & Bell while failing to inform the
courts about a conflict of interest in its pursuit of the case.
Marconi declined to comment about the case.

Edelson called the complaint "silly."

"This looks like an attempt to do some late-in-the-game damage
control, rather than something more legitimate," he wrote in an
email.  "We obviously will be responding in a very pointed manner
and look forward to seeing how this unfolds.  We do wonder if, in
the end, Johnson & Bell will regret going down this path."
The brawl between the two firms dates back to a 2014 class action
that Edelson brought alleging Coinabul LLC, a company that claimed
to convert bitcoins to gold, defrauded customers out of millions
of dollars.  Coinabul hired Johnson & Bell in the case. Johnson &
Bell later withdrew from the case, citing "'systematic and
continuous' communication problems" with its client, according to
the defamation complaint.  In 2015, a federal judge in Chicago
issued a $1.5 million default judgment against Coinabul and its
founder, Jason Shore.

But after being adverse to Edelson, Coinabul and Shore are now the
lead plaintiffs in Edelson's data security case, which alleged
that Johnson & Bell had a virtual private network and email system
susceptible to hackers that compromised client information.  The
case, originally filed as a class action under seal, was unsealed
on Dec. 8. A federal judge in Chicago ordered the case into
arbitration, where the case must proceed on individual claims.

Lurking behind the dispute is a demand for arbitration, also
brought by Edelson, that alleges legal malpractice against Johnson
& Bell for its handling of the 2014 class action, in which
Coinabul and Shore claim to have had a "bullet-proof defense."

In the complaint, Johnson & Bell called the allegations in the
data security case "false and defamatory."  Edelson used
procedural tactics in the courts to get the allegations in the
data security case publicized on Twitter and to news reporters,
Marconi wrote.

The firm also claims that, should a legal malpractice judgment be
awarded against it, Edelson is partly to blame as the new lawyers
to Coinabul and Shore.  Edelson also failed to get the $1.5
million judgment against Coinabul and Shore vacated on appeal,
demonstrating a conflict of interest about which the firm failed
to inform the courts.

Edelson's "course of conduct reveals their transparent motivations
and ulterior motives," which included attempting to extort a
settlement in the data security case and publicizing "their new
theories of recovery against law firms."

"The Edelson defendants' course of conduct is a perversion and
abuse of the legal process," Mr. Marconi wrote.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: First Xarelto Suit Set to Begin April 24
-----------------------------------------------------------
Digital Journal reports the first of more than 17,000 Xarelto
class action lawsuit cases is set to begin later in April,
according to a representative for consumer information site
Xarelto-lawsuits.org. The representative states that unless a
settlement is reached between the plaintiff and pharmaceutical
giant Johnson & Johnson, the trial will begin on April 24, 2017.
"A similar litigation involving another popular drug was settled
out of court, just days before trial was to begin," says the
representative for Xarelto-Lawsuits.org. "The settlement came in
at USD162 million."

There are currently more than 15,000 federal lawsuits against the
pharmaceutical company in Louisiana with another 1,300 at the
state level in Philadelphia. Federal courts are using the
bellwether trials to help attorneys to determine how the jury may
respond to the evidence presented and to help gauge the settlement
values of these against similar lawsuits.

The first and second bellwether trials are set to take place in
Louisiana. The representative for Xarelto-lawsuits.org explains,
"Plaintiffs in these cases claim that they developed hemorrhages
or uncontrollable bleeding after taking Xarelto for a short period
of time."

The drug was originally prescribed as a blood thinner to replace
warfarin, which caused similar bleeding. Studies, however, have
shown that while the bleeding caused by warfarin could be
reversed, no treatment has been found to slow down or stop the
bleeding that is allegedly caused by Xarelto.

Johnson & Johnson, along with subsidiary company Janssen
Pharmaceutical, are accused of continuing to market Xarelto even
after studies have revealed the risks associated with taking the
drug. Approved by the FDA in 2011 as a blood thinning drug,
Xarelto has been prescribed to tens of thousands of patients and
no reversal agent has been found to deactivate the blood thinning
properties of the medication.

The manufacturer of Pradaxa, Boehringer Ingelheim, faced more than
4,000 similar lawsuits from patients who suffered from bleeding as
a side effect. Some cases were filed by family members of those
who died as a result of internal bleeding. Before the first
bellwether trials, the manufacturer of Pradaxa settled out of
court for an average payout per patient of USD162,500 and a total
settlement of more than USD650 million. Those following the
Xarelto trials state that they are expecting a similar end result
from the upcoming lawsuits. [GN]


KIA: Recalls Faulty Engines Due to "Anticipatory Risk Concerns"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Jensen at Forbes reports about 20 months after Hyundai
recalled 470,000 2011-2012 Sonata for possible engine failures,
its corporate relation Kia is finally recalling 618,000 vehicles
for the same problem.

Kia's failure to act earlier angered many owners whose engines
failed, leaving them facing enormous repair bills.

Kia is recalling the 2011 -14 Optima; 2012 -- 14 Sorento and the
2011 -- 13 Sportage.

And Hyundai is now recalling an additional 572,000 models with the
same engines. Hyundai's expanded recall covers the 2013 -- 14
Santa Fe and Sonata.

Both the 2.0 liter and 2.4 liter engines are covered. Dealers will
inspect the engines and replace them if necessary. The automakers
say owners who paid for repairs will be reimbursed.

The new recalls were detailed in reports filed this week with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The problem is that metal debris wasn't removed from the engine
during manufacturing and that debris can clog oil passages,
leading to engine failure. This can occur at highway speeds,
although the automakers say they are not aware of any accidents
linked to the defect.

Both Kia and Hyundai have been involved in class-action lawsuits
over the defect.

While Kia uses the same engines, its failure to recall them in
2015 when Hyundai acted infuriated Kia owners who found themselves
facing expensive repairs and an unsympathetic automaker, according
to complaints filed federal safety regulators.

"Kia knew there were problems with the 2012 Kia Optima 2.4 liter
engine and yet they did nothing to rectify the issue. Now, they
want me to pay USD6,000 for a new engine when they knew there was
an issue all along," an owner from Pennsylvania wrote in February.
Kia didn't recall its vehicles in 2015 because the engines were
produced on another assembly line and since "field claims (were)
extremely low" the automaker felt no recall was needed, according
to a report Kia filed this week with N.H.T.S.A. detailing the
recall.

That report says by the middle of last year Kia did have more
complaints of engine failures and decided to issue an extended
warranty of 10 years or 120,000 miles from the time the vehicle
was new.

But Kia admits there were problems with the warranty including
mailings sent to the wrong addresses and some customers were being
refused help if they couldn't provide records of oil changes at
the proper time. So, last October Kia told dealers not to worry
about the maintenance records.

But in March, after additional reviews, Kia concluded while it was
not aware of any accidents caused by engine failure it decided a
recall was warranted due to "anticipatory risk concerns." [GN]


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: August 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 5 issued the following
statement regarding the L3 Securities Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ZUBAIR PATEL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff,

vs.

L-3 COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-06038-VEC
(Consolidated)

CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON
STOCK OF L-3 COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC. (NOW KNOWN AS L3
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.) ("L3") DURING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 30,
2014, THROUGH AND INCLUDING JULY 30, 2014

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on August 10, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. EDT, before
the Honorable Valerie E. Caproni, United States District Judge, at
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square,
New York, New York, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether
the proposed Settlement of the claims in the Litigation for the
principal amount of $34,500,000, plus interest, should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a
Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be
entered by the Court dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3)
whether the Plan of Allocation of Settlement proceeds is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether
the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees
and expenses and Lead Plaintiffs' expenses in connection with this
Litigation should be approved. Lead Counsel will request
attorneys' fees of no greater than 25% of the Settlement Fund plus
expenses, including those of the Lead Plaintiffs, not to exceed
$610,000.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED L3 COMMON STOCK DURING THE
PERIOD FROM JANUARY 30, 2014 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JULY 30, 2014,
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.
If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the
Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing
to L3 Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Garden City
Group, LLC, P.O. Box 9349, Dublin, OH 43017-4249, or on the
internet at www.L3Technologiessecuritieslitigation.com.  If you
are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the
Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release
by mail or online no later than July 29, 2017, establishing that
you are entitled to recovery.  You will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Litigation unless you request to be excluded, in
writing, to L3 Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o
Garden City Group, LLC, P.O. Box 9349, Dublin, OH 43017-4249,
postmarked by July 21, 2017.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the
fee and expense application shall be filed with the Court on or
before July 21, 2017, and also must be received, not simply
postmarked, by the following recipients no later than July 21,
2017:

Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs:

ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101

Counsel for L3:

MICHAEL J. GARVEY
DAVID ELBAUM
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact counsel for Lead Plaintiffs at the address listed
above.

DATED: March 10, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


LOS ANGELES: Customers Respond to Landmark Billing Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
More than 5,000 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP)
account holders called a toll-free hotline after receiving formal
notice of the landmark class action billing settlement.

"The enthusiastic response is amazing," said consumer rights
attorney Jack Landskroner of Landskroner Grieco Merriman, LLC.
"Class members are really motivated to take full advantage of what
this settlement offers."

Kurtzman Carlson Consultants, the court-appointed claims
administrator, has 60 customer service representatives devoted to
answering questions about the settlement between the hours of 6:00
am and 6:00 pm (PDT) Monday through Friday.  KCC's team includes
trained staff fluent in multiple languages.

Customers can also go to the settlement website at
http://www.ladwpbillingsettlement.com/for additional information
about the settlement, or call the toll-free number at 1-844-899-
6219.

"The best time to call is first thing in the morning," said Ryanne
Cozzi of KCC. "But the website is a good resource and probably the
best way to get quick answers to your questions.  You can even
file your claim electronically on the website."

LADWP customers are entitled to recover 100% of what they were
overcharged or damaged by the utility's flawed billing system.
A Court-appointed independent monitor has already verified
USD67,500,000 in overcharges.  Landskroner negotiated the complex
settlement which received preliminary approval from Los Angeles
Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle at the end of last year.  In the
past week, 2.4 million information packets have been mailed to
LADWP account holders explaining their rights.

"Given the response, KCC could add even more customer service
reps," added Landskroner.   "We expect call volume to increase
over the next several days as consumers receive their packets.  It
will then likely slow down."

Many customers do not have to do anything to receive a refund.
Those who believe they have additional damages beyond the pre-
identified refund, however, can make a claim for those damages.
They simply have to submit a claim form with supporting materials
by June 5, 2017. [GN]


LOUISIANA, USA: Court Denies Davis' Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James T. Trimble, Jr., denied the Plaintiff's motion to
certify class filed in the lawsuit styled ROBERT DAVIS v. SANDY
MCCAIN, ET AL., Case No. 1:16-cv-01534-JTT-JPM (W.D. La.).

W.S "Sandy" McCain is the warden of the Raymond Laborde
Correctional Center located in Cottonport, Louisiana.

For the reasons contained in the Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Perez-Montes previously filed in the case, noting
the absence of objections thereto, and concurring with the
Magistrate Judge's findings under the applicable law, the
Plaintiff's motion to certify class is denied, Judge Trimble
opined.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AroiCE3h


LULAROE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Leggings
-------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that consumers
have filed a class action lawsuit against popular legging company
LuLaRoe LLC, LLR Inc. and the company's founders, DeAnne Brady and
Mark Stidham, citing alleged breach of warranty, design defect and
product liability.

Julie Dean and Suzanne Jones filed a complaint on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated March 23 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
defendants, alleging they sell defective products to consumers.

According to the complaint, Dean and Jones suffered damages from
purchasing leggings that developed tiny holes after use for just a
couple of hours.  The plaintiffs hold LuLaRoe, LLR, Brady and
Stidham responsible because the defendants allegedly failed to
inform the plaintiffs of the defective nature of the leggings.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek damages,
restitution, disgorgement, profits, all legal fees, interest and
any other relief as the court deems just.  They are represented by
Quentin Roberts of Levi & Korsinsky LLP in San Francisco.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 3:17-cv-01579-JCS


LULARO: Says Claims in Suit Over Quality Fabricated, Exaggerated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kim LaCarpia at Snopes reports in early April 2017, LuLaRoe (a
women's leisurewear brand popular on social media) made headlines
for a growing number of consumer complaints, including a lawsuit
brought by disgruntled customers of the brand.

Good Housekeeping reported that complaints about LuLaRoe appeared
to reach a tipping point in March 2017. That month, two LulaRoe
customers initiated a class action lawsuit against the brand:

After news surfaced last month of the leggings' tendency to rip
just hours into a single wear -- and the fact that the company
reportedly wasn't refunding unsatisfied customers, earning them a
resounding "F" with the BBB -- LuLaRoe will have to answer these
claims in court . . . Plaintiffs Suzanne Jones, of California, and
Julie Dean, of Massachusetts, two of many unhappy LuLaRoe
customers, filed a suit against the company on March 23 -- both
bought LuLaRoe leggings, expecting that soft, Netflix-binge-ready
fabric, but, instead, after receiving their leggings, alleged
significant defects. Of the three pairs Jones purchased, she
claims one was so small, it was "as if they were manufactured for
a child," the lawsuit draft reads. The other two, she said,
developed holes "when she pulled on the leggings with her
fingers."

LulaRoe's distribution structure (described as "pyramid selling"
by the plaintiffs) apparently exacerbated the consumer friction.
The filing alleged that people unsatisfied with torn leggings had
little to no recourse in obtaining refunds from a network of
independent sellers:

Thousands of customers across the United States are now stuck with
defective products because defendants will neither issue refunds
or make exchanges for customers and instead steer customers to the
fashion consultants to deal with defective or damaged
Products . . . defendants will not make refunds to fashion
consultants for defective products and impose various barriers for
exchanges. As a result, most fashion consultants will not take
back defective products from customers.

On 9 March 2017, CBS reported increasing social media complaints
about the company, as well as complications caused by the lack of
a brick-and-mortar store to which defective merchandise might be
returned:

The company's Facebook page and Twitter account have also been
inundated with complaints about the quality of the leggings. The
company is encouraging customers to send them direct messages so
they can address individual complaints but does acknowledge a
higher than usual amount of emails and messages at this time.
LuLaRoe is a direct sales, multi-level marketing company that
employees consultants to sell their leggings, dresses, skirts and
shirts. The independent retailers are a big part of the company's
recent rise in sales with nearly 72,000 employed nationwide. Now
it's these individuals who are reportedly on the hook for the
defective merchandise.

Customers also say that they were improperly charged sales tax in
some states. On 1 March 2017, Business Insider reported that an
internal LuLaRoe e-mail acknowledged customer complaints about
excessive tearing were known to the company: But it turns out that
LuLaRoe is well aware of the problem and why it happens, according
to a company email obtained by Business Insider.

"The leggings may get holes, because we weaken the fibers to make
them buttery soft," Patrick Winget, the head of production for
LuLaRoe, is quoted as saying in the January 17 email. "We have
done all we can to fix them."

The email was sent by LuLaRoe's corporate office to its
salespeople, who sell the multilevel marketer's brightly colored
clothing to their friends online and at parties in their homes.
The outlet reported that a day prior to the article's publication,
LuLaRoe disseminated "helpful talking points for your customers"
to its network of sales representatives:

99.9% of our handmade products that are shipped stay out in the
market with owners who absolutely love them! The industry standard
for defective or returned apparel products is about 2.5%; our
return rate is at less than half a percent (0.051%). This number
is proof of our commitment to quality assurance -- especially when
you consider the millions of items that we produce and ship.
In a 28 March 2017 CBS MoneyWatch report, LuLaRoe maintained that
it "categorically rejects the fabricated and exaggerated claims"
in the suit.

Nearly all articles about the myriad challenges faced by LuLaRoe
mentioned a Facebook group called "LuLaRoe Defective/Ripped /Torn
Leggings And Clothes" with more than 23,000 members, as well as an
"F" rating with the Better Business Bureau. [GN]


LUMOS NETWORKS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer, writing for Law360, reports that Lumos Networks Corp.
shareholder on April 5  filed a putative class action suit in
Delaware federal court over the company's pending $950 million
merger with EQT Infrastructure, claiming that important
information was left out of the proxy statement.

The statement fails to provide sufficient information on the
bidding process, how the fairness opinions were generated or on
potential conflicts of interest by Lumos officers and directors,
shareholder Paul Parshall said in his complaint.


MAIBEC INC: Court Won't Allow Class Certification in "Stern"
------------------------------------------------------------
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


MARK D. GUIDUBALDI: "Motiwala" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Ahmed Motiwala, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mark D. Guidubaldi &
Associates, LLC d/b/a Protection Legal Group, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-02445 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
certify a class of:

   "all persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
   telephone number (3) Protection Legal Group placed a non-
   emergency telephone call (4) using an artificial or
   prerecorded voice (5) within 4 years of the complaint and (6)
   who did not have a contractual relationship with Protection
   Legal Group"

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint his lawyers as
counsel for the classes, and allow Plaintiff to file a memorandum
in support of this motion after further class discovery.

The Plaintiff brought this class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Donald Sawyer, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726 1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726 1093
          E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com


MAYNE PHARMA: Court Strikes Amended Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
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


MGM STUDIOS: Faces Suit Over Missing Films From James Bond Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner at Hollywood Reporter reports the packaging said:
"All the Bond films gathered together for the first time."

In what will surely be the most entertaining class-action lawsuit
filed this year, MGM Studios and 20th Century Fox Home
Entertainment must contend with a James Bond completist upset with
the DVD box set she purchased.

In Washington, Mary Johnson is suing on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated who bought the box set upon packaging
that stated "All the Bond films gathered together for the first
time" only to be disappointed by the absence of Casino Royale
(1967) and Never Say Never Again (1983).

Those two films, of course, have a special place in Bond lore.
Casino Royale, the original one, was actually a spoof starring,
among others, Woody Allen, Peter Sellers and Orson Welles. It was
a Columbia Pictures film, not a 007 flick produced by either Eon
Productions or MGM.

The story of Never Say Never Again is even more intricate, the
result of a thorny rights dispute between MGM and Danjaq LLC on
one side and the estate of Kevin McClory on the other.

McClory, a screenwriter who worked with Bond author Ian Fleming in
creating Thunderball, which then became a Fleming novel, later
claimed co-authorship and the creation of characters and elements.
McClory then wanted to make his own Bond films, and in 1983, a
London court allowed him to do so. So as Octopussy, starring Roger
Moore came out, McClory's company was able to release Never Say
Never Again, which in a twist, starred Sean Connery reprising the
role that made him famous.

In 2013, the long fight over Bond rights was settled, but not in
time for the 50th anniversary DVD box set titled Bond 50,
Celebrating Five Decades of Bond 007, which Johnson purchased for
USD106.44. [GN]


MILLER & STARK: Court Terminated Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
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 a 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


MINOR LEAGUE: Judge Revives Baseball Players' FLSA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Zagger and Kat Greene, writing for Law360, report that
Minor league baseball players in a class action against Major
League Baseball claiming they should receive minimum wage and
overtime pay told a California federal judge on April 4 that there
is no reason to allow the league to immediately appeal last
month's ruling to certify their class action after the league
sought a halt to the case to ask the Ninth Circuit to take a look.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero breathed new life into the
minor league ballplayers' claims last month when he granted their
sought class and Fair Labor Standards Act collective actions,
reversing course on an earlier ruling that had denied
certification.  The players had narrowed their claims to
California League players and cut out claims for off-site winter
conditioning, modifications the judge said made it possible to
sort out when and for how long players were required to work on a
classwide basis.

But MLB has asked the judge to put the case on hold to allow an
immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the judge
should not have accepted the players' "continuous workday" theory
nor considered a survey it calls flawed and biased.

The players shot back, arguing that players were forced to sign a
Uniform Player Contract that limited their pay and made their
situations sufficiently similar to proceed as a class.  They said
the certification ruling was reasonable and followed precedent.

"The court reviewed multiple rounds of briefing during which
plaintiffs substantially narrowed the collective which they sought
to certify; revised their survey to alleviate concerns previously
raised; submitted further evidence to bolster their proposed model
for calculating hours worked on a classwide basis; and submitted
additional caselaw to support certification," the players argued.
"Under such circumstances, defendants cannot meet the demanding
standards for interlocutory review."

MLB says the individual players' work experiences vary too widely
and that allowing the players to fall back on a survey, which was
conducted in preparation for the litigation, will eliminate the
need for a factual inquiry into all the players' activities to
determine whether they counted as work the players could be paid
for.

"But the mere presence of some individual issues does not mean
that the workers are not 'similarly situated,' as all collectives
of workers will invariably contain some differences," the players
said.  "Based on the record before it, the court concluded that
such inquiries would not 'overwhelm the common issues raised by
plaintiffs' claims.'"

"This is no doubt correct given the overwhelming commonalities in
the case, like the uniform usage of the Uniform Player Contract,
the uniform failure to pay wages during spring training and
similar training periods, the uniform failure to pay overtime
wages and the uniform classification of minor leaguers as
nonemployees," the players continued.

The players further defended the use of the survey, which they
contend is only part of the evidence, as meeting the standards for
reliability under Ninth Circuit precedent.

But MLB said that case law is in the context of trademark cases
rather than class certification.  It said the survey is fraught
with bias from players who would remember working longer than they
had because they were engaged in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed in February 2014, claims that minor league
ballplayers are not paid the minimum wage or overtime, with some
earning as little as $1,100 per month during the season despite
spending more than 50 hours working each week.

More than 2,200 minor leaguers opted in after Judge Spero
conditionally certified an FLSA collective action in October 2015.
But in July, Judge Spero decertified the players' FLSA collective
action and denied their bid for class certification.

At the time, the judge found the players' individual experiences
were too varied for them to continue as a class.  The judge
further found that the employment survey used to estimate the
number of hours worked, which looked at when the players arrived
and left the ballpark for games and practices, was flawed.

The players filed a reconsideration bid in September 2016, arguing
that they now seek certification only of classes where the work at
issue was performed in a single state and occurred over weeks or
months.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to
requests for comment on April 4.

The players are represented by Garrett R. Broshuis --
gbroshuis@koreintillery.com -- Stephen M. Tillery and George A.
Zelcs -- gzelcs@koreintillery.com -- of Korein Tillery LLC and
Bobby Pouya, Benjamin E. Shiftan, Bruce Lee Simon, Richard C.
Stockton and Daniel L. Warshaw of Pearson Simon Warshaw & Penny
LLP.

The defendants are represented by Elise M. Bloom --
ebloom@proskauer.com -- Howard L. Ganz -- hganz@proskauer.com --
Neil H. Abramson -- nabramson@proskauer.com -- Adam M. Lupion,
Rachel S. Philion, Joshua S. Fox, Noa Michelle Baddish and Harold
M. Brody of Proskauer Rose LLP.

The case is Senne et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball
et al., case number 3:14-cv-00608, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.


MORRIS-SHEA BRIDGE: "Falconer" Sues Over Non-Payment of OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Euwell Falconer, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Morris-Shea Bridge Company, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00106 (S.D. Tex., April 5, 2017) seeks
payment of overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and other similarly situated
workers throughout the United State as exempt from overtime under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Defendant paid Plaintiff an hourly wage but did not pay him
overtime for his hours in excess of forty per week. In other
words, Defendant paid Plaintiff "straight time for overtime."

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an inspector within the last
three years.

Defendant Morris-Shea Bridge Company, Inc. is a specialty
foundation contractor that provides deep foundation design and
construction services to a variety of project throughout the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
   John Neuman, Esq.
   Sosa-Morris Neuman
   5612 Chaucer Drive
   Houston, TX 77005
   Tel: (281) 885-8844, (281) 885-8630
   Fax: (281) 885-8813
   Email: BSosaMorris@smlawfirm.com
          JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com


MYLAN NV: Faces Class Action in Washington Over EpiPen Pricing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that Mylan NV has
been hit with a new proposed class action lawsuit over the price
of its EpiPen allergy treatment, which shot up to more than $600
for a two-pack of the device from less than $100 in 2007.

The lawsuit was filed on April 3 in Tacoma, Washington, federal
court by three EpiPen purchasers.  It claims Mylan engaged in a
scheme with pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs -- companies that
act as intermediaries between pharmacies, insurers and drug
companies -- to dominate the market and overcharge consumers.

Although other lawsuits have been filed over EpiPen pricing, the
lawsuit is the first to focus on the role of PBMs and to bring
claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, a federal law historically used against organized crime.

Mylan spokeswoman Nina Devlin declined to comment.

The EpiPen, acquired by Mylan in 2007, is a hand-held device that
treats life-threatening allergic reactions by automatically
injecting a dose of epinephrine.  The company now sells a $300
generic version.

The plaintiffs in the April 3 lawsuit say Mylan paid large rebates
to PBMs so they would favor EpiPen over competitors.  In helping
Mylan control 95 percent of the epinephrine auto-injector market,
the rebates artificially inflated EpiPen's sticker price,
resulting in higher costs for many patients, the suit said.

The lawsuit says the three largest U.S. pharmacy benefits managers
-- CVS Caremark, part of CVS Health; Express Scripts Holding Co
(and OptumRX, part of UnitedHealth Group Inc -- aided Mylan's
alleged scheme.  They were not named as defendants.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages to represent a nationwide class
of EpiPen purchasers.

Mylan has grappled with a growing backlash from U.S. consumers
over the price of EpiPen in the last year.  Other class action
lawsuits have been filed against Mylan over the pricing of EpiPen,
including two currently consolidated in Kansas federal court.
However, they have not focused on the role of PBMs.

The company is also under investigation by the Federal Trade
Commission and said last September that it had agreed to a $465
million settlement with the U.S. Justice Department over how the
drug was classified for government buyers.  The Justice Department
has not confirmed the settlement.

House will not reach healthcare deal before two-week break
Trump nominee to lead FDA questioned on ties to pharmacy industry
Mylan Chief Executive Officer Heather Bresch has said that the
company makes only about $100 per EpiPen pack, and that most
consumers pay less than $50 for a two-pack.

The plaintiffs in the April 3 lawsuit said Ms. Bresch falsely
tried to paint Mylan as a "victim" of a flawed healthcare system
and avoid its own responsibility in setting rebates.

The case is Rainey et al v. Mylan Specialty LP, U.S. District
Court, Western District of Washington, No. 17-cv-05244.


NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARIE SEVERNS, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL
ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00495-LA
(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=Gw0ZhQZm

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NAVIENT: Agrees to Stop Collection Activities From Barrowers
------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Berman at Market Watch reports a student loan giant has
agreed to suspend collection activities on the debt of certain
borrowers who filed for bankruptcy, providing at least temporary
relief for potentially thousands of people and signaling that
there may be a viable path to discharging some student debts in
bankruptcy.

As part of an ongoing class-action lawsuit filed against student
loan servicer Navient, the company has voluntarily agreed to stop
collection activities on loans used by borrowers who filed for
bankruptcy after October 2005 and used the loans to attend
nonaccredited programs, while the case winds its way through the
court system. Under the voluntary agreement filed with the court
Thursday, Navient can still continue to send these borrowers
monthly statements, but the company will no longer aggressively
pursue the debts through means such as multiple daily phone calls
until the outcome of the case is determined.

In the suit, the plaintiffs claim that Navient attempted to
collect on loans that were discharged in bankruptcy, including by
calling relatives and employers multiple times a day. Patricia
Christel, a Navient spokeswoman, declined to comment on pending
litigation. But she wrote in an email statement that the company
supports reform that would allow borrowers to discharge their
debts in bankruptcy if they've made a good faith effort to repay
their loans over several years and are still struggling.

Student debt is nearly impossible to discharge in bankruptcy, the
conventional wisdom goes, but a group of attorneys has been using
various strategies to challenge that notion with some success in
cases filed across the country. If they win, the class-action suit
could represent one of the bigger legal victories in this battle
because it would apply to a large group of borrowers --
potentially 16,000 the plaintiff's attorneys estimate -- with
loans held by a major company.

"The more of these cases we keep winning , it seems to show this
is the right theory of the law," said Austin Smith, one of the
attorneys representing the plaintiffs. "More and more courts are
accepting this."

Beginning in the 1970s Congress made changes to the bankruptcy
code to make it more difficult for borrowers to use the process to
get rid of their student loans. These days, a debt can't be
discharged if it falls into one of these categories: a federal
student loan, a loan made under a program funded in whole or in
part by a nonprofit (typically loans made by the school), a
qualified education loan -- this can be a loan made by a for-
profit company, but needs to be made for qualified educational
expenses, typically defined as the cost of attendance, for a
student attending an eligible institution -- or funds received for
"an educational benefit."

The only way for borrowers to get rid of the debts that fall into
these categories in bankruptcy is to prove that repaying the loan
would cause an "undue hardship" -- a notoriously hard legal
standard to meet. But in this case and others, Smith and other
attorneys have argued that companies are collecting on debts that
don't actually fall into any of these categories and therefore
were discharged in bankruptcy.

Those include loans used for nonaccredited programs such as:
career training, bar exam study, K-12 education and medical
schools in the Caribbean, among other categories.

For years, attorneys have largely been challenging the
dischargeability of student debt in bankruptcy by trying to expand
the definition of undue hardship, but the case law is so developed
in that area, bankruptcy judges often feel they have little leeway
to grant a discharge, said Dalie Jimenez, a professor at
University of Connecticut's School of Law. In most jurisdictions,
a debt is defined as an undue hardship if the borrower can't pay
it back now and there's no reason to believe they'd be able to pay
it back in the future.

Focusing on whether the loans are dischargeable in the first place
offers another way for attorneys to help borrowers in bankruptcy
get rid of their debts that judges may be receptive to, said
Jimenez, who was on the founding staff or the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau. Bankruptcy judges know that the country's
student loan situation has changed dramatically since Congress
first exempted student debt from bankruptcy discharge -- the
number of borrowers and size of their debts has exploded -- but
they may be bound by legal precedent that prevents them from using
the undue hardship standard to get rid of the loans.

"There's a willingness, maybe even a desire by some (judges) to
re-examine which student loans are dischargeable," she said.
The judge overseeing the class-action hasn't made a ruling yet on
the facts of the case, so it's unclear if he believes the debts
should be discharged. But in a hearing to discuss whether Navient
would stop collection on the loans at issue in the case, he pushed
the company to do so voluntarily, expressing sympathy for the
borrowers in this predicament.

"I'm going to assume that Navient is a responsible corporate
citizen," the judge said, according to a transcript of the
hearing, "and it would seem to me that a responsible corporate
citizen, if it thought that there might be a chance that things
weren't being done exactly the right way, that they would want to
get out in front of this." He later added "It would seem to me to
be the right thing."

It's still too early to say if the case will result in permanent
relief for these borrowers and even if it does, they still
represent a small slice of borrowers with student loans overall,
said John Rao, an attorney at the National Consumer Law Center.
Still, the case represents important progress in efforts to help
struggling student loan borrowers in bankruptcy, in particular
because a victory in a class action means that borrowers who may
not have known their rights could stand to benefit, according to
Rao.

"It's not completely hopeless," he said.  [GN]


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Ponce's Bid for Class Certification Stricken
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff's motion for class certification filed in the
lawsuit captioned Alfred Ponce v. Navient Solutions, Inc., Case
No. 2:17-cv-00551-PA-AFM (C.D. Cal.), is stricken.

According to the civil minutes, the Plaintiff's Motion was filed
on March 13, 2017, and noticed for hearing on December 18, 2017.
However, the Court' Standing Order provides that "no motion shall
be noticed for hearing more than thirty-five (35) days after
service of the motion unless otherwise ordered by the Court."
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is ordered
stricken.  Future violations of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Central District's Local Rules, or the Court's
orders may result in the imposition of sanctions.

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


NEC TOKIN: July 6 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
If You Bought an Electrolytic or Film Capacitor Directly From
Certain Distributors Since 2002, You Could Get Money From
Settlements Totaling Approximately $15 Million in a Class Action
Settlement Announced by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP

Class action settlements totaling approximately $15 million
announced by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP have been agreed to
by NEC TOKIN Corp. and NEC TOKIN America, Inc. ("NEC TOKIN");
Okaya Electric Industries Co., Ltd. ("OEI"); and Nitsuko
Electronics Corporation ("Nitsuko") (collectively "Settling
Defendants") resolving claims that they allegedly fixed the prices
of Capacitors.  Plaintiffs allege that the price-fixing caused
individuals and businesses to pay more for theses Capacitors.
Capacitors are electronic components that store electric charges
between one or more pairs of conductors separated by an insulator.

Am I Included?

You may be included if, from January 1, 2002, through July 15,
2016, you purchased one or more Capacitors from a distributor (or
from an entity other than a Defendant) that a Defendant or alleged
co-conspirator manufactured.  "Indirect," as that term is used
below, means that you bought the product from someone other than a
defendant manufacturer, for example, from a distributor.  A more
detailed notice, including the exact Class definitions and
exceptions to Class membership, is available at
www.capacitorsindirectcase.com.

What do the Settlements provide?

The Settlements provide for the combined payment of $14,950,000 in
cash to the Classes.  The Settling Defendants have also agreed to
cooperate in the pursuit of claims against other Defendants.

How can I get a payment?

Money will not be distributed to the Classes at this time.  The
lawyers for the Classes will pursue the lawsuit against the other
Defendants to see if any future settlements or judgments can be
obtained in the case and then be distributed together to reduce
expenses.  The lawyers anticipate that when the settlement
proceeds are disbursed to the Classes, it will be done on a pro
rata basis based on the value of your Capacitor purchases.

If you want to receive notice about the claims process or future
settlements, you should register at
www.capacitorsindirectcase.com.

What are my rights?

Even if you do nothing, you will be bound by the Court's decisions
concerning these Settlements.  If you want to keep your right to
sue one or more of the Settling Defendants regarding Capacitor
purchases, you must exclude yourself in writing from the Classes
by May 31, 2017.  If you stay in the Classes, you may object in
writing to the Settlements by May 31, 2017.  The Settlement
Agreements, along with details on how to exclude yourself or
object, are available at www.capacitorsindirectcase.com.  The U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California will hold a
hearing on July 6, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., at 450 Golden Gate Avenue,
19th Floor, Courtroom 11, San Francisco, CA 94102 to consider
whether to approve the Settlements.  Class Counsel may also
request at the hearing, or at a later date, attorneys' fees of up
to 25% of the Settlement Funds, plus reimbursement of costs and
expenses, for investigating the facts, litigating the case,
negotiating the Settlements, providing notice to the Classes,
and/or claims administration.  The total amount of these costs
shall be no more than $2,558,454.00.  You or your own lawyer may
appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense, but you don't
have to.  The hearing may be moved to a different date or time
without additional notice, so it is a good idea to check the
above-noted website for additional information.

If the case against the other Defendants is not dismissed or
settled, Class Counsel will have to prove their claims against the
other Defendants at trial.  The Court has appointed the law firm
of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP to represent Indirect Purchaser
Class members.

For More Information: 1-866-217-4245 or
www.capacitorsindirectcase.com


NEW JERSEY, USA: Court Agrees to Reopen "Holmes" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Esther Salas granted the Plaintiff's motion to reopen the
matter titled WILFRED LEE HOLMES v. N.J. GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE, et
al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01434-ES-MAH (D.N.J.).

The Court also granted the Plaintiff's application to proceed in
forma pauperis.  Judge Salas ruled that the Plaintiff's complaint
will be filed.

To ensure that the Defendants can be heard on the matter, the
Court denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for
appointment of pro bono counsel and motion to certify a class.
The Plaintiff may renew these motions upon the entry of a notice
of appearance on behalf of the Defendants, Judge Salas ruled.

The Plaintiff's due process and ex post facto clause claims under
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 will proceed against Defendants David W.
Thomas, James Plousis and Samuel J. Plumeri; the claims against
Governor Christie and the judicial defendants are dismissed
without prejudice.

Judge Salas' memorandum and order also states, among other things,
that for purposes of account deduction only, the Clerk will serve
a copy of this Order by regular mail upon the Attorney General of
the State of New Jersey and the Warden of East Jersey State
Prison.  The Plaintiff is assessed a filing fee of $350 and will
pay the entire filing fee in the manner set forth in the Order
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(1) and (2), regardless of
the outcome of the litigation.

A copy of the Memorandum & Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WIhbFf8i


NORTHSTAR ALARM: Faces "Braver" Suit Over TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert H. Braver, for himself and all individuals similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Northstar Alarm Services, LLC, a Utah
Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00383-C
(W.D. Okla., April 5, 2017) seeks to recover damages and an award
of attorneys' fees for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Northstar hired a third-party, Yodel, who commissioned
telemarketing calls to Mr. Braver's telephone number for the
purposes of advertising their goods and services using a
prerecorded message without express consent which is prohibited by
the TCPA.

Northstar Alarm Services, LLC provides, installs and services
burglar alarm systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Paul Catalano, Esq.
   Luke Wallace, Esq.
   Heaher Munzuris, Esq.
   Paul Catalano, Esq.
   Humphreys Wallace Humphreys, P.C.
   9202 S. Toledo Avenue
   Tulsa, OK 74137
   Tel: (918) 747-5300
   Fax: (918) 747-5311
   Email: david@hwh-law.com
          luke@wh-law.com
          heather@hwh-law.com
          paul@hwh-law.com


OMEGA PROTEIN: Faces "Diehl" Securities Class Action in NY
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Diehl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Omega Protein Corporation, Bret D. Scholtes
and Andrew C. Johannesen, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02448 (S.D.
N.Y., April 5, 2017) seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Omega securities between June 4, 2013 and
March1, 2017 both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

Throughout the Class Period, says the complaint, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operation and compliance policies. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) Omega's subsidiary was potentially not in
compliance with its probation terms; (ii) the Company was not
properly protecting whistleblower employees; (ii) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company was vulnerable to an SEC investigation
and potential civil and criminal liability and (iv) as a result of
the foregoing, Omego's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Omega's share price fell $6.25 or 23.81%, close at $20.00 on March
2, 2017.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Omega is a nutritional products company that purportedly develops,
produces and delivers products to improve the nutritional
integrity of foods, dietary supplements and animals feeds. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

   Michael Goldberg, Esq.
   Brian Schall, Esq.
   Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
   Goldberg Law PC
   1999 Avenue of the Stars
   Los Angeles, CA 90067, Suite 1100
   Tel: 1-800-977-7401
   Fax: 1-800-536-0065
   Email: michael@goldberglawpc.com
          brian@goldberglawpc.com
          sherin@goldberglawpc.com


OPA-LOCKA: Faces Suit Over Corrupt & Messed Up Water System
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jay Weaver at Miami Herald reports that for years, thousands of
Opa-locka water customers have railed against irregular and
inflated bills, accusing the city of running a deeply flawed
utility system undermined by leaky pipes, inaccurate meters and
corrupt management.

Now, they have some compelling proof: A consultant retained by
Opa-locka to survey the city's 5,800 water meters has found that
only half can be read at all and just one-third with any accuracy.
And that assessment excludes about 900 meters that could not be
accessed or located, because of overgrown landscaping and other
reasons.

Bottom line: Most of the city's automatic meters don't work --
either because they are completely broken or fail to transmit
reliable electronic data on water usage, according to a report by
the Avanti Company, which has consulted Opa-locka's government on
its utility system over the past decade. That failure has forced
the city to provide questionable estimates of some customers'
water consumption, while manually reading meters for others,
leading to erratic and exorbitant bills for thousands of residents
and businesses.

Avanti's report has recommended that the city -- placed last June
under state oversight because of a financial emergency -- spend up
to USD2.1 million on new automatic water meters to bring Opa-
locka's system up to industry standards. The city, which barely
has enough money to pay its employees, would have to borrow those
funds to replace more than half of the inoperable meters, some
3,000.

But that's not all: The city also needs to invest a projected
USD57 million on improvements to the decaying infrastructure of
its water, sewer and storm drain systems, according to an
assessment by Merrett Stierheim, a former Miami-Dade County
manager who has advised the state board overseeing Opa-locka's
finances. He called the city's utility systems "critically
deficient" in a scathing final report.

Outraged by what they see as Opa-locka's failure to fix the long-
standing problems, homeowners filed a class-action lawsuit on
April 7, demanding millions of dollars in refunds on their water
bills and customer deposits. Last year, the Miami Herald uncovered
that Opa-locka officials not only gave preferential treatment to
some water users, but also raided USD1.7 million in customer
deposits in 2014 to balance the city's deficit-ridden budget. The
individual deposits ranged from USD170 for homeowners to thousands
of dollars for business owners.

George Suarez and his wife, Tania, who bought a home for their
family in Opa-locka in 2015, say the city's leaders are always
performing a "song and dance" while telling "bald-faced lies"
about local services. Opa-locka residential and commercial
property owners pay some of the highest tax and water rates in
Miami-Dade County.

"When my 6-year-old daughter has to ask me if my water is going to
be cut off, that's embarrassing," said Suarez, a catering chef,
who has seen his water bills fluctuate wildly since last summer,
from an average of USD50 to USD1,200, then back to USD50. "They
still want me to pay these ridiculously high bills that make no
sense. I'm not going away without a fight."

The Suarezes, parents of two children, are among nine class
representatives in the class action, filed in Miami-Dade Circuit
Court. The suit asserts breach of contract and civil theft by Opa-
locka's government.

"The city of Opa-locka has trampled on the fundamental right of
providing water to citizens by condoning a water supply system
that is contaminated by inflated rates, overcharges, theft of
deposits and corruption," said their attorney, Michael Pizzi of
Law Offices of Michael Pizzi and Associates, former mayor of Miami
Lakes, who is working on the case with Miami lawyer Ben Kuehne.
"The citizens are now fighting back."

His suit includes many of the questionable practices highlighted
in a series of stories in the Miami Herald during the past year
that detailed the plundering of the city's water system by local
officials. Among them: a former public works supervisor, Gregory
Harris, who pleaded guilty in an ongoing FBI corruption
investigation to shaking down customers for cash bribes while
threatening to turn off their water. Former City Manager David
Chiverton and City Commissioner Luis Santiago pleaded guilty to
the same bribery charges, which also included extorting local
business owners who needed city licenses.

Also significant, some customers get special treatment because of
their political connections: For instance, Mayor Myra Taylor's
family, owners of a private elementary school, Vankara, have not
paid nearly USD120,000 in overdue water bills dating back several
years. Much of her family's debt for water services was erased
from the city's books, the Herald found.

Mayor Taylor has refused to comment about the matter, though her
husband, John Taylor, a minister, once told the Herald that the
family intended to pay its debt.

"There are so many people who have been complaining about their
water bills for years, but the city commissioners never did
anything about it," said Steve Barrett, a former vice mayor in
Opa-locka and a representative in the new class-action case. "Myra
Taylor didn't care because she never had to pay her water bills."
The mayor's school wasn't the only customer to benefit from the
city's largesse. Opa-locka turned its utility department into an
operation that let scores of businesses and residents with
political connections tap into Opa-locka's water system while the
city was edging toward insolvency. Apartment landlords were
allowed to skip payments for tens of thousands in water bills.
Business owners opened new accounts without paying off the old
ones.

Potentially dozens of water customs were also suspected of tapping
into the city's water supply without being connected to meters,
enabling them to avoid billing.

When Stierheim, the former county manager who has assisted several
troubled cities in turn-around efforts, became an adviser to the
state oversight board in Opa-locka, he recommended last August
that some of the top Miami-Dade water and sewer department
employees help the city with its billing problems. The county
eventually took over the city's utility billing operation.  [GN]


PAPA JOHN'S: Court Denies Drivers' Class Action Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Maatman, Jr., Esq., Gina Merrill, Esq., Brendan Sweeney,
Esq. and Mark Wallin, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article
for JDSupra, report that a New York federal court in Durling, et
al. v. Papa John's International, Inc., Case No. 7:16-CV-03592
(CS) (JCM) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2017), recently denied Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification of a nationwide collective
action in an FLSA minimum wage action against Papa John's
International, Inc. ("PJI"), in which the drivers alleged that
they have not been sufficiently reimbursed for the cost of their
vehicle expenses.  This ruling shows that even though the burden
for "first stage" conditional certification is modest, employers
can defend their pay practices by showing the absence of any
evidence of a common policy or plan that violates the FLSA. This
is especially so when plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide
collective action, for as the court held in Durling, conditional
certification is not proper when plaintiffs submit evidence
pertaining to only a small sub-set of the putative collective
action members.

In 2016, approximately 80% of conditional certification motions
were granted in the Second Circuit.  Plaintiffs undoubtedly have a
low bar to hurdle to obtain conditional certification under
section 16(b) of the FLSA.  It is a hurdle nonetheless, and some
courts have shown a willingness to look closely at plaintiffs'
proffered evidence to ensure that a factual nexus exists that
binds together the members of a putative collective action.  In
Durling, et al. v. Papa John's International, Inc., Judge Cathy
Seibel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York rejected Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of
a nationwide collective action that would have included drivers
employed at corporate-owned stores and stores operated by
franchisees.  The Court concluded that Plaintiffs' evidence did
not support a finding that the named plaintiffs were similarly
situated to thousands of drivers employed by hundreds of different
employers.

By highlighting Plaintiffs' failure to show that Papa John's
International, Inc. ("PJI") dictated a common corporate policy to
franchisees, or any significant factual nexus among the members of
the putative collective action across corporate and franchise
stores, PJI won a significant victory.

Case Background

Plaintiffs are five delivery drivers who work for either PJI or
one of two restaurants owned by independent franchisees. Each
Plaintiff delivered pizzas in his own vehicle, and alleged that
PJI and the franchisees under-reimbursed delivery drivers for wear
and tear, gas, and other vehicle expenses such that PJI violated
the FLSA.  Pointing to the practice of one franchisee, as an
example, Plaintiffs averred that they were paid $6 per hour plus
$1 per delivery, which, at an average rate of five deliveries per
hour, amounts to wages of approximately $11 per hour.  Applying
the IRS standard mileage rate, Plaintiffs claim that they paid
$13.50 per hour for upkeep on their vehicles, resulting in a net
loss of $2.50 per hour.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs asserted that
they earned less than minimum wage in violation of the FLSA and
corresponding state minimum wage laws.

There are over 3,300 Papa John's restaurants in the United States.
Approximately 700 are owned and operated, at least in part, by
PJI.  The remaining 2,600 plus restaurants are owned and operated
by 786 independent franchisees.  Although four of the five
Plaintiffs worked for franchisees, they did not sue any
franchisees in this litigation -- only PJI.  Plaintiffs claimed
that PJI is a joint-employer of the drivers at all franchised Papa
John's.  They alleged that PJI disseminated policies to the
franchisees that caused the drivers to be under-reimbursed in a
uniform way.  Plaintiffs supported this theory with purported
evidence that all stores, both corporate and franchise, use the
same point-of-sale ("POS") technology to record deliveries and
calculate reimbursements, and use the same logos and uniforms.

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on May 13, 2016, which they
amended on July 12, 2016.  On October 14, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a
motion for conditional certification of their FLSA collective
action, seeking to represent all delivery drivers on a nationwide
basis.

The Court's Decision

The Court denied Plaintiffs' conditional certification motion.
While the Court declined PJI's invitation to apply a heightened
standard in assessing the motion (due to the discovery that had
been undertaken in the case), the Court found that Plaintiffs
failed to satisfy even the modest standard generally used in step
one conditional certification motions.  The Court also declined to
decide whether PJI was in fact a joint-employer, finding this to
be a merits issue.  Framing the conditional certification issue,
however, the Court reasoned that Plaintiffs could show that they
were similarly-situated with the other members of the proposed
collective action in two ways: (1) by demonstrating that PJI
dictated a common reimbursement policy for all delivery drivers
working at both corporate and franchise-owned restaurants, or (2)
by showing that a common policy existed across the entire proposed
collective action.

As to the first issue, the Court found that while PJI admitted
that it reimbursed the drivers it employs at corporate-owned
stores by paying them a specific amount per delivery (without
conceding that the rate is so low as to violate the FLSA),
Plaintiffs failed to offer any evidence that PJI was involved in
its franchisees' policies for reimbursing delivery drivers.
According to the Court, the mere use of the same POS system, with
the corresponding ability to access data on how drivers are paid,
"in no way indicates that [PJI] dictated a nationwide delivery
driver payment policy."

In analyzing the question of whether Plaintiffs could show a
common policy across the collective action that would bind the
putative members together, the Court answered it in the negative.
The Court rejected Plaintiffs' attempt to show common policies
regarding issues wholly unrelated to the purported practice of
under-reimbursement.  The Court reasoned that proffering common
policies "such as wearing the same uniforms, or use of the Papa
John's logo, or even the general use of personal vehicles to make
deliveries, is not sufficient to demonstrate a common policy with
respect to the payment of drivers."

The Court determined that while Plaintiffs arguably had made a
"modest showing" of a common policy across PJI corporate-owned
stores and the two franchises for which Plaintiffs work, this
"evidence is insufficient to infer a nationwide policy."  The
Court rejected Plaintiffs' conclusory averments that other
franchisees had the same policy, observing that witnesses as to
this claim lacked personal knowledge.  The Court also found that
Plaintiffs failed to offer evidence of a common policy that
violated the FLSA, noting that while the evidence showed that a
few more franchisees do not use the IRS reimbursement rate, "there
is no evidence that these franchisees do not pay a rate reasonably
related to driving and wear and tear costs, or that what they pay
is so low that the drivers end up getting less than the minimum
wage." The Court also opined that it had found no similar cases
where plaintiffs succeeded in certifying a nationwide collective
action involving hundreds of franchisees where the declarations
offered descriptions of only two stores, and no evidence existed
that the franchisor dictated the policy at issue to all
franchisees.  Thus, even recognizing that the Plaintiffs' modest
burden at the conditional certification stage, the Court declined
to certify the collective action by "infer[ring] from the policy
of two franchisees, that a nationwide 780-something other
franchisees reimburse delivery drivers on a per-delivery basis
that results in compensation below the minimum wage."
Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification of a nationwide collective action, holding that
Plaintiffs failed to meet their modest burden of showing that
delivery drivers were similarly-situated.

Implication for Employers

FLSA collective actions are ubiquitous due in large part to the
low burden for conditional certification -- especially compared to
class certification under Rule 23.  Indeed, the vast majority of
FLSA collective actions are conditionally certified, which can
have the effect of driving large early settlements.  Members of
the plaintiffs' class action bar have attempted to stretch the
conditional certification device to cases that involve joint
employer theories, in the hopes that the court will certify a
large collective action without scrutinizing the novel aspects of
the case.  Employers facing FLSA collective action allegations in
situations involving a decentralized policy across multiple
locations can add this ruling to their defensive arsenal.  And
although the Plaintiffs' bar will likely continue to pursue FLSA
collective actions as long as the burden for conditional
certification is so low and the benefit of a substantial
settlement is so high, this ruling shows that certification is far
from automatic.


PEABODY ENERGY: Not Liable for Employees' Stock Losses
------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Peabody
Energy Corp. isn't liable to employees who allegedly lost
retirement savings by investing in the bankrupt coal company's
stock, a federal judge ruled (Lynn v. Peabody Energy Corp. , E.D.
Mo., No. 4:15-cv-00916-AGF, 3/30/17).

The proposed class action argued that Peabody wrongfully kept
company stock in its workers' retirement plans during a period in
which the company was under investigation for allegedly making
misstatements about the effects of climate change on its business
prospects.  A federal district court refused to hold Peabody
liable for these actions under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, saying that the employees failed to overcome the
strict pleading standards set by the U.S. Supreme Court in ERISA
cases over employer stock.

That pleading standard is "so high" that it precludes even cases
brought against companies that are "careening to bankruptcy," the
court said.  The court aligned itself with recent decisions
refusing to impose ERISA liability in cases involving the
retirement plans of RadioShack Corp., Whole Foods Corp., Lehman
Brothers, JPMorgan Chase & Co., International Business Machines
Corp. and BP Plc.  However, these results haven't stopped
employees from filing new lawsuits against other companies,
including Chesapeake Energy Corp., Seventy Seven Energy Inc. and
General Cable Corp.

Peabody filed for bankruptcy protection in April 2016.

ERISA Claims Fail

ERISA challenges to employer stock losses often deal with two
scenarios.  The first is when a company's stock price plummets and
investors -- including employees who invest their retirement
savings in the stock -- claim that public information about the
company's struggles demonstrated that the stock was a bad
investment.  The second is when investors learn that the company's
stock was artificially inflated and corporate executives had
inside knowledge of corporate fraud that caused the inflation.

The Peabody employees argued that both situations were present in
this case.  The well-publicized collapse of coal prices made
Peabody stock a poor investment, the employees argued, but so did
undisclosed information about how coal industry regulations would
affect the company's business going forward.

Neither scenario stated a valid claim under ERISA, the court said.

The claim based on public information failed, the court said,
because Peabody's impending bankruptcy wasn't a "special
circumstance" that would satisfy the pleading standard outlined by
the Supreme Court.

The employees' claims based on undisclosed information about
Peabody's future prospects also failed.  That's because the
employees failed to identify an alternative action the defendants
could have taken -- in lieu of continuing to offer the Peabody
stock -- that wouldn't have been more likely to harm the plan, the
court said.

Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri wrote the March 30 decision.

The Peabody employees were represented by Dysart & Taylor and
Kessler Topaz.  Peabody was represented by King & Spalding and
Dowd Bennett.


PISA GROUP: Faces TCPA Class Action in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed against a telemarketing
company, The Pisa Group Inc.; a newspaper company, Plain Dealer
Publishing Co.; and other as-yet unknown newspaper companies for
alleged violation of telephone harassment statutes.

Ohio resident Mikio VanDrunen, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a complaint on April 3 in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against
the defendants, alleging that they violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that, he and
other consumers received auto-dialed telemarketing calls promoting
products and subscription sales.  The plaintiff and others claim
that these calls were unauthorized and unwanted because they have
not expressed nor given any written consent to receive them.

As a result, Mr. VanDrunen and other consumers claim they have
suffered invasions of their privacy.

The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible for allegedly
failing to address the drawback of cold calling campaigns, for
failing to acknowledge the rights of consumers to give consent
first before receiving the calls and for failing to give consumers
options to eliminate all future calls.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment for
actual and statutory damages, attorney fees, with costs to be paid
from a common fund, and such further relief that the court deems
reasonable.  He is represented by Benjamin Richman and Rafey
Balabanian of Edelson P.C. in Chicago and San Francisco.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri case
number 4:17-cv-01238


PIZZATI ENTERPRISES: Bid for Conditional Cert. Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
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


POLLACK & ROSEN: Faces Class Action Over Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Florida Record, reports that a
Hollywood woman has filed a class-action suit against a Coral
Gables debt collector.

Tamyka M. Lee filed a complaint on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated on March 27 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida against Pollack & Rosen PA
and Joseph F. Rosen alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practice Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff received a debt
collection letter from the defendants that did not include a
statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in
writing within the 30-day period that the debt is disputed, the
debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a
judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or
judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. The
plaintiff alleges this is a violation of the FDCPA.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seek judgment in favor
of plaintiffs, certify class action, statutory damages, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses, costs of suit, and further relief as
the court deems just.  She is represented by Donald A. Yarbrough
of Donald A. Yarbrough Esq. in Fort Lauderdale and O. Randolph
Bragg of Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates in Chicago.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Case
number 0:17-cv-60610


PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: Asks Court to Deny FLSA Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ROSE LORENZO, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PRIME COMMUNICATIONS, L.P., the
Defendant, Case No. 5:12-cv-00069-H-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Defendant
moves the Court to deny final certification of the collective
action pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant said, "The plaintiff Rose Lorenzo has already
accepted an offer of judgment for her claims under the Wage and
Hour Act, the collective action therefore should be dismissed with
prejudice".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZE3GfYlo

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen A. Dunn, Esq.
          EMANUEL & DUNN, PLLC
          Post Office Box 426
          Raleigh, NC 27602
          E-mail: sdunn@emanuelanddunn.com

               - and -

          Harris D. Butler III, Esq.
          Zev H. Antell, Esq.
          BUTLER ROYALS, PLC
          100 Shockoe Slip, 4th Floor
          Richmond, VA 23219
          E-mail: Harris.butler@butlerroyals.com
                  Zev.antell@butlerroyals.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William W. Pollock, Esq.
          John B. Walker, Esq.
          Raleigh, NC27622-1507
          E-mail: bpollock@rl-law.com
          Telephone: (919) 787 5200
          Facsimile: (919) 783 8991


PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: Asks Court to Decertify Wage and Hour Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROSE LORENZO, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PRIME COMMUNICATIONS, L.P., the
Defendant, Case No. 5:12-cv-00069-H-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Defendant
moves the Court to decertify the Rule 23 North Carolina Wage and
Hour (NCWHA) Class.

The Defendant said, "Lorenzo's claims are unique to her and should
be heard on their own and not in a class action lawsuit.
Additionally, this lawsuit includes class members whose claims
belong in arbitration and class members who were subject to a
commission structure not at issue in this litigation. In the
alternative, Prime asks that the Court narrowly tailor the NCWHA
class to better meet class certification pre-requisites by
excluding those members subject to valid arbitration agreements,
as well as those members who operated under a different commission
structure than at issue in this litigation."

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen A. Dunn, Esq.
          EMANUEL & DUNN, PLLC
          Post Office Box 426
          Raleigh, NC 27602
          E-mail: sdunn@emanuelanddunn.com

               - and -

          Harris D. Butler III, Esq.
          Zev H. Antell, Esq.
          BUTLER ROYALS, PLC
          100 Shockoe Slip, 4th Floor
          Richmond, VA 23219
          E-mail: Harris.butler@butlerroyals.com
                  Zev.antell@butlerroyals.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William W. Pollock, Esq.
          John B. Walker, Esq.
          Raleigh, NC27622-1507
          Telephone: (919) 787 5200
          Facsimile: (919) 783 8991
          E-mail: bpollock@rl-law.com


PTC INC: July 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on April 3 disclosed that the United
States District Court District of Massachusetts has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of common stock of PTC Inc. (PTC):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED COMMON
STOCK OF PTC INC. FROM NOVEMBER 24, 2011 TO JULY 29, 2015,
INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the above-captioned action has been
certified as a class action for settlement purposes and that the
Lead Plaintiff has reached a proposed settlement with Defendants
to resolve all claims in the case for $2,100,000 in cash.  The
Settlement Class consists of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired common stock of PTC Inc. from November 24,
2011, through July 29, 2015, inclusive, including anyone who sold
PTC shares short and then purchased shares to cover that short
position during the Settlement Class Period.  If you are a
Settlement Class Member, your rights will be affected by this
settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement
Fund.

A hearing will be held on July 13, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. before the
Honorable William G. Young, United States District Judge of the
District of Massachusetts, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts
02210, Courtroom # 18, to determine: (1) whether the Court should
approve the settlement and plan of allocation as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; and (2) whether the Court should approve Lead
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees of up to one
third of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not
more than $40,000, and an incentive payment of no more than $2,500
to Lead Plaintiff.

If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the
Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies by writing
to or calling the Claims Administrator: PTC Inc. Securities
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St.,
Ste. 3, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866)274-4004; or by
email at info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website,
www.strategicclaims.net.  If you are a member of the Settlement
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form to the
Claims Administrator postmarked no later than May 30, 2017,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a
Proof of Claim and Release Form, unless you exclude yourself from
the Settlement Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth
in the Notice, by no later than June 13, 2017. Any objection to
the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for
an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and
award to Lead Plaintiff must be served no later than June 26,
2017, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice.

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to the Claims Administrator at the address and phone number
listed above, or Lead Counsel at The Rosen Firm, P.A., c/o
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq., 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, New York,
NY 10016, (212) 686-1060.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Certification of Class Sought in "Hsu" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk County Council as Administering Authority of the Norfolk
Pension Fund, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled
HSINGCHING HSU, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-
00865-AG-JCG (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court for an order for:

   (1) class certification pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3)
       of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   (2) the appointment of the Norfolk Pension Fund as Class
       Representative; and

   (3) the appointment of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as
       Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 26, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=diksu71k

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tor Gronborg, Esq.
          Trig R. Smith, Esq.
          Susannah R. Conn, Esq.
          J. Marco Janoski Gray, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: torg@rgrdlaw.com
                  trigs@rgrdlaw.com
                  sconn@rgrdlaw.com
                  mjanoski@rgrdlaw.com


PUTNAM INVESTMENTS: Judge Shuts Down Plaintiffs' Comparisons
------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Iacurci at Investment News reports a federal judge has
seemingly dealt a blow to plaintiffs bringing claims against
financial services companies for excessive retirement plan fees,
following a recent ruling in a self-dealing lawsuit involving
Putnam Investments' 401(k) plan.

Specifically, the judge shot down arguments that Putnam received
excessive management fees from their proprietary mutual funds,
saying plaintiffs' comparison of Putnam fund fees to those of
Vanguard Group's passively managed funds was "flawed."

Similar self-dealing lawsuits against fund managers have
proliferated of late, often using Vanguard and other recognized
indexers as a barometer of acceptable low-cost funds for a 401(k)
plan.

This Putnam ruling, made by William G. Young of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, points to a potentially
difficult road ahead for plaintiffs, those familiar with such
401(k) litigation said.

"To the extent that the debate over Vanguard funds as a benchmark
continues -- and I think it will -- plaintiffs are going to have
their work cut out for them," said Duane Thompson, senior policy
analyst, fi360 Inc., a fiduciary consulting firm.

Originally brought in November 2015, the case, Brotherston et al
v. Putnam Investment, LLC et al, was the first among similar
class-action cases to proceed to hearings on summary judgment, Mr.
Thompson said.

Several other companies, such as Jackson National Life Insurance
Co., T. Rowe Price, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Neuberger Berman and
American Century Investments, have since been sued by current or
former employees for using in-house funds in their 401(k)s.
Plaintiffs in the Putnam case relied on expert testimony from Dr.
Steve Pomerantz, a litigation and financial consultant, whose
report compared Putnam's average fund fees to Vanguard's passive
funds, according to Judge Young's court order, filed March 30.

"Vanguard is a low-cost mutual fund provider operating index funds
'at-cost,'" the judge said. "Putnam mutual funds operate for
profit and include both index and actively managed investment. Dr.
Pomerantz's analysis thus compares apples and oranges."

Expenses of Putnam's mutual funds, the primary investment option
in the company 401(k), range roughly from 0.25% to 1.65%, which
the judge found to be reasonable given the presented evidence,
according to the court filing.

"This court said the fees paid don't have to be the lowest
possible, and if you're going to do fee comparisons they ought to
be apples to apples," said Charles Humphrey, principal at an
eponymous law firm. "Comparing actively managed to index funds
therefore is not cool, if it ever was."

The lesson for plaintiffs here, said Mr. Humphrey, a former
attorney for the Department of Labor and Internal Revenue Service,
is that fees "ought to be significant outliers in comparison to
the normal range for similar funds" for this type of claim to be
successful.

"What is significant is in the eye of the beholder," he added.
Lawsuits against financial services companies for use of in-house
funds in their retirement plans come against a backdrop of
burgeoning 401(k) fee litigation in the broader marketplace.
Many of those have targeted large employers such as Lockheed
Martin, Boeing and General Dynamics.

While plaintiffs have been able to win their arguments or achieve
settlements in those lawsuits, they often focus on excessive fees
in relation to a higher-cost share class of a mutual fund being
selected over a lower-cost alternative for the same fund, rather
than comparing Fund A to Fund B, Mr. Thompson said.

Cases such as Putnam's, though, will depend partly on yet-unseen
expert testimony, Mr. Thompson explained. That could help
plaintiffs prevail unlike in the Putnam case.

"These cases obviously get into the weeds and who knows how deep
into active versus passive or sub-asset classes the experts will
go looking for the appropriate benchmark," he said.

Mr. Young only ruled for defendants on two counts in the lawsuit.
Several other counts have yet to receive judgment. [GN]


QUAKER OATS: Judge Transfers Class Action Suit to Ill. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson at Law360 reports a Pennsylvania federal judge on
April 6 transferred to Illinois district court a proposed class
action alleging Quaker Oats Co. makes false "100% Natural" claims
on its oatmeal packages, ruling that the suit should be
consolidated with similar actions against Quaker pending in
Illinois.

U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond transferred the putative class
action brought by lead plaintiff Oren Panitch to the Northern
District of Illinois. The judge said Chicago-based Quaker, a
division of PepsiCo Inc., had asked him to move the case under
either the first-filed rule or U.S. Code on change of venue, or
alternatively, to stay a pending Illinois case. That case, Gibson
v. Quaker, is similar to Panitch's case because it also alleges
the company's oats contain a herbicide called glyphosate that is
harmful to people's health.

"This is the last of seven putative class actions filed across the
country in which the plaintiffs make the same key allegation: that
the "100% Natural" labels on certain Quaker Oats products are
false and misleading," Judge Diamond said. "Five of the earlier-
filed cases are proceeding in a consolidated action in the
Northern District of Illinois."

Between April 29 and May 4, plaintiffs Kathleen Gibson, Lewis
Daly, Danielle Cooper, Robyn Jaffee and Katelyn Kinn each filed
putative class actions that allege the "100% Natural" labels on
certain Quaker Oats products are false and misleading because the
oats contain detectable quantities of the glyphosate, according to
Judge Diamond.

Gibson initially filed in the Northern District of Illinois, Daly
filed in the Eastern District of New York, Cooper filed in the
Northern District of California, Jaffee filed in the Southern
District of Florida and Kinn filed in King County Superior Court
in Washington State, the judge said.

A sixth case filed in the Northern District of Illinois on June 1,
Sabrina Wheeler v. Quaker Oats, was voluntarily dismissed on Sept.
26 by the plaintiff, Judge Diamond added. The Wheeler case was not
consolidated with the Gibson case, he said.

In July, Jaffee, Daly and Cooper agreed to transfer their cases to
the Northern District of Illinois for consolidation with Gibson,
and on Aug. 11, the combined plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint.

"Defendant aggressively advertises and promotes its oatmeal
products as '100% Natural,' and claims its oats are grown using
'eco-friendly' methods that pose 'less risk of pollutants and
groundwater pollution,'" according to the consolidated amended
complaint. "These claims are false, deceptive, and misleading. The
oat products at issue are not '100% Natural,' but instead contain
the chemical glyphosate, a potent biocide and human endocrine
disruptor, with detrimental health effects that are still becoming
known."

The Panitch case was not filed until Aug. 22, "months after the
other cases were initiated, and nearly two weeks after the Gibson
plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint," Judge
Diamond said. The plaintiffs filed their complaint in Pennsylvania
federal court, acting on behalf of a putative nationwide class and
putative Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Texas subclasses, stating
similar allegations as the Gibson consolidated suit, according to
the judge.

The proposed nationwide class seeks relief including refunds to
purchasers of Quaker's allegedly contaminated oats for products
including Quaker Oats Old-Fashioned, Quaker Oats Quick 1-Minute
and Quaker Steel Cut Oats.

"When a product purports to be '100% Natural,' consumers not only
are willing to pay more for the product, they expect it to be
pesticide-free," the consolidated complaint said. "Had plaintiffs
and class members known at or before the time of purchase that the
products in fact contained glyphosate, a synthetic biocide with
adverse human health effects, they would not have purchased or
used the products, and they will not continue to use them unless
and until remedial action is taken."

Quaker Oats did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Legal counsel for Quaker Oats declined to comment.

Legal counsel for Panitch did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.

Panitch is represented by Charles E. Schaffer of Levin, Fishbein,
Sedran & Berman, Michael McShane, Clint Woods and David Ling of
Audet & Partners LLP and Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo, Gilbert &
Laduca LLP.

Quaker Oats is represented by Jason R. Meltzer --
jmeltzer@gibsondunn.com -- and Andrew S. Tulumello --
atulumello@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and
Burt M. Rublin of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll LLP.

The case is Panitch et al. v. The Quaker Oats Co., case number
2:16-cv-04586, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

The Gibson case is Gibson v. The Quaker Oats Co., case number
1:16-cv-04853, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. [GN]


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Asks Court to Toss Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Bill Wichert at Law360 reports Quest Diagnostics Inc. urged a New
Jersey federal court on April 5 to toss a putative class action
over a November data breach affecting the personal information of
about 34,000 customers, saying the incident did not increase the
lead party's risk of identity theft since the stolen material was
already publicly available.

The New Jersey-based company said named plaintiff Grant Morrow
lacked standing to pursue the matter, in part because he cannot
show he faces an imminent risk of identity theft as a result of
Quest's actions when the stolen information -- his name, date of
birth and phone number -- was easily accessible from a quick
Google search.

"The information was already freely and publicly available. Bad
actors wanting to use these limited categories of information to
implausibly attempt to steal Morrow's identity absolutely had the
full opportunity to do so well before an intruder broke into
Quest's MyQuest application and gained access to Morrow's name,
phone number and date of birth," according to the company's brief.

"The intruder's MyQuest break-in did not change the identity theft
risk for plaintiff one bit," the brief states.

The data breach occurred on Nov. 26 when an unauthorized third
party accessed the company's MyQuest internet app and obtained
data on roughly 34,000 individuals, Quest said. MyQuest allows
patients to access and share their own health information on
computers, tablets and mobile phones.

The accessed information included names, birth dates, lab results
and, in some instances, phone numbers, the company said. Quest
said the data did not include Social Security numbers, credit card
information, insurance or other financial information.

On Dec. 12, Quest publicly announced the data breach and notified
affected customers individually by letter -- including Morrow, who
lives in Florida. On Dec. 21, Morrow filed the proposed class
action in New Jersey state court and Quest removed the case to
federal court in February.

The lawsuit alleged Quest failed to safeguard its clients'
information, saying "Quest's approach at maintaining the privacy
of the plaintiff's and the class members' PII and PHI was
lackadaisical, cavalier, reckless or at the very least negligent,"
referring to customers' personal identifying information and
protected health information.

As a result of the data breach, Morrow and other proposed class
members "have been placed at an imminent, immediate and continuing
increased risk of harm from identity theft and identity fraud,"
according to the lawsuit.

In its motion to dismiss, Quest argued in part that Morrow has
failed to establish an "injury in fact" necessary for standing
under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

To have that standing, Morrow would have to show that he suffers a
current injury or he will suffer "an imminent, certainly impending
future injury," and his claimed injury-in-fact must be "fairly
traceable" to Quest's conduct, according to the company's brief.

The company said Morrow has no current injury, partly because he
has not alleged his identity has been stolen because of the data
breach. "Contrary to the complaint's suggestions, the theft of
Morrow's PII and PHI by a third-party hacker, standing alone, does
not constitute injury-in-fact," Quest said.

Quest claimed Morrow does not face an imminent risk of future
injury, saying he "does not explain how the type of information
stolen -- name, date of birth and phone number -- could possibly
be used to cause him financial harm or lead to the theft of his
identity."

"Thus, he falls far short of setting forth facts to establish that
future identity theft is 'imminent' or 'certainly impending,'" the
company said.

Given that the stolen material was already publicly available,
Morrow cannot establish any injury is "fairly traceable" to
Quest's actions, the company said.

But John A. Yanchunis, an attorney representing Morrow, told
Law360 that the fact the information was stolen gives Morrow
standing.

"The only reason this information was taken was for misuse. Some
thief wants to monetize it and to claim that consumers in this
class, much less my client, don't have standing is ridiculous,"
Yanchunis said. "Once this company took that information, they had
an obligation to preserve it and they didn't."

Yanchunis also argued that Morrow has suffered damages by having
to enroll in an identity theft protection service at a monthly
cost and monitor that program.

"That's something he would not have had to do but for the fact
that Quest Diagnostics lost this information," Yanchunis said.

Addressing Morrow's allegation he paid for identity theft
monitoring, Quest said in its brief that "the Supreme Court and
the Third Circuit have held that one cannot create his own injury-
in-fact through such expenditures."

Counsel for Quest declined to comment.

Morrow is represented by James A. Barry, Esq. --
jbarry@lickslaw.com -- Andrew P. Bell, Esq. -- abell@lockslaw.com
-- and Michael A. Galpern, Esq. -- mgalpern@lockslaw.com -- of
Locks Law Firm LLC and John A. Yanchunis and Patrick Barthle of
Morgan & Morgan PA.

Quest is represented by Michael T. Hensley, Esq. --
mhensley@bressler.com -- and Lauren Fenton-Valdivia, Esq. --
lfvaldivia@bressler.com -- of Bressler Amery & Ross PC and David
H. Hoffman, Esq. -- dhoffman@sidley.com -- Jessica T. Fitzpatrick,
Esq. -- jfitzpatrick@sidley.com  -- and Eamon P. Joyce, Esq. --
ejoyce@sidley.com --  of Sidley Austin LLP.

The case is Grant Morrow v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., case number
2:17-cv-00948, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey. [GN]


REAL TIME: Tannlund Seeks Initial Settlement Approval
-----------------------------------------------------
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


RENFREW POWER: Court Decertifies Cottage Owners' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vlad Calina, Esq. -- vcalina@stikeman.com -- of Stikeman Elliott
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that in Plaunt v. Renfrew
Power Generation Inc., the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
decertified a class action for trespass on the grounds that new
evidence obtained post-certification demonstrated that class
members' claims for trespass were dominated by individual issues,
such that a class action was not actually a preferable procedure
for resolving those claims.

Background

The central issue in Plaunt -- which case was brought on behalf of
approximately 400 cottage owners in Round Lake, Ontario -- was
whether class members' shoreline had been eroded because Renfrew
Power Generation Inc. (RPG) and/or its predecessors raised the
level of Round Lake in a way that amounted to a trespass: by
storing water on their land.

At the original certification motion, neither party led evidence
of deeds or surveys showing the boundary of class members' lands.
Following the hearing of the certification motion, the plaintiffs
and defendant each retained surveyors to secure expert evidence of
the legal description and boundaries of class members' lands.

On the basis of the survey evidence, the defendant brought a
motion to decertify the class action on the grounds the conditions
for certifying a class action under s. 5(1) of the CPA no longer
apply.

The plaintiffs objected to the defendant's bringing a
decertification motion, arguing that they were estopped from doing
so because: (i) the defendants could have, but failed, to present
survey evidence at the original certification motion; and (ii) the
motion to decertify is amounts to an impermissible, late-filed
appeal of the merits of the certification decision.

Analysis:

First, relying on s. 10(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992
which grants the court the authority to amend the certification
order or decertify the proceeding, the Court re-affirmed that it
had "the authority to reopen and reconsider the question of
whether the requirements for certification were still satisfied in
light of new evidence, subsequent facts, or developments."1 The
Court found that the newly obtained survey evidence in both
parties' expert report qualified under the foregoing test,
warranting a re-opening and reconsideration of the certification
decision in light of that evidence.

Second, the Court held that RPG was not estopped from bringing the
decertification motion, because "the common issue as certified
arose out of the plaintiffs' submissions at the certification
motion and it was not reasonable for the Defendant to have
produced evidence directly related to this common issue before the
original certification motion."2

Third, the Court found that the survey evidence demonstrated that
the class members' claims  lacked the "substantial common
ingredient" that was necessary in order to certify the proceeding.
This was because, as a consequence of the new survey evidence, it
became apparent that the issue of trespass could not be determined
on the basis of common evidence but would instead, require
evidence from each individual cottage owner to determine the legal
boundaries of the property they purchased, and to determine
whether water covers part of their property.

In the result, the Court held "that common issue as certified for
the class as presently defined does not meet the criteria of s.
5(1) of the CPA because the common issue is not a necessary or a
substantial ingredient of each class members' claim".3

Take-Away:

The Court has the authority to re-open and reconsider
certification in light of new evidence, subsequent facts or
developments, including new expert evidence. Such a
reconsideration is not tantamount to a collateral appeal of the
certification decision.

Defendants are not estopped from bringing motions to decertify a
class action on the basis of newly obtained expert evidence, at
least where it was not reasonable for the defendants to have
produced such evidence at the original certification motion.


ROMANOFF FLOORING: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
The Sacramento labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and
Bhowmik lodged a putative class action lawsuit against Romanoff
Flooring for allegedly failing to provide their workers in
California with the legally required thirty minute uninterrupted
meal periods. The class action also alleges that Romanoff Flooring
failed to pay all minimum wage and overtime compensation to their
California employees and allegedly failed to properly reimburse
California employees for necessary business expenses they incurred
on Romanoff's behalf. The Romanoff Flooring lawsuit is currently
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California, Case No. 17-AT-00346.

The lawsuit filed against Romanoff Flooring claims that the
company failed to accurately "record and pay Plaintiff and other
California Class Members for the actual amount of time these
employees worked, including overtime worked." Under the California
Labor Code, an employee who is classified as non-exempt must be
paid overtime wages for time worked in excess of eight hours in a
workday and time worked over forty hours in a workweek.

The Class action lawsuit also alleges that the golden state
employees working for Romanoff Flooring were not provided thirty
minute uninterrupted meal breaks prior to their fifth hour of
work. California law requires employers to provide their non-
exempt employees with thirty minute meal periods before the
employee works five hours.

Additionally, the class action lawsuit also alleges claims on
behalf of a nationwide class under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
stating that Romanoff Flooring failed to adequately disclose and
obtain an authorization to conduct background checks on their
employees.

For more information about the class action lawsuit filed against
Romanoff Flooring, please call Attorney Nicholas De Blouw --
deblouw@bamlawca.net -- at (866) 771-7099.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik is a Northern California
employment law firm that dedicates its practice to helping
employees, fight back against unfair business practices, including
violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards
Act. The firm has offices located in San Diego, Los Angeles,
Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento and Chicago.  [GN]


ROYAL CANIN: Seeks Dismissal of Pet Food Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Henderson, writing for Triangle Business Journal, reports
that a trio of attorneys at Ward and Smith are taking on a bevy of
pet food titans.

Late last year, Lynwood Evans, Edward "Trip" Coyne III and Jeremy
Wilson of Ward and Smith, along with attorneys at three other
firms, filed a class-action complaint against a group of big-name
prescription pet food manufacturers and retailers that alleges,
among other things, that consumers are being over-charged for
prescription pet food that is no different in ingredients from
non-prescription pet food.

The suit was filed in U.S. district court for the northern
district of California.  The defendants are fighting the suit and
have filed motions to dismiss.

Mr. Coyne, who is based in Ward and Smith's Wilmington office
along, says the decision to take on the case made complete sense
for the Ward and Smith team.

"In selling prescription pet food, Defendants are taking advantage
and betraying the trust of vulnerable pet owners concerned about
the health of their pets, and are preying on the known
propensities of consumers to love their pets and trust their
vets," the amended complaint states.  Pet food sales equates to a
"$24 billion per year industry in the United States," with
prescription pet food accounting for 5 percent of sales, it goes
on to say.

In the lawsuit, classes of claimants include both national and
state-specific classes.  North Carolina classes include residents
"who purchased Royal Canin Prescription Pet Foods from any
retailer in North Carolina," as well as those "who purchased
Hill's Prescription Pet Foods from any retailer in North
Carolina."

This issue impacts "millions of pet owners across the country,"
says Wilson, adding that defendants are "misleading pet owners
about what food really is to increase profits."

Mr. Coyne says the firm is seeking to "right the wrong" of taking
advantage of vulnerable consumers.

Defendants include Mars Petcare, Royal Canin, Nestle Purina
Petcare, Hill's Pet Nutrition, Petsmart, Banfield Pet Hospital and
Bluepearl Vet.

Lawyers for the defendants filed motions to dismiss the case,
citing that "Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently plead the alleged
fraud," among other reasons.  The next step will be for the team
at Ward and Smith and its co-counsels to respond.

"Briefs will be filed with the court at various intervals into the
summer," says Mr. Wilson.  "It is also anticipated that the court
will conduct a hearing after the briefing closes and before its
ruling on this round of motions."

Ultimately, Ward and Smith and additional counsel for plaintiffs
are seeking "return of profits" and monetary damages, according to
Mr. Wilson.  But the firm is also seeking to have an impact on
practices "regarding how this food is marketed and sold," he says.


RUSHMORE LOAN: Court Terminated Motion for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
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


SALANDER ENTERPRISES: Williams Seeks Certification of 2 Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned NYOAKY WILLIAMS, on behalf of plaintiff
and a class, the Plaintiff, v. SALANDER ENTERPRISES, LLC, KOHN LAW
FIRM, S.C., and NICHOLAS A. SMITH, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-02591 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order for certification of two classes.

Count I, Salander class consists of:

   "(a) all individuals with addresses in one of the applicable
   jurisdictions (defined below) (b) with respect to whom
   defendant Salander Enterprises, LLC filed a lawsuit or sent or
   caused to be sent a letter (directly or by an agent or
   attorney) (c) to collect debts for the sale or lease of goods
   (d) more than four years after the later of default,
   repossession or chargeoff, (e) which letter was sent or
   lawsuit was pending at any time during a period beginning one
   year prior to the filing of this action and ending 20 days
   after the filing of this action. The Kohn Law Firm, S.C. class
   consists of (a) all individuals with addresses in one of the
   applicable jurisdictions (b) with respect to whom defendants
   Kohn Law Firm, S.C. or Smith filed a lawsuit or sent or caused
   to be sent a letter (c) to collect debts for the sale or lease
   of goods (d) more than four years after the later of default,
   repossession or chargeoff, (e) which letter was sent or
   lawsuit was pending at any time during a period beginning one
   year prior to the filing of this action and ending 20 days
   after the filing of this action".

Count II, the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claim class consists of:

   "(a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) with respect
   to whom defendant Salander Enterprises, LLC filed a lawsuit or
   sent or caused to be sent a letter (directly or by an agent or
   attorney) (c) to collect debts for the sale or lease of goods
   (d) more than four years after the later of default,
   repossession or chargeoff, (e) which letter was sent or
   lawsuit was pending at any time during a period beginning 3
   years prior to the filing of this action and ending 20 days
   after the filing of this action".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Michelle A. Alyea, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces New Class Action Over Note 7 Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres at Penn Record reports a Shickshinny consumer has
filed a class action lawsuit against Samsung Electronics America
Inc., citing alleged design defect, insufficient measures were
taken to prevent injuries, liability, negligence and product
liability for issues surrounding its Galaxy Note 7 phone.

Kelly Farmer filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated March 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania against Samsung, alleging the consumer
electronics manufacturer made a defective mobile phone that caused
costs to consumers.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges she and others
similarly situated sustained financial damages from the phone
replacement process. The suit says Farmer's daughter also had to
receive medical treatment because of the defective nature of her
phone.

The plaintiff holds Samsung responsible because the defendant
allegedly recalled its defective smartphone but failed to provide
customers a replacement phone, leaving them with nothing to use
while still incurring charges from their cellular carriers.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensatory
damages, court costs and any further relief the court grants. She
is represented by D. Aaron Rihn of Robert Peirce & Associates PC
in Pittsburgh.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Case
number 3:17-cv-00564-MEM [GN]


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Two Disability Groups File Suit Against BART
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Baldassari, writing for Mercury News, reports that BART's
filthy, urine-soaked and feces-ridden elevators that are
frequently breaking down are just one of the issues that
disabilities rights advocates say are violating passengers' civil
rights.

Two disability rights groups, Senior and Disability Action and the
Independent Living Resource Center of San Francisco, filed a class
action lawsuit in federal court against the regional transit
agency on April 5.  Concord resident Pi Ra and Oakland resident
Ian Smith joined the advocacy groups in filing the suit. BART
officials did not deny the allegations, so much as they
acknowledged that they, too, would like to provide accessible
service to all riders.

"We share in their endeavor to ensure accessible public services,
and understand as both users and operators of the system the
hardships that can occur within and around stations," a statement
released on April 5 said.

Among other allegations, the suit claims BART's failure to
maintain its elevators in operable and sanitary conditions,
combined with broken accessible fare gates, communication lapses,
and an emergency plan that instructs people in wheelchairs to
abandon them, is a violation of both federal and state laws.

"What we are really talking about is civil rights for people with
disabilities," said Rebecca Williford, an attorney with Disability
Rights Advocates.

Her organization filed -- and won -- a nearly identical lawsuit
against BART about 20 years ago, she said.  As a result of the
suit, BART agreed to fix or replace broken escalators and
elevators as needed, engage in regular preventative maintenance,
ensure accurate, reliable information is distributed to people
with disabilities and implement a twice-per-day elevator cleaning
regimen.

Things got better for a while, Ms. Willford said, but then they
got worse.

"Now we are dealing with a system that is 20 years older and more
dilapidated," she said.

That puts plaintiff Ra in a tough position. He has broken bones in
his foot and a medical condition that prevents his foot from
healing.  He can't walk long distances because that might
aggravate his foot and at best, leave him with open sores that
take weeks to heal, or at worst, force him into a wheelchair or
onto a kneechair.

He rides BART five days a week from the Pleasant Hill station to
Civic Center.  And, depending on which elevator or escalator is
out of order, Ra said he often has to go to another station just
to get out of BART.  The experience often leaves him exhausted,
forcing him to take an hour break to recover from his commute
before starting work.

"It frustrates me, so I find other ways of dealing with it," Ra
said, continuing, "I smile and say a lot of sarcastic things.  But
it just throws me off a bit . . . I can't function."

BART officials said the agency is in the midst of executing an
"aggressive," $16.3 million program to improve its escalators and
elevators.  The agency has also earmarked an additional $190
million for station access improvements at downtown San Francisco
stations as part of the $3.5 billion bond voters approved in
November.

Reached on April 5, BART board Director Lateefah Simon, who is
herself legally blind, acknowledged that people with disabilities
have real grievances when it comes to accessing the transit
system.

"While I haven't read the complaint, I am clear that we have a
long way to go to get to the goal of providing true and correct
access to all transit riders," Ms. Simon said.  "It's an issue
that is not only dear to my heart, it's my lifeblood.  It's how I
commute to work.  It's how I get my daughter to school."


SANTA BARBARA, CA: Court Strikes Brislane's Bid for Class Cert.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John F. Walter strikes the Plaintiff's renewed motion for
class certification filed in the lawsuit captioned Jonathan
Brislane v. Bill Brown, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-06002-JFW-E (C.D.
Cal.).

Bill Brown is the Sheriff-Coroner of Santa Barbara County,
California.

On March 6, 2017, Jonathan Brislane filed a Renewed Motion for
Class Certification.  Instead of filing a memorandum of points and
authorities and the evidence in support of his Renewed Motion, the
Plaintiff incorporates his papers in support of a prior Motion for
Class Certification, according to the civil minutes.

"Pursuant to Local Rule 7-5, '[t]here shall be served and filed
with the notice of motion: (a) A brief but complete memorandum in
support thereof and the points and authorities upon which the
moving party will rely; and (b) The evidence upon which the moving
party will rely in support of the motion.' L.R. 7-5. In light of
Plaintiff's failure to comply with Local Rule 7-5, the Court
STRIKES Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification," the
Court says.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=n4G3qmR2


SARATOGA DIAGNOSTICS: America's Health Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned AMERICA'S HEALTH & RESOURCE CENTER, LTD,
an Illinois Corporation, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. SARATOGA
DIAGNOSTICS, INC., THOMAS G. PALLONE and JOHN DOES 1-12, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05608 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "Each person that was sent one or more telephone facsimile
      messages promoting the commercial availability or quality
      of property, goods, or services offered by "Saratoga," but
      not stating on its first page that the recipient may make a
      request to the sender not to send any future ads and that
      the recipient may make this request 24 hours a day, 7 days
      a week";

   2. appointing Plaintiff as the class representative; and

   3. appointing Plaintiff's attorneys as counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gFtG10BR

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Julia L. Titolo, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS
          & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312 658 5500
          Facsimile: 312 658 5555
          E-mail: Phil@classlawyers.com
                  Julia@classlawyers.com


SCHACHTER PORTNOY: Romano Wants Class Cert. Hearing to Continue
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 enters 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, New York 11201
          Telephone: (917) 373 9128


SCOTTS COMPANY: Motion for Preliminary Class Certification Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled RICARDO VASQUEZ and ANTONIO ERVIN, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. THE SCOTTS COMPANY LLC, EG SYSTEMS, INC., TRUGREEN,
INC., and TRUGREEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, the Defendants, Case No.
0:17-cv-60344-DPG (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court for:

   a. preliminary certifying class to include all persons filing
      a consent to join form with the Court;

   b. directing permit and supervise notice to all current and
      former lawn care technicians, who worked for Defendants
      anytime during the three (3) years prior to the Complaint
      being filed;

   c. directing Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs, a computer
      readable date file containing the names, addresses,
      telephone numbers, and emails of all Potential Opt-In
      Plaintiffs within in ten (10) days of the date of the Order
      Granting Notice so that the Notice and Consent to Join
      Forms may promptly be mailed and emailed to all Potential
      Opt-In Plaintiffs in order that they may send in their
      Consent to Join forms on a timely basis (within sixty (60)
      days from the date of mailing);

   d. allowing Plaintiffs to conduct a search for additional
      addresses for any potential opt-in plaintiffs whose address
      may be invalid, or whose notice is returned as
      undeliverable by the United States Post Office and re-
      mail/re-email the Notice to the putative plaintiff's last
      known address;

   e. requiring Defendants to post the Notice in a prominent
      location at each of its lawn care locations; and

   f. granting all other relief to the Plaintiffs the Court deems
      just.

The following individuals have filed Opt-in Notices:

   1. Cleveland Roundtree;
   2. Clinton Seays;
   3. David Cummings;
   4. David Jean;
   5. Friztner Derisme;
   6. Jaurel Moise;
   7. Jeffrety Davidson;
   8. Julio Velez;
   9. Keither Vandervoord;
  10. Matthew Puya;
  11. Omar Vargas;
  12. Osner Exantus;
  13. Oswald Campbell;
  14. Robert Lumbley;
  15. Rudolph Anderson;
  16. Teddrick Moffett;
  17. Thomas Turk;
  18. Wilson Reboyras

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jaEQ96n4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob K. Auerbach, Esq.
          GALLUP AUERBACH
          4000 Hollywood Boulevard
          Presidential Circle-Suite 265 South
          Hollywood, Florida 33021
          Telephone: (954) 894 3035
          Facsimile: (954) 894 8015
          E-mail: jauerbach@gallup-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ryan A. Glasgow, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
          Riverfront Plaza, East Tower
          951 East Byrd Street
          Richmond, Virginia 23219
          Telephone: (804) 788 8791
          Facsimile: (804) 343 4897
          E-mail: rglasgow@hunton.com

               - and -

          Miguel Morel, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          333 SE Second Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400 7500
          Facsimile: (305) 603 2552
          E-mail: mamorel@littler.com


SILVERTREE MOHAVE: "Lewis" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DOMENICA LEWIS et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
SILVERTREE MOHAVE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03581-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
will move the Court for an order certifying a class consisting of:

   "all persons who currently live or have lived at the
   Silvertree-Mohave Condominium Complex in Fremont, California,
   at any time from August 30, 2000, through the present, and
   lived there with children under the age of 14, or who were
   themselves minor children under the age of 14".

The Plaintiffs Domenica Lewis and Jerrold Lewis also seek
appointment as class representatives and seek the appointment of
the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley and Winston& Strawn, LLP as
class counsel. The Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule
23(b)(3) of Plaintiffs' claims under the Federal Fair Housing
Amendments Act, California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
California Unruh Act, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zvPtki9m

Attorneys for Domenica Lewis, Jerrold Lewis, E.L., S.L., and
Project Sentinel;

          Kyra A. Kazantzis, Esq.
          Annette D. Kirkham, Esq.
          Nadia Aziz, Esq.
          Thomas P. Zito, Esq.
          Matthew Warren, Esq.
          LAW FOUNDATION OF SILICON VALLEY
          FAIR HOUSING LAW PROJECT
          152 North Third Street, 3rd Floor
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 280 2411
          Facsimile: (408) 293 0106
          E-mail: kyrak@lawfoundation.org
                  annettek@lawfoundation.org
                  nadia.aziz@lawfoundation.org
                  tom.zito@lawfoundation.org
                  matthew.warren@lawfoundation.org

               - and -

          Constance F. Ramos, Esq.
          Corey D. Attaway, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP
          101 California St., 35th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5840
          Telephone: (415) 591 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 591 1400
          E-mail: cattaway@winston.com
                  cframos@winston.com


SIMON'S LAWN: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Florida Record, reports that a
class-action suit has been filed against a Lee County lawn care
company over allegations it did not pay employees for overtime
work.

Elijah Johnson filed a complaint individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated on March 27 in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division against
Simon's Lawn Care Inc. and AJ Simon alleging violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that he worked
for the defendants from June 2013 to July 2015 as a foreman. The
suit states he was paid a flat rate per day regardless of the
amount of hours he worked.  The plaintiffs hold Simon's Lawn Care
Inc. and Simon responsible because the defendants allegedly failed
to pay the plaintiff for overtime work at a rate of time-and-one-
half for hours worked beyond 40 in one workweek.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendant, retain collective action, designate class
representative and counsel, declaratory and injunctive relief,
overtime compensation due, costs, expenses, interest, and further
relief as the court deems proper. He is represented by Maria R.
Alaimo of Viles & Beckman LLC in Fort Myers.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers
Division Case number 2:17-cv-00171


SP AUSNET: More Than $16MM Denied from Bushfire Victims
-------------------------------------------------------
Pia Akerman, writing for The Australian, reports that Black
Saturday bushfire victims have been denied more than $16 million
from their record-breaking class-action settlements as Maurice
Blackburn prepares for a possible fight against the Australian
Taxation Office.

The firm revealed it was holding back the money while sending out
the last cheques from a $494m settlement for victims of the
Kilmore East-Kinglake fire, telling the Victorian Supreme Court it
had reserved $16.274m for the "most adverse" scenario of losing a
court battle against the ATO, being ordered to pay tax and lodging
unsuccessful appeals.

A $300m settlement for victims of the Murrindindi-Marysville fire
is also subject to tax Maurice Blackburn says was imposed
unexpectedly by the ATO.

The nation's tax chief has expressed surprise that the firm --
which prides itself on its large class-action practice -- did not
act to avoid the tax bill, which previously has been estimated at
$20m for the two settlements.  Amid accusations the firm failed to
do due diligence, Maurice Blackburn's class-action boss
Andrew Watson said the stoush was unlikely to be resolved by July.

"We are still in dispute with the Tax Office," he told judge
Jack Forrest in a brief hearing.

"As a matter of prudence, we thought we should hold back the
maximum amount.

"Any dispute such as this might be resolved by agreement between
the two parties . . .  just by discussions between them or under
the processes of court - assisted mediation. Failing a resolution
in that way, there might be a need for the matter to be resolved
by some form of litigated process."

A spokesman said a further distribution was planned if Maurice
Blackburn won the tax argument.

Concerns about the firm's handling of the case were taken to Tax
Commissioner Chris Jordan after victims of the 2009 disaster
sought federal government help.

At the hearing, lead plaintiff Carol Matthews asked the judge
whether he was "happy" the firm had charged reasonable costs for
distributing the settlements.

"I don't know whether 'happy' is the right word," Justice Forrest
replied.  "I am satisfied so far on the material . . . Whether I
am happy or unhappy with it really isn't to the point at all."

Kinglake survivor Vicki Ruhr and a group of other bushfire victims
have called for Maurice Blackburn to pay the tax bill itself.  The
firm so far has received more than $100m in costs and fees.

"I consider it penalising or affecting adversely the group members
because it's impacting upon our compensation fund," she said.

The case will return to court in June.


SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Gorss Motels Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly - situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. SPRINT
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., a Foreign Limited Partnership, SPRINT
CELLULAR HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, SPRINT
COMMUNICATIONS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and JOHN
DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00546-JAM (D. Conn.),
the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order:

   a. taking the Motion under submission and deferring further
      activity on it until after the discovery cutoff date to be
      set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23 scheduling order, or
      alternatively;

   b. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification
      pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WciBek0L

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plaines, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358 5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571 0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: 847 368 1500
          Facsimile: 847 368 1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


SQUARETRADE INC: Says Request for Forensic Copy Over Reaching
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pam Wright at Legal Newsline reports attorneys continue to square
off in a class action lawsuit brought against California's
SquareTrade Inc. that alleges the company deceived consumers with
a fraudulent protection plan sold on Amazon.com.

On March 20, attorneys for the San Francisco-based company
responded to a request from attorneys for plaintiff Adam Starke,
who filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and others in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to preserve a
forensic copy of its storefront seen by consumers on Amazon's
website, saying it was not in possession of any storefront data
found on the website.

The motions come in connection to a December 2016 class action
suit brought by Starke, who alleges the company sold "fraudulent
and deceptive marketing of protection plans for consumer
electronics through SquareTrade's 'storefront' on Amazon.com."

Starke says he suffered financial damage after being duped into
purchasing a protection plan for a CD player purchased from
SquareTrade via Amazon that was "vastly different and far more
generous" from what he received when he tried to repair the
player. He claims SquareTrade "sells protection plans for products
on Amazon.com that are ineligible for coverage."

On March 15, Starke's attorneys, Mark Schlachet, Esq. --
markschlachet@me.com -- of Law Offices of Mark Schlachet in
Cleveland, Solomon N. Klein, Esq. -- sklein@solomonklein.com -- of
Law Office of Solomon N. Klein in New York and Bradley J. Nash,
Esq. -- bnash@schlamstone.com -- of Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP in
New York, requested that a "forensic copy" of the company's
storefront be preserved as evidence.

Attorneys for SquareTrade responded that the company was not in
possession of the storefront because Amazon is a third-party
website with its own data.

"SquareTrade does not have -- and has never had -- possession,
custody, or control of the Amazon website, the code by which
Amazon Web pages are generated, or the servers that host Amazon's
website," wrote SquareTrades' attorneys in their response.

SquareFront attorneys further contend that the plaintiff is
"overreaching" and is capable of accessing the storefront on
Amazon.com of his own accord.

"If plaintiff wishes to shoulder the burden and expense of
accessing the Amazon site and downloading all this data from
Amazon, he is free to do so," the attorneys noted. [GN]


ST. JOHN REGIONAL HOSPITAL: CA$2.375MM Settlement Granted
---------------------------------------------------------
CBC reports the controversial class-action lawsuit involving
nearly 1,200 cancer patients who were given diluted chemotherapy
drugs was approved on April 7 afternoon.

Superior Court Justice Gregory Verbeem gave a detailed decision
outlining why he felt the CAD2.375-million settlement was fair.
Some of the patients involved in the lawsuit had criticized the
deal, saying they deserved more than the CAD1,500 each of them
would receive.

"The science didn't support any damages really, but we were able
to convince the defendants to pay us something," said Mike
Peerless, a lawyer for the victims. "There, for sure, wasn't going
to be a better settlement. There was going to be this settlement
or no settlement."

Majority supported settlement

Patients in Windsor, Ont., London and New Brunswick were given
lower than intended doses of cyclophosphamide and gemcitabine
during treatments in 2012.

When the error was identified in 2013, a class-action lawsuit was
launched by Sutts, Strosberg LLP and McKenzie, Lake Lawyers LLP.

The victims packed a Windsor courtroom in January, imploring
Justice Verbeem to reject the CAD2.375-million figure as
inadequate because it only provided victims with a small sum.
Colleen Campbell was one of the family members who opposed the
decision. She lost her husband and her sister to cancer. Both were
among the 1,200 patients in Ontario and New Brunswick who were
given the lower-than-intended doses.

But the number of people who opposed the settlement made up just a
small portion of the 1,200, Peerless told CBC. About 95 per cent
of the families supported the amount.

"The vast majority completely understood," he said. "There were
just a few -- who were vocal and who got a lot of (news) coverage
because of it -- who were upset."

The ruling issued by Superior Court Justice Gregory Verbeem in the
diluted chemotherapy drug class action suit. [GN]


TRUSTPOWER: Anger, Questions Over Flood Turns to Legal Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Shand at Stuff reports with nothing but the clothes on their
backs and heads full of questions, Edgecumbe are evacuees sit
waiting for answers -- and they are angry.

Some question why the stopbank wall collapsed, why water was not
released from the Matahina Dam earlier and why did all the systems
designed to protect their homes fail? Others wonder when
their insurance will pay out. They are the lucky ones. Many didn't
have insurance.

But all are asking who is responsible and who is liable.

Whakatane Regional Council community board member Graeme Bourk
wants answers about why Edgecumbe flooded.

Whakatane Council community board member Graeme Bourk planned to
organise a community gathering to bring a class action lawsuit
against whoever is found to be responsible.

"There are a lot of angry people here wanting answers," he said.
"I'm glad they are on my side. I wouldn't want to go up against
them."

Bourk said if a class action were to go ahead, it would be done to
help those without insurance to recover some of their belongings
and rebuild their lives.

"I'm one of the lucky ones," he said. "There are people here who
have lost everything. We're going to hold everyone to account."
By everyone, he means Trustpower, which owns the Matahina Dam,
Pioneer Energy, which owns the Aniwhenua Dam, and the Whakatane
Regional Council, which manages the stopbanks.

Bourk was at ground zero when the College St stopbank collapsed on
April 6. He believed a chain of errors built up.

"A [regional council contractor] digger and a truck were there
putting metal up against the foundations to bolster it. As soon as
the digger moved the load up to the wall, the whole thing
collapsed and two metres of water came flying in.

"They were just doing their job. But they [regional council]
should have engineers there. It was an extreme situation to be
in."

He felt the council failed to assess the seriousness of the
situation and sought to put a Band-Aid solution on too-large a
problem. Furthermore, cracks had been appearing in the stopbank
wall for years and he believed it needed to be reinforced earlier.

Bourk said the last-minute effort to bolster the wall was just one
part of a long chain of errors by council and the power company.
If any one of those errors had not been made, the stopbank might
not have collapsed, he said.

"Trustpower is saying there was nothing more than could be
done, but that's nonsense," he said.

"The Aniwhenua Dam [another dam on the Rangitaiki River] was empty
at the time of the flood. Why wasn't water put in there?"

The Aniwhenua Dam is operated by Pioneer Energy Ltd. CEO Fraser
Jonker said the dam was undergoing maintenance at the time of the
flood but operated under its flood management procedure once the
weather worsened.

Jonker said the dam has very little storage facility.
"Even if we changed our flood procedure, which you should never
do, at the time, I do not think it would have made a difference,"
he said.

"At this stage, as CEO, I am confident my people did the right
thing."

Bourk adds that dam water should have been let flow out of
Matahina Dam earlier, knowing the storm was coming, to help
alleviate the pressure on the river and, failing that,
intentionally breaching the stopbanks elsewhere, which might have
saved the town. Also, regional council should have opened Reid's
Canal, a floodwater system installed after the flood of 2004,
earlier, to relieve pressure on the stopbank wall.

Whakatane Mayor Tony Bonne said what happened in Edgecumbe was a
"design failure" and the root causes of the flood will be
investigated.

Bonne was able to answer some of the questions put by Bourk.
He said he was aware the Aniwhenua Dam was empty and he, too,
questioned that when he was given a flyover of the flood zones.
The answer was that it wouldn't have stopped the flood.
"It can't store much water," he said. "It's a very small dam."
When asked if the digger action could have contributed to the
collapse of the stopbank wall, he only replied: "My understanding
is they were reinforcing the wall."

Regarding Bourk's questions about the Matahina Dam, he said it was
letting water out of the spill gates leading up to the flood,
which lessened the impact of the flood. For more technical
questions, he deferred to Bay of Plenty Regional Council flood
manager Roger Waugh.

"The stopbank wall fell over quick and we still do not know why,"
Waugh said.

"The wall had been there for decades and went through the 2004
event. It was a foundation failure. We had seepage in parts
underneath the wall. We do not know why this occurred."

Waugh said Trustpower and regional council, the controllers of the
dam, had released the Matahina Dam to its lowest level leading up
to the flood and said in doing so, reduced the impact of the flood
by 100 cubic metres.

In a statement from Trustpower chief executive Vince Hawksworth,
"As stated by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, the Matahina Dam
was emptied in advance of the flood to provide as much storage
capacity available.

"The storage available in the Matahina Dam, during a major flood
event, is only a fraction of the total volume of water contained
within the flood.  Therefore, it is not possible to stop any
significant flood event; rather, it is matter of using what
storage is available to reduce downstream flows during the peak of
the flood event -- and this is what was achieved.

"The available storage was then utilised through the event to
reduce peak outflows, reduce risk downstream particularly during
hours of darkness, and to assist the Bay of Plenty Regional
Council in their effort to manage the impacts of the event.

"This was an unprecedented weather event. Ex-cyclone Debbie
rainfall levels were very high -- on the Rangitaiki, sites logged
between 200-300mm in 48 hours.

"If the storage in Matahina Dam had not been used, 20 per
cent more water would have flowed down the river at the peak of
the flood.

Waugh said the river was currently flowing at 400 cubic metres per
second. At the peak of the event, it was 750 to 830 cubic metres
per second.

"If we hadn't used the dam, we would have had over 900 cubic
metres coming through," he said.

When the breach occurred, he estimates 100,000 litres a second
were pouring into the town.

"We were here thinking of our plan to stop it," the council's
regional works engineer Tony Dunlop said.

He sent the contractor out to organise it, went half a minute down
the road, when he got the call it was breached.

The police had already begun asking people to self-evacuate. "They
had minutes," Bonne said.

"It's the old story -- if it had happened during the night, there
would have been deaths."

Many of the evacuees, however, swap stories of the 2004 flooding
and what was different about this flood and now. Fred Mansell said
it was blind luck that saved the town in 2004, as a natural
stopbank breached, which eased pressure off the town wall as water
spilled into farmland. He, too, has questions.

"The river was about the same height, but then the wall held," he
said. "They should have breached the river somewhere else to save
the town."

Mansell said he was not aware of any upgrades to the wall since
the 2004 event.

"The wall was seeping through but it held. The didn't do anything
to fix it. They should have made it thicker or stronger somehow."
Waugh countered that by saying an intentional breach in the
stopbank would not be good practice.

"If we were to do that, the flood would become uncontrollable," he
said.

With public meetings being held with evacuees over the next few
days, the residents hope they will be able to get some more
concrete answers to their questions and hopefully identify anyone
liable to bring the class action suit against.

For now, their immediate thoughts are getting back into their
homes to discover how much damage the flood has caused.

"No one died," Bourk said. "But people are really affected and
have lost pets. I think when people go back in and see what has
happened, this town will start to boil over. It will be very
emotional and people will want to know who is liable." [GN]


ST. STEPHENS: Faces Class Action Over Negligence of Cemetery
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dolan, writing for WLKY, reports that attorneys from three
law firms have filed a class-action lawsuit against a Louisville
cemetery and the people who run it.

WLKY News obtained a copy of the class-action complaint filed on
April 1 in Jefferson County Circuit Court.  Attorney Jacob Levy --
jlevy@grayandwhitelaw.com -- of Gray & White Law said the
paperwork was processed on April 3, and once the defendants
associated with St. Stephen's Cemetery are served, they will have
21 days to respond.

Among the most serious complaints by plaintiffs and members of the
proposed class is that those who run St. Stephen's Cemetery
"engaged in grossly negligent behavior, including losing records
related to the location of bodies, burying bodies in improper
locations, failing to follow Kentucky cemetery laws for the proper
interment of bodies or cremated remains and failing to provide
headstones and other burial services, in violation of the Kentucky
Consumer Protection Act."

The class-action lawsuit names several defendants, including the
St. Stephen's Cemetery Association, individual members of the
board of directors, and the former caretaker.  A representative of
the cemetery told WLKY that officials listed as responsible for
negligence and mismanagement of the property previously stepped
down.

"We're trying to get the best results for everyone affected by
this horrible situation," Mr. Levy told WLKY.  "We are working to
organize a time and date for all of the plaintiffs to meet to
discuss what will happen moving forward."

WLKY first reported in early March on the desecration of graves on
cemetery grounds.  Days later, cemetery historian Jack Koppel
stepped in to take over the board.

Mr. Koppel told WLKY that he immediately fired the caretaker and
helped organize volunteer clean-up days for the cemetery.
Mr. Koppel also told WLKY that records were missing from the
cemetery's first half-century of operation beginning with the
first burial in 1851.  He said more recent books are poorly
maintained.

Plaintiff Robin Hardin Thomas said it appeared that families were
on their way to getting answers.  Mr. Thomas said some were told
that they would be issued full refunds for services and products
that were not received.  But Mr. Thomas said it wasn't long before
communication between cemetery officials and families came to a
halt.

The victims started a private Facebook group which Thomas said
allowed them to share complaints and begin privately investigating
each allegation.

Mr. Thomas said they recently contacted several attorneys who
agreed to team up and take the case.  She said it has been a
grueling process, but one that she's confident will be settled in
court.

WLKY contacted the Kentucky attorney general's office, which
confirmed that it is conducting its own investigation into
complaints against the cemetery.  Louisville Metro Councilwoman
Barbara Sexton Smith is also aware of complaints and said she's
looking into the cemetery's history.


SWISS-AMERICAN PRODUCTS: Sunscreen SPF Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Trader, writing for Law360, reports that health care
products maker Swiss-American must face a proposed class action
claiming it falsely labeled its sunscreen with a higher sunburn
protection value, after a New York federal judge rejected the
company's argument that a majority of the claims were preempted by
federal law.

Lead consumer Eli Dayan alleged in a December 2015 complaint that
Swiss-American Products Inc. violated the federal Magnusson-Moss
Warranty Act and more than 40 state consumer protection laws by
selling its EltaMD UV Aero sunscreen with a label indicating it
had a sunburn protection factor, or SPF, of 45, when in reality
the value was closer to 18.  The company responded by arguing that
he'd not stated a valid claim under the MMWA, and that his state
law allegations were preempted by the federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act.

In January, U.S. Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon partially
agreed, recommending that the MMWA claim be dismissed but that the
remainder of the state law claims be kept alive.  On March 31,
Chief U.S. District Judge Dora L. Irizarry concluded that the
magistrate's reasoning was sound, and adopted those suggestions in
their entirety.

The magistrate had determined that express preemption did not
apply because Dayan's state law claims "seek to hold defendant
liable for failing to label properly the product's SPF value,"
which was a standard identical to, not more than, what is required
under the FDCA.

With regard to the implied preemption challenge, the magistrate
had reasoned that although the state law allegations touch on
areas regulated by the FDCA and require reference to the FDCA's
rules, "plaintiff's state law claims sit next to federal
regulations and are not premised on defendant's alleged failure to
comply with FDCA requirements."

On March 31, District Judge Irizarry said one of the problems with
Swiss-American's arguments in its bid to reject the recommendation
was that it was attempting to broaden both the scope of Dayan's
claims and the doctrine of implied preemption.

The crux of Dayan's allegations is that the sunscreen was
advertised as having an SPF value of 45 when in fact it has a
lower, less protective number, thus deceiving consumers, Judge
Irizarry noted.  Based on that starting point, Dayan's claims can
in fact sit alongside the federal Food and Drug Administration's
SPF labeling regime, the judge said.

"Though admittedly a tricky distinction, the magistrate judge
concluded correctly that the allegations plaintiff articulates are
not entirely dependent on the FDCA because they would exist as
traditional common law tort claims even if the FDCA had never been
enacted," the judge wrote.

"The complaint does not articulate a per se challenge to
defendant's testing or labeling; instead, the allegation that the
SPF value is not correct is used only to substantiate plaintiff's
claim that plaintiff was deceived because the sunscreen did not
protect him to the degree that was expected.  In this way,
plaintiff's claims sound in traditional state tort law."

In his complaint, Dayan alleges that after realizing the sunscreen
he'd purchased was ineffective, he decided to have it tested by a
laboratory, which is how he discovered the SPF discrepancy.
Swiss-American though had challenged the claims on the grounds
that it too had tested the sunscreen, and its test results showed
the product was indeed SPF 45.

Magistrate Judge Scanlon in the January recommendation rejected
Swiss-American's argument that Dayan had failed to state a
plausible claim for relief, ruling that while its tests may
ultimately prove more persuasive in the end, it was not the
court's role to decide so in a motion to dismiss.

On March 31, District Judge Irizarry again concluded that the
magistrate's reasoning was correct.

"Ultimately, the magistrate judge concluded that, for plaintiff's
claims to survive at this stage, it was sufficient for him to . .
. allege that the product falsely advertised itself as SPF 45 when
its SPF is lower than that, and . . . submit tests that he alleges
were conducted in compliance with FDA regulations that he claims
substantiate his allegations.  The court agrees," Judge Irizarry
wrote.

Joseph Lipari of The Sultzer Law Group, an attorney for Dayan,
said they viewed it as an important decision on preemption "and
are pleased with the court's finding that the claims are not
expressly preempted because they parallel and are consistent with
FDCA requirements and that they are not impliedly preempted
because they touch on areas regulated by the FDCA but are not
premised on a failure to comply with FDCA requirements."

Counsel for Swiss-American on April 4 did not immediately return a
request for comment.

Mr. Dayan is represented by Joseph Lipari, Jean Sedlak and Jason
P. Sultzer of The Sultzer Law Group.

Swiss-American is represented by Jennifer L. Bloom, Joseph J.
Saltarelli and Patrick L. Robson of Hunton & Williams LLP.

The case is Eli Dayan v. Swiss-American Products Inc., case number
1:15-cv-06895, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.


TAURUS PROCESSING: Faces Suit Over TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformadi at Northern California Record reports a Seal Beach
man alleges a marketing and research company unlawfully contacted
him.

Chris Milosch filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on April 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Taurus Processing and Does 1
through 10 citing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in July
2016, the defendant contacted him to solicit its services. The
plaintiff holds Taurus Processing and Does 1 through 10
responsible because the defendants allegedly kept on calling the
plaintiff using an automatic telephone dialing system despite his
request to stop calling. He also alleges his number is registered
on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks USD500 in
statutory damages, USD1,500 in treble damages, and any other
relief as the court deems just. He is represented by Todd M.
Friedman, Esq. -- tfriedman@toddflaw.com -- Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
-- abacon@toddflaw.com -- and Meghan E. George, Esq. --
mgeorge@toddflaw.com -- of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman P.C. in
Woodland Hills. [GN]


TESLA MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal of Unintended Acceleration Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reports that Tesla Motors Inc.
on March 31 told a California federal court to dismiss about half
of a proposed class action accusing the automaker of building cars
that are prone to sudden and unintended acceleration, saying the
consumers' warranty claims are baseless because they deal with a
design defect that's not covered by warranty.

Ji Chang Son, an Orange County resident and South Korean actor,
sued Tesla in late December after he and a passenger were hurt as
his Model X SUV crashed through his garage.


TEVA PHARMA: Conspired to Jack Up Price of Diabetes Medication
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy at Law360 reports four independent pharmacies filed a
proposed class action against Teva Pharmaceuticals, Heritage
Pharmaceuticals and other drugmakers in Pennsylvania federal
court, claiming the companies conspired to jack up the price of a
generic diabetes medication to "astounding" levels.

The pharmacies, which are based in New York, Florida and
Mississippi, say that Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc., Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Citron Pharma LLC and Aurobindo Pharma
USA Inc., as well as two former Heritage executives, conspired to
fix, raise and maintain the price of generic glyburide from April
2014 through the end of 2015.

Glyburide is an oral medication used to treat high blood sugar
caused by Type 2 Diabetes and has been on the market as a generic
since the mid-1990s. Until April 2014, when it became about 200
percent more expensive, its price was relatively stable, the
pharmacies said.

Top executives at Heritage have already admitted parts of the
scheme, the pharmacies said, pointing out that on Jan. 9, former
company CEO Jeffrey A. Glazer and ex-senior vice president of
commercial operations Jason T. Malek pled guilty to federal
charges. As part of the plea, each admitted that Heritage
conspired to raise the price of generic drugs and illegally
conspired with other drugmakers toward that end.

The pharmacies said they have email and phone records that provide
direct evidence of a conspiracy, specifically showing that Malek
and Glazer originally proposed the idea of illegal price
coordination between Heritage and its competitors and that
Aurobindo and Teva later signed on.

The drugmakers then took various measures to avoid detection,
including coordinating private dinners and meeting in-person at
trade group conferences -- a common allegation in the slew of
generic drug price-fixing lawsuits pending across the nation, the
pharmacies said.

Heritage also had no document retention policy and executives
often reminded each other to delete emails that included any
potentially incriminating information, the pharmacies said. For
example, in June 2015, after it became known that the Connecticut
attorney general and the U.S. Department of Justice were
investigating the generic pharmaceuticals industry, Malek sent a
text that mentioned a certain email that was never produced in
response to a subpoena. The pharmacies believe it was among those
that were deleted.

The price hikes directly affected the approximately 22,000
independent pharmacies in the U.S. and their customers because
patients who mostly pay out of pocket sometimes chose to stop
buying their medication or to ration their doses. In other cases,
pharmacies, who buy drugs from wholesalers and have no meaningful
ability to negotiate prices, were forced to pay inflated amounts
while reimbursement rates lagged or didn't adjust accordingly,
causing the drugstores to lose money, the pharmacies said.

An April 2016 study, for example, showed that one pharmacy
dispensing 73 different generics would pay USD8,063 for 70 of
those drugs, but would be reimbursed USD6,957 under Optum health
plans, a loss of USD1,105. Similarly, the same pharmacy would lose
USD423, USD250 and USD237 on drugs covered by Humana, CVS/Caremark
and Medco health plans, respectively, because of the lagging
reimbursement rate, the pharmacies said.

The pharmacies -- Falconer Pharmacy Inc. of Falconer, New York,
Halliday's & Koivisto's Pharmacy of Jacksonville, Florida,
Russell's Mr. Discount Drugs Inc., of Lexington, Mississippi, and
Southside Pharmacy Inc., of Jamestown, New York -- are seeking to
represent two classes. One is a national class of independent
pharmacies who indirectly bought glyburide products during the
class period, while the other comprises all individual pharmacies
who indirectly bought the generic drugs in certain states and
Washington, D.C.

The complaint alleges unjust enrichment and violations of the
Sherman Act, state antitrust laws in 23 states and D.C., and
consumer protection laws in nine states.

Neither side could be immediately reached for comment on March 6.

The pharmacies are represented by Alexandra Warren --
awarren@cuneolaw.com --, Jonathan W. Cuneo -- jcuneo@cuneolaw.com
-- Joel Davidow -- jdavidow@cuneolaw.com -- Peter Gil-Montllor --
pgil-montllor@cuneolaw.com -- and Blaine Finley --
bfinley@cuneolaw.com -- of Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP, Arthur
Bailey -- artlaw@windstream.net -- of Arthur N. Bailey &
Associates and Don Barrett -- dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com -- and
Katherine B. Riley -- kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com -- of Barrett
Law Group PA.

Counsel information for the defendants was unavailable on April 6.

The case is Falconer Pharmacy Inc., et al., v. Aurobindo Pharma
USA Inc., et al., case number 2:17-cv-01543, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. [GN]


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


TGI FRIDAY'S: High Court to Decide on Drink Prices Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a
$9 Mojito or an $8 Margarita.  Different prices for a beer served
at a restaurant's bar instead of the same beer served at the
table.  When those price differences are not disclosed on a
restaurant's menu, which often don't list drink prices at all, can
those nondisclosures be the basis for class-action suits?

The New Jersey Supreme Court will soon give an answer.  The court
on April 4 heard arguments over whether restaurants violate state
consumer-protection laws when they fail to list mixed drink or
beer prices on their menus.

The cases are Dugan v. TGI Friday's and Bozzi v. OSI Restaurant
Partners, the parent company of defendant Carrabba's. OSI
Restaurant Partners is now a subsidiary of Bloomin' Brands Inc. of
Tampa.  TGI Friday's is a unit of Sentinel Capital Partners LLC.

In the TGI Friday's case, lead plaintiff Debra Dugan claims she
was charged $2 for a beer at the bar of the chain's location in
Mount Laurel, then paid $3.59 for the same beer at a table in the
restaurant. It was after she received the check when she realized
the menu did not list drink prices, her suit claimed.

Burlington County Superior Court Judge Marc Baldwin granted a
motion for class certification, and TGI Friday's appealed.  In a
published decision in March 2016, the appeals court found that the
plaintiffs couldn't demonstrate that common fact questions
predominate over individual ones in determining ascertainable
loss, a necessary element to a Consumer Fraud Act claim.

In the Carrabba's case, plaintiff Ernest Bozzi, a patron at a
Maple Shade location of the restaurant, was charged two prices for
beer depending on the time of purchase, and claimed he was given
no notice of a happy hour discount.

Burlington County Superior Court Judge Karen Suter granted
certification, and the Appellate Division declined to disturb the
ruling.

The court is considering whether class certification was properly
granted on plaintiffs' claims that failing to list prices for beer
and mixed drinks on the menu violates the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act and the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice
Act.  In the TGI Friday's case, the court also is considering
whether charging different prices for the same beverage, depending
on where in the restaurant it is served, can be the basis of
claims under the CFA and the TCCWNA.

Dugan's attorney, Sander Friedman, said TGI Friday's was engaged
in "a price-gouging scheme" after doing an internal study of its
outlets.  The company, he said, did a survey of its restaurants
that listed its drink prices and those that didn't, and found that
customers at the restaurants that listed drink prices spent $1.72
less.

"This was an unconscionable commercial practice," said Friedman,
who runs a firm in West Berlin. "They were making big profits on
widespread, but minimal, fraud."

The attorney for both TGI Friday's and OSI Restaurant Partners,
former U.S. District Judge Stephen Orlofsky, urged the court to
reject class-action status for both lawsuits.

"This is not about price gouging," said Judge Orlofsky, of the
Princeton office of Blank Rome.  In the case of TGI Friday's,
there is no evidence that the restaurant used its internal study
of menus with prices and menus without prices to determine its
menu-pricing policies.

"It's not even clear that these folks even saw the menu," Judge
Orlofsky said.

There is nothing in law that requires the restaurants to post
their drink prices, Judge Orlofsky said, adding that if there was
such a law, they would do so.

Bozzi's attorney, West Berlin solo Donald Doherty Jr., said the
class actions should be allowed to continue.

"[Bozzi] was cheated by a cheater," Mr. Doherty said.  "There's no
reason not to put a price on a menu."


TIBET PHARMACEUTICALS: Director Averts Class Action Over 2011 IPO
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin O'Sullivan and Rick Archer, writing for Law360, report that
a New Jersey federal judge has allowed a director of a Tibetan
pharmaceutical company to escape an investor class action alleging
the company lied about its financial health ahead of a 2011
initial public offering, saying investors waited too long to serve
him a copy of the suit.

Investors in 2013 added Tibet Pharmaceuticals Inc. director
Youhang Peng to their suit alleging that the company
misrepresented its finances by overstating its assets and
concealing adverse court decisions ahead of a $16.4 million IPO,
but did not serve him until nearly three years later. U.S. Judge
John M. Vazquez on March 31 dismissed Mr. Peng from the suit,
saying investors, who claim they were initially unsure whether Mr.
Peng lived in China or Texas, hadn't tried hard enough to serve
him.

"The court sees no basis upon which it should exercise its
discretion to extend plaintiffs' time to serve Peng," Judge
Vazquez said.

Investors first filed the suit in 2012 in Virgin Islands federal
court, alleging that Tibet Pharmaceuticals, a British Virgin
Islands holding company that controlled a Chinese company that
manufactured and sold modernized traditional Tibetan medicine, had
misled investors in its IPO registration statement.

Investors said Tibet, Mr. Peng and other directors concealed that
the company had defaulted on $4.54 million in loans from the
Agricultural Bank of China and that a Chinese court had permitted
the bank to seize all of its assets.

The bank began to auction off Tibet's Chinese assets on Feb. 17,
2012, and the auction was announced in a Chinese Web post the same
day, according to court records. Tibet responded to the
announcement 10 days later with a news release calling the report
untrue, according to the suit.

The NASDAQ halted trading of Tibet's shares on April 2, 2012, and
delisted the stock on April 27 after Tibet failed to provide
requested information.

The case was transferred to New Jersey in May 2014 and the
shareholders were granted certification in February 2016.

The shareholders are represented by Laurence M. Rosen and Sara
Fuks -- sfuks@rosenlegal.com -- of The Rosen Law Firm PA.

Mr. Peng is represented by Scott Cargill, Michael Tremonte and
Justin J. Gunnell of Sher Tremonte LLP.

Counsel information for Tibet Pharmaceuticals was not available on
April 3.

The case is Robin Joachim Dartell et al. v. Tibet Pharmaceuticals
Inc. et al., case number 2:14-cv-03620, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.


TIME WARNER: Judge Denied Bid for Class Certification in "Manigo"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Lois A. Manigo, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
Time Warner Cable, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
06722-JFW-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. John F. Walter entered an
order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KW2thloo


TORONTO-DOMINION: Khang & Khang Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP disclosed a class action lawsuit against The
Toronto-Dominion Bank ("TD" or the "Company") (NYSE:TD). Investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between December 3,
2015 and March 9, 2017 inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the Firm in advance of the May 11, 2017 lead
plaintiff motion deadline.

If you purchased TD shares during the Class Period, please contact
Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang LLP, 18101 Von Karman
Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834,
or by e-mail at -- joon@khanglaw.com

There has been no class certification in this case. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.
According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, TD made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
the Company's wealth asset growth and increased fee-based revenue
was spurred by a performance management system that led to its
employees breaking the law at their customers' expense in order to
meet sales targets; that TD illicitly increased customers' credit
lines and overdraft protection amounts without their knowledge;
that the Company illicitly upgraded customers to higher-fee
accounts without their permission; that the Company lied to
customers about the risk of its products and services; and that as
a result of the above, TD's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit at no charge, or if
you have any questions regarding this notice or your rights,
please contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two
decades, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at --
joon@khanglaw.com [GN]


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Soy-Based Wiring
------------------------------------------------------
Susan Hogan and Meredith Royster, writing for NBC Washington,
report that a class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of
thousands of Toyota owners who say rodents are eating car wires
coated with soy-based materials, causing thousands of dollars in
damage.

"Toyota incorporates soy- or bio-based ingredients in the wiring .
. . that bait rodents -- including rats, squirrels and other
animals," the lawsuit says.  Honda is facing a similar suit.
In an effort to reduce waste, some car manufacturers wrap wires in
a soy-based material.

Rupert Welch of Falls Church, Virginia, was surprised to learn
what caused his car trouble three times over the course of a few
weeks.  Rodents had a feast at his expense, causing $10,000 in
damage.

"I took the car back, but the next day all the lights went on, and
the car wouldn't start, and I had to call a tow truck,"
Mr. Welch said.

Some car owners want the auto manufacturers foot the bill for the
repairs.

"I think it was well intentioned when they went to soy-based
insulation, but I think they have to rethink their strategy here,"
Mr. Welch said.

The lawsuit filed against Toyota includes vehicles manufactured
between 2012 and 2016.  Honda's lawsuit includes vehicles produced
between 2012 and 2015.

"Toyota is refusing to repair these cars under warranty, and these
are also expensive repairs," said Benjamin Johns, the attorney
representing the class action.  "There are real damages here, and
we're trying to get, at a minimum, these kinds of repairs covered
by the warranty."

Honda would not comment on the pending litigation, but a
spokesperson said, "The facts that rodents are drawn to chew on
wiring in homes, cars or anywhere else significantly predates the
introduction of soy-based wiring by several decades."

Toyota also said it can't comment on the pending lawsuit but did
say "rodent damage to vehicle wiring occurs across the industry
and the issue is not brand- or model-specific."

Mr. Welch said his mechanic wrapped tape around his wires as a
deterrent.  He also read peppermint spray works and the rodents
seem to be keeping their distance.

The average cost of repairing chewed wires is $1,200.  Most
insurance companies pay for it, but the car owner is stuck with
the deductible.


TWITTER INC: Settles Privacy Class Action for $5.3 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
David Kravets, writing for Ars Technica, reports that Twitter,
Yelp, Instagram, Foursquare and a few other apps are agreeing to a
$5.3 million settlement to an invasion-of-privacy class action in
which the companies' apps were accused of accessing the address
books of iOS users without their knowledge or consent. About 30
percent of the deal likely will go to the lawyers who sued--about
$1.59 million.  The remainder is earmarked for the estimated 7
million members of the class. If distributed evenly, that's about
53 cents for each class member--and within the ballpark of
distribution ratios of other Silicon Valley privacy class-action
settlements.

The lawsuit was filed in 2012 and alleged that the apps engaged in
"unconscionable, illegal practices" because iOS users' contacts
"have now been accessed and stolen."  The suit originally claimed
that "each" class member was entitled to hundreds, if not
thousands, of dollars in damages.  The suit was filed after The
New York Times and others reported of the privacy breaches, which
even attracted the attention of Congress and the Federal Trade
Commission.

If the deal is approved by a San Francisco federal judge, payments
will be sent to the Amazon accounts of class members. Checks will
be sent to those who insist upon that method of payment.
Unclaimed funds will go to the civil rights group the Electronic
Frontier Foundation.

In urging US District Judge Jon Tigar to approve the deal, one of
the leading attorneys on the case defended the arrangement and
said it "compares favorably on a per head basis" with other
Silicon Valley privacy settlements.

Attorney David Given noted the recent $20 million settlement over
the unauthorized use of 124 million Facebook users' likenesses in
"sponsored stories" advertisements.  He also pointed out a $9
million deal, affecting 62 million class members, concerning
Google divulging users' search terms.  And finally, there was an
$8.5 million settlement, affecting 37 million class members,
concerning Google Buzz allegedly violating Gmail users' privacy.
What Given did not note, however, was that the lawyers in those
cases were awarded millions in fees and expenses.

In arguing for judicial approval, Given said the lawyers put in a
lot of time and energy in the case.  Plus, he said, a trial could
delay payments to class members.  The settlement agreement, Given
wrote, "is the product of protracted and adversarial litigation,
spanning five years".  He said "continuation of this litigation
would be risky, expensive, and create substantial delay in
recovery to class members."

He told the judge that some class members may be entitled to more
than others.  "The settlement allocates payment based on the
number of people who submit claims and the number of Apps each
claimed," he wrote.

The apps divvying up the $5.3 million are: Foodspotting,
Foursquare, Gowalla, Instagram, Kik, Path, Twitter, and Yelp. When
iOS address books were accessed without permission varies by app.
But the date range is generally between 2010 to February 2012.
The "Find Friends" feature had to have been activated.

A settlement hearing is set for 2:00 p.m. PDT on May 25 in Judge
Tigar's courtroom.  A lawsuit related to Apple's alleged
involvement is pending.


TWO WAYS REST: Faces "Aydinoglu" Suit Over FLSA & NYLL Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Esin Aydinoglu, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Two Ways Rest., Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02450 (S.D. N.Y., April 5, 2017)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, back wages, unpaid overtime
pay and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law.

Defendants willfully failed to pay all Plaintiffs and other Class
Plaintiffs for time which Class Plaintiffs are required to be at
work and ready to work and performing work but were paid below the
minimum wage in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiffs were also not
paid the overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 each
week. Defendants also deducted money from Plaintiff's pay for days
they were sick or absent, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs worked as a Server at the Defendant's restaurant.

Defendant Two Ways operated a restaurant called the Evergreen
Diner located at 145 West 47th Street, New York, New York 10036.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Jesse C. Rose, Esq.
   3109 Newtown Avenue, Suite 309
   Astoria, NY 11102
   Tel: (718) 989-1864
   Fax: (917) 831-4595


UBER: Faces New Class Action Suit Over Driver Cheating Software
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Smith at BGR reports Uber has a lot of spring cleaning to
do, considering the many distinct scandals it has to deal with.
And things aren't looking up for the "taxi" company, as a new
lawsuit brings up an astonishing new claim. Apparently, Uber uses
a "sophisticated" software that allows it to cheat on both the
driver and the passenger.

According to the new class action suit found by Ars Technica,
Uber's software manipulates navigation data used to determine the
"upfront" fare price, showing the customer a higher price than the
rider.

This way, Uber can charge the rider more for a fare, while the
rider gets paid from the cheaper, faster route.
What allegedly happens is that the customers are shown certain
routes when hailing an Uber. But that route is slower and longer
than what the rider sees.

"The manipulation of prices between the amount charged to Users
and the amount reported to drivers is clever and sophisticated,"
the suit alleges.

"The software utilized in determining the upfront price is
specifically designed to provide a route distance and time
estimate based on traffic conditions and other variables but not
to determine the shortest/quickest reasonable route based on those
conditions."

However, the software apparently comes up with a better route the
driver gets to see.

"Meanwhile, the software utilized in the driver's application,
which navigates the drivers to the User's destination, utilizes
traffic conditions and other variables to provide the driver with
a more efficient, shorter, or quicker route to the User's
destination, resulting in a lower fare payout to the driver."

A second benefit would be that the driver would get to pick a new
fare faster with such a feature in place.

Uber's "upfront" pricing scheme was introduced in September. At
the time, the company informed drivers that the algorithm takes
into account distance and time to calculate a fare.

The suit further claims that the driver is paid the lower rate and
Uber gets to keep "the difference charged to the User and the fare
reported to the driver, in addition to the service fee and booking
fee disclosed to drivers."

If any of this is true, the implications are enormous, and could
further escalate conflicts between drivers and the company. Not to
mention that Uber clients won't be too happy to learn the company
has been cheating on them for a while now. [GN]


ULTRATECH INC: Rigrodsky & Long File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., has filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of holders of Ultratech Inc. ("Ultratech")
(NASDAQ:UTEK) common stock in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Ultratech by Veeco Instruments Inc. and Ulysses
Acquisition Subsidiary Corp. (collectively, "Veeco") announced on
February 2, 2017 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
Ultratech, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Veeco, is
captioned The Vladimir Gusinsky Rev. Trust v. Ultratech Inc., Case
No. 3:17-cv-01468 (N.D. Cal.).

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

http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/ultratech-inc-utek.
On February 2, 2017, Ultratech entered into an agreement and plan
of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Veeco.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, Ultratech shareholders will receive USD21.75 per
share in cash and 0.2675 of a share of Parent common stock for
each Ultratech common share in a transaction valued at
approximately USD815 million (the "Proposed Transaction").
Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy
statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2017.  The Proxy
Statement, which recommends that Ultratech stockholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits material information
necessary to enable shareholders to make an informed decision as
to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction, including material
information with respect to Ultratech's financial projections, the
opinions and analyses of Ultratech's financial advisor, and the
background of the Proposed Transaction.  The Complaint seeks
injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders
of Ultratech common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 5, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and
Garden City, New York, regularly prosecutes securities fraud,
shareholder corporate, and shareholder derivative litigation on
behalf of shareholders in state and federal courts throughout the
United States. [GN]


UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Alderman" FDCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
James Alderman, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United Collection Service,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-14115-RLR (S.D. Fla., April 5,
2017) seeks to recover damages and an award of attorneys' fees for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendant sought to collect from Plaintiff an alleged debt
incurred by Plaintiff for personal, family or household purposes
more specifically, the debt at issue was for transportation in an
ambulance.

Defendant's voice message fails to provide meaningful meaningful
disclosure of its identity in violation of Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, says the complaint.

Defendant United Collection Service, Inc. is a Florida Corporation
engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts, which
operates from offices located at 106 Commerce Street, Suite 101,
Lake Mary, Florida 32746. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
   Desmond Law Firm, P.C.
   5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
   Vero Beach, FL 32963
   Tel: 772-231-9600
   Fax: 772-231-0300
   Email: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com


US PHYSICAL: May 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Physical Therapy,
Inc. ("U.S. Physical Therapy" or the "Company") (NYSE: USPH) and
certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased
U.S. Physical Therapy securities between May 8, 2014 through March
16, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/usph.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

On March 16, 2017, U.S. Physical Therapy revealed that it had
discovered an accounting error.  The Company stated that "it was
determined that the Company's historical accounting for redeemable
non-controlling interests of acquired partnerships was incorrect
due to the fact that those partnership agreements contain a
provision that makes the non-controlling interests mandatorily
redeemable and, thus incorrectly classified."  U.S. Physical
Therapy also said that "[m]anagement has concluded that this error
will result in the reporting of a material weakness in internal
controls over financial reporting as they relate to this issue and
that, as a result, ineffective internal controls over financial
reporting. The error will require the restatement of previously
issued financial statements."  Following this news, U.S. Physical
Therapy stock has dropped as much as $7.75 per share, or 10.51%,
during intraday trading on March 16, 2017.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/usphor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.  If you suffered a loss
in U.S. Physical Therapy you have until May 30, 2017 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of its clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Certifies Class in "Basile" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. David O. Carter entered an order in the lawsuit styled
ANTHONY BASILE ET AL. v. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICAL INTERNATIONAL,
INC., ET AL., Case No. 8:14-cv-02004-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.):

   -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
      and

   -- denying without prejudice the Defendants' motion to dismiss
      for failure to join parties.

Plaintiffs State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, Iowa Public
Employees Retirement System, and Patrick T. Johnson bring a
putative class action for violations of securities law against
Defendants Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P., PS Management
GP, LLC, William Ackman, PS Fund 1, LLC, Pershing Square, L.P.,
Pershing Square II, L.P., Pershing Square GP, LLC, Pershing Square
International, Pershing Square Holdings, Ltd., Michael Pearson,
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., and Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International.

In their motion, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class consisting
of:

     All persons who sold Allergan common stock contemporaneously
     with purchases of Allergan common stock made or caused by
     Defendants during the period February 25, 2014 through
     April 21, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period") and were
     damaged thereby (collectively, the "Class").

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c2ZqiGFD



VISA CANADA: Court Prohibits Fee to Stay Rival Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judy van Rhijn, writing for Law Times, reports that inflexible
disputes over cross-jurisdictional carriage issues have seen firms
resort to paying fees to competing firms in order to stay rival
class actions to avoid litigation.

With this practice now earning the ire of the courts, lawyers are
looking for other ways to move their class proceedings forward.

One thing is clear to the class actions bar -- if courts want
lawyers to change their practices, they need to be prepared to
back them up, say lawyers.

"A true copycat case is filed not for the benefit of the class but
rather so a lawyer can get a fee by creating chaos," explains
Reidar Mogerman -- rmogerman@cfmlawyers.ca -- of Camp Fiorante
Matthews Mogerman in Vancouver, who was involved in the recent
case of Bancroft-Snell v. Visa Canada Corporation 2016 ONCA 896,
acting for the appellants.

"If class counsel move aggressively to stay anything that looks
like a 'ransom' case, then courts should aggressively back up any
counsel fighting something that looks like a ransom case," says
Mr. Mogerman.

In Bancroft-Snell v. Visa Canada Corporation, released in late
2016, the Ontario Court of Appeal prohibited class counsel from
making a payment from settlement funds to another class action
firm for the purpose of staying a rival action.

The Court of Appeal found that the agreement in question was not
in the best interests of class members.

"If class counsel see it in their best interests to resolve
carriage disputes by agreeing privately, amongst themselves, to
remunerate one set of class counsel for leaving the scene, that is
a matter for their private business determination.  But they
should bear the cost of that business decision as well, in my
view," said the ruling by Justice Robert Blair, with two other
judges agreeing.

"The class members ought not to be exposed -- either directly or
through some form of 'potential carriage dispute mark-up' built
into the contingency fee negotiated with the class members -- to
having to pay for what is essentially a general business expense
of the firm associated with the litigation and not an expense
providing any added value to the class action itself."

The case arose when a group of merchants challenged the
competitiveness of the Visa and MasterCard credit card networks in
Canada.

Three law firms formed a consortium to litigate a national class
action.  Some time later, Merchant Law Group LLP filed its own
class actions in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

"We actually argued the carriage motion in Alberta," recalls
Mr. Mogerman.

"We argued that it was a true copycat case and asked for an order
staying Merchant's case.

"We tried to litigate it, but we were sent to judicial mediation."

The mediation resulted in a fee-sharing agreement that provided
that the Merchant Law Group would receive $800,000 (plus
disbursements) out of the fees awarded to the consortium in future
settlements in exchange for staying its rival class actions.

"We had to stay through contract, which meant money had to change
hands," says Mr. Mogerman.  This agreement was approved by the
judge in Alberta and accepted in Saskatchewan, but it fell foul of
the Ontario courts.

"The courts have made it clear that they really don't like it when
financial arrangements between rival counsel benefit themselves
and not class members," says Wendy Sun -- wsun@agmlawyers.com --
of Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP, who did not act in the case.  "The
settlement approval process is set up to protect class members who
are ultimately going to receive the settlement."

Ms. Sun saw this played out in the Visa/Mastercard case.

"The court really didn't find class counsel had any bad faith.
They were looking out for the class, but the result was not in the
best interests of the class," says Sun.

Brian Radnoff -- bradnoff@lerners.ca -- of Lerners LLP says this
ruling was "a clear decision on what is and is not appropriate.
It adds clarity to deal with these carriage agreements.

"It's helpful in that respect, but it puts plaintiff's counsel in
a difficult position," he says.

"It doesn't help with the underlying problem of
multijurisdictional class actions."

Mr. Radnoff disagrees that these fee payments are of no benefit.

"The Court of Appeal said the agreement doesn't help the class at
all, which I find a bit narrow," he says.

"Anything that resolves the dispute more quickly may be of
enormous assistance to the class."

Sun points out that fee-sharing arrangements for staying competing
claims are still possible.

"Class counsel can still enter into them," she says.  "They are
not stopped from doing so, but if it is to be paid out of the
settlement, the court will not hesitate to intervene."

Linda Visser, a partner with Siskinds LLP's class action
department, who did not act in case, considers the question of
payment an artificial distinction.

"It still comes out of the firm's resources. They are paying out
of their right pocket or out of their left pocket," she says.

However, she feels that firms will be more reluctant to pay in
light of Bancroft-Snell.

"They could point to the case to say, 'I properly should not be
doing it,'" she says.

Class action counsel must now ask themselves if they are willing
to pay out of their own pockets to stay a rival case.

"It might be worth it. It might happen," says Mr. Mogerman.

"In this particular case, we are still considering the
implications of paying it ourselves. We will respect the
decision."

More generally, Mr. Mogerman says, the decision whether to pick up
the tab for a fee agreement will depend on each individual case.

"On a sliding scale, some competing cases truly are copycat cases.
Our firm would not pay a fee in that circumstance, particularly
after this decision.  There are circumstances that are more grey,"
he says.

"There may be two lawsuits, both striving for leadership.  We
would pay in that case and I would ask the court to approve
payment through a class counsel fee request.  That's the easiest
end of the spectrum."

Ms. Visser says fee payment by class counsel depends on the
circumstances, "such as who's bringing the case and how much they
have developed it," says Ms. Visser about her firm's potential
approach.

"If the rival case started one week before, and they want to
contribute and work together, perhaps we would enter into a fee-
sharing agreement," she says.

"If it's two years later, just before settlement, and they now
conveniently commence an action of their own, the class counsel
who are legitimately pushing the case will be more reluctant to
work with those who aren't and more reluctant to cut a deal."

Ms. Visser says what she expects is that there will be "fewer
firms bringing other firms into the fold, and only firms that
provide a meaningful contribution."  That, she says, is a "good
thing."

"Hopefully, we will have a result that only people who are serious
about the case will proceed.  That serves access to justice and
avoids unnecessary costs," she says.

Mr. Radnoff, who did not act in the case, says the alternative to
a fee arrangement, namely fighting a lot of carriage motions, is
difficult.

"First, litigation is uncertain, second, it's expensive and third,
it will normally delay the class action until the issue is
resolved," he says.

Ms. Visser says that, "generally, a carriage motion is not a great
thing to have.

"It distracts from trying the actual case and it gives defendants
a chance to watch plaintiff lawyers poke holes in each other's
cases, which is not an ideal thing," she says.

Mr. Mogerman stresses that if lawyers change their practices, then
judges must as well.

"The courts repeatedly tell us settlement is better," he says.

This reluctance on the part of judges to rule that an application
is a ransom case is at odds with the judicial admonishment to
litigate rival claims, he says.

"Judges avoid even finding whether it's a ransom fee," says Ms.
Visser.

"They are reluctant to make a determination because it's a
reputational issue. They don't want to tarnish anyone without full
facts."

Mr. Radnoff says these types of agreements are "now off the
table."

"So, if courts tell counsel they prefer you resolve it other than
through a judicial decision, tell the judge it's difficult to do
that now," he says.  Mr. Mogerman says he agrees with "the
sentiment of the decision."

"One does not want copycat cases. One does not want ransom fees. I
hope the decision will encourage firms to fight true copycat cases
and courts to back firms up," he says.

Tony Merchant of Merchant Law LLP indicated he did not want to
provide comment on the matter.


VITAL RECOVERY: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled STEVEN DOMBROWSKI, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. VITAL
RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00497-LA
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for 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=RH4b0Ne2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VIVENDI: Settles Remaining Shareholder Class Claims for $26.4MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vivendi (Paris:VIV) on April 6 that it has signed an agreement to
settle the remaining claims still in dispute with certain class
plaintiffs in the securities class action litigation initiated in
the United States in 2002, finally putting this long-standing case
to rest.

Vivendi will pay USD26.4 million under the agreement, representing
approximately one-third of the total USD78 million it will pay to
resolve the entire litigation, including the judgments previously
entered.

The resolution of this litigation will result in a net reversal of
provision of approximately EUR25 million in Vivendi's 2017
financial statements. Given that the provision had been already
been deducted for tax purposes, this reversal will be taxed in
2017.

The settlement is subject to final approval of the court. [GN]


W. ROSS MACDONALD: Settlement Could Result in Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Ruby at Parisstar reports Bob Seed said he's overcome
with relief over a tentative agreement that could result in
compensation for former visually impaired, blind and deafblind
students at W. Ross Macdonald School who were allegedly abused
over a span of more than 60 years.

"I'm over the moon," said Seed, a former W. Ross Macdonald student
and plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit brought against the
Province of Ontario, which operates the school. "It's a huge
burden lifted off my shoulders."

For years, Seed said he has been consumed by the lawsuit, which
addresses allegations of "physical, sexual, and mental abuse and
harm" to former students.

It was announced that a tentative deal between the province and
lawyers in the class-action had been reached. If approved by the
court, the USD8-million settlement would be used to provide
compensation to eligible students who were harmed while at the
Brantford school between Jan. 1, 1951 and May 4, 2012, the
Ministry of the Attorney General said in a statement released.

The settlement must now be approved by the court after notice is
provided to the class members. The court will hold a settlement
approval hearing in the coming months at the Superior Court of
Justice in Toronto.

A common issues trial in the case was set to start. Instead both
sides agreed to a settlement.
Allegations, which have not been proven in court, include both
"student on student and staff on student" abuse, said Jody Brown,
of the Toronto law firm Koskie Minsky LLP, which was appointed by
the court as "class counsel."

According to the law firm, the lawsuit says that the province was
negligent in the management and operation of the school, resulting
in systemic physical, sexual, and mental abuse and harm to the
former students. The province denies the claims.

Brown said among the allegations are students being hit, kicked
and pushed and of inappropriate sexual touching of students by
staff members, and of staff members watching students in showers.
Seed, who came to W. Ross Macdonald in 1954 when he was eight and
left when he was 19, said physical assaults would include staff
beating, shoving, throwing books and other equipment at students,
making students drink from urinals, and grabbing children by the
hair.

Seed said he was hit several times by a teacher and another staff
member made sexual advances toward him.

"When I was in Grade 8 there was a teacher who was very abusive,"
said Seed. "He went ballistic when I couldn't answer a math
question. I thought I would be killed.

"He would throw Braillers and books at kids. He put terror into
us."

Seed said there was a "boot camp mentality" at the school at the
time and he lived in fear. He felt that reporting the abuse would
result in retaliation by staff against him.

Like many students at the residential school, Seed lived there 10
months of the year, returning home to Thunder Bay only in the
summer.

Brown stressed that the allegations are isolated incidents
involving a number of staff members, who have since died.
"It happened a lot at these residential-type of facilities where
there were inherently vulnerable children extremely isolated from
their family connections."

Seed, who said there were also staff who were nurturing and
supportive when he attended W. Ross Macdonald School, decided to
proceed with the lawsuit in 2011 and has spent years travelling to
Toronto to meet with lawyers. He said he also spent countless
hours contacting former W. Ross Macdonald School students and
listening to their stories, many of which he said are more
horrific than his own.

"It takes a lot out of you," said Seed, now 71. "At the end of the
day I might get nothing out of this but knowing their plight will
be dealt with in a fair and just way makes me pretty happy."

Brown called the settlement a compromise that provides "a pot of
money" and the opportunity for people to make claims in a
"simplified procedure rather than drag it out in trial.

"Individuals will not be cross-examined and have confidential,
intimate details of their life paraded in front of the court."
According to Brown, the amount of benefits that class members can
receive will depend on the level of harm suffered. If the court
approves the proposed settlement, class members will have to
submit a claim form to receive benefits.

Brown said the potential number of class members is 1,200 to 1,500
but the number who opt to participate will be "significantly
smaller."

He said the law firm was in contact with more than 200 people who
had "varying degrees of experiences" at the school. [GN]


WENDY'S CO: Loses Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy H. Koo, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that the Wendy's
Co. must face class claims filed by 26 financial institutions over
a data breach that compromised customers' payment card data, the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania held
March 31 (First Choice Fed. Credit Union v. Wendy's Co., W.D. Pa.,
No. 16-506, 3/31/17).

Adopting Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly's Feb. 13
recommendations, Judge Nora Barry Fischer denied Wendy's bid to
dismiss the class action.

According to the financial institutions' class complaint, between
Oct. 22, 2015 and March 10, 2016, credit card data, including
account holder's name, account number and expiration date was
exposed due to the vulnerabilities in Wendy's data security
systems.  Using malware, hackers were able to steal Wendy's
customers' credit and debit card data, the complaint said. The
banks are seeking to recover the costs of canceling and reissuing
the compromised cards and reimbursing customers for fraudulent
charges.

Named plaintiff First Choice Federal Credit Union is represented
by Murray Law Firm; Berman Fink Van Horn PC; Carlson Lynch Sweet &
Kilpela LLP; Zimmerman Reed LLP; Pittman, Dutton & Hellums PC;
Roberts Law Firm PA; and Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP. Wendy's is
represented by Alston & Bird LLP.


WEST COAST: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Noddy Fernandez at Florida Record reports that a warehouseman
claims he was not paid at the appropriate rate for overtime work
by his former Dade County employer.

George Laurence Lazo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a complaint on March 29 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida against West
Coast Trucking Corp. and Manuel Quintero alleging that they
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that between
December 2011 and January 2017, he worked on average 60 hours a
week without being paid the extra half-time rate for hours worked
over 40 hours in a week.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks double damages
and reasonable attorney fees, court costs, interest and any other
reasonable relief. He is represented by J.H. Zidell of J.H. Zidell
PA in Miami Beach.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Case
number 1:17-cv-21165 [GN]


WINS FINANCE: Faces Shareholder Suit
------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Wins
Finance Holdings Inc. securities (WINS) from October 29, 2015
through March 29, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Wins investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Wins class action, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-
1010.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free
at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Wins did not maintain a U.S. headquarters; (2) Wins had
intentionally misrepresented its headquarters to gain inclusion on
the Russell indexes; (3) Wins was not in compliance with SEC
regulations; and (4) Wins failed to maintain adequate internal
controls. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
June 5, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-
1010.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq.
of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com --.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm.

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


WISE FOODS: Sued Over Claims of Half Empty Pack of Chips
--------------------------------------------------------
Dannielle Maguire, writing for Pickle.nine.com.au, reports that
finally, the court system is tackling one of the biggest
injustices known to mankind -- the lack of actual chips in a chip
packet.

Champions of integrity Sameline Alce and Desire Nugent have filed
a lawsuit against Wise Foods Inc, the maker of a popular US potato
chip brand.

They decided to bring on a consumer class action against the
company on behalf of all those poor souls who have opened a packed
of chippies only to find mostly air.

In August last year, Alce bought a pack of Wise Golden Original
chips "for personal consumption" and, according to the claim, was
"financially injured" as a result of Wise's "deceptive conduct".
It's claimed the bag was "less than half full of chips and
contained significant non-functional slack-fill".

Nugent suffered the same blow after buying a pack of Wise Honey
BBQ chips.

And rather than just laying back and taking it, these heroes did
something.

They went above and beyond complaining about the half-empty chip
packets with a meme: they consulted lawyers, did the legwork and
submitted a 49-page document, published by Buzzfeed US, to the
courts.

In fact, they demanded this matter be brought before a damn jury.
They are not mucking around.

As yet, we haven't heard a response to these claims from Wise
Foods in relation to the matter, but it's assumed they will rely
on a U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulation that stipulates
it is not misleading for companies to leave space in packaging to
protect their product.

As many of us know, chip packets are puffed up with air to protect
the golden shards of potato inside.

And, as Mental Floss explains nitrogen gas is pumped into the
packets to help the chips to stay fresh, as oxygen would cause the
treats to spoil.

Nugent and Alce acknowledge that some air is needed, but they say
Wise Foods has gone above and beyond what is needed to ensure the
protection of the delicious potato flakes.

"When consumers purchase a package of defendants' products, they
are getting less product than they bargained for, effectively they
are tricked into paying for air because the products contain large
amounts of non-functional slack-fill," it is claimed.

"The products are misbranded regardless of any disclosures about
contents settling and regardless of whether or not weight is
labelled accurately."

We weren't able to find out much about these noble plaintiffs,
only that Alce is New York City and Nugent is from Washington D.C.
Whatever their stories are, they seem to be quite passionate about
this issue. [GN]


ZIMBABWE REP: Crowdfunding Campaign Raises Funds for Legal Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
William Chiu at Techzim reports a local crowdfunding campaign that
started about March 24, 2017, has raised over ZWD8,000 to date in
order to get legal action taken against the Zimbabwe Republic
Police and their police roadblocks for the "restoration of our
constitutional rights through a class action lawsuit in the
Constitutional Court."

What makes interesting reading here is the use of an online
platform, CitizenJustice.org, to harness all payments and the
resultant 'success' thus far to any local online campaign. There
have been other campaigns, though targeted on a compassionate
level and this would be the first 'class action' that a number of
people want to get involved in.

The platform being used, leverages PayNow as well as all local
mobile network money payment solutions (Ecocash, Telecash and
OneWallet), removing any barriers that one may have in order to
get in on the campaign.

The crowdfunding platform is targeted at legal cases, allowing
litigants to place their case and possibly get people in on
helping with the costs of the legal suit. The campaigns are few,
as of now there are 4, but hopefully the costs of one pursuing a
legal matter will not be a hindering factor going forward.

Cases such as suing mobile network operators, but of a class
action nature where a number of people may be affected, are what I
can think of. Calls dropped, airtime disappearing, overcharging or
even slow network speeds are a few examples.

Disclaimer: Citizen Justice is a project started by Tafadzwa
Mugabe and others who provides us legal counsel and representation
in a number of matters. This post has not been sponsored in any
way but we see value in the solution being offered. [GN]


WINS FINANCE: June 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC , a shareholder rights firm, on April 5 announced a
class action lawsuit against Wins Finance Holdings Inc. ("Wins
Finance" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: WINS) concerning possible
violations of federal securities laws between October 29, 2015 and
March 29, 2017 inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period
should contact the firm prior to the June 5, 2017 lead plaintiff
motion deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian
Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at
888-713-1033, or e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com.

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

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Wins
Finance issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding its projected earnings, valuation, and future business
operations, which artificially inflated its securities prices.  It
is alleged, for example, that Wins Finance falsely stated it
maintained a U.S. headquarters in order to gain inclusion on the
Russell indices when its headquarters are actually located in
China, among other market manipulations during the Class Period.
When this information was released to the public, shares of the
Company declined in value.

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


WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS: Faces Class Action Over Salmonella Outbreak
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Chicago man has served a class action lawsuit against Wonderful
Pistachios, saying the nuts seller and Sam's Club should be made
to pay for a Salmonella outbreak allegedly tied to contaminated
pistachio nuts.

On March 29, Alejandro Reyes, through attorney Thomas H. Zimmerman
and others with the Zimmerman Law Offices, of Chicago, filed suit
in Cook County Circuit Court against the California-based
Wonderful company and retailer Sam's Club, alleging they were
negligent in selling nuts contaminated with the illness-causing
bacteria, and for not warning consumers the raw nuts could be
contaminated.

Mr. Reyes asked the court to expand the lawsuit to potentially
include thousands of other plaintiffs in Illinois who may have
purchased the contaminated pistachios and, like himself, may have
fallen ill after eating the nuts.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Reyes purchased a bag of Wonderful
Pistachios at a Sam's Club in Chicago in December 2015.

Mr. Reyes then took the pistachios home, where he ate some. Soon
thereafter, the lawsuit said, Mr. Reyes became ill with abdominal
pain, diarrhea and other symptoms consistent with Salmonella
infection.  However, after recovering several days later,
Mr. Reyes purportedly ate more of the pistachios, and again became
ill with the same symptoms.

The complaint notes the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the
Centers for Disease Control and state public health agencies, in
early 2016, traced a Salmonella outbreak in various places across
the U.S. to allegedly contaminated pistachios produced by
Wonderful.

The complaint asks the court to approve two potential classes of
additional plaintiffs: Everyone in Illinois who developed symptoms
consistent with Salmonella infection within 72 hours of consuming
Wonderful Pistachios, and everyone in Illinois who bought
Wonderful Pistachios at a Sam's Club store, and then became ill
within 72 hours of eating the nuts.

The complaint requests unspecified damages, including actual
damages sustained by those who allegedly were sickened by the
alleged contaminated pistachios, and attorney fees.


* "Right of Publicity" Class Actions Hit Data Aggregators
---------------------------------------------------------
Justin o. Kay and Zoe k. Wilhelm, writing for Akron Legal News,
reports that when one thinks of a "right of publicity," one's
thoughts might reasonably first turn to actors and athletes, and
the protections afforded to their images and likenesses because of
their perceived unique economic value.

Case law is replete with examples of lawsuits invoking such
protections on behalf of celebrities, and the lawsuits themselves
are often front page news: The dispute between retired
professional basketball player Michael Jordan and Dominick's Finer
Foods over the use of Jordan's identity, which resulted in a jury
award to Jordan of $8.9 million, is one recent example.

Celebrities are not the only potential plaintiffs in such suits,
however.  Ever in search of new causes of action (particularly
ones authorizing the recovery of statutory damages), plaintiffs'
class-action attorneys have started bringing purported class
actions under right of publicity statutes on behalf of ordinary
citizens, alleging that the purported use of their names, images
and likenesses without consent runs afoul of the law.

Targets of these suits have included social media platforms, apps
developers and most recently, data aggregators.  We can expect
more industries to find themselves targeted as the plaintiff's bar
pushes the envelope and uses the class-action device to leverage
and expand the law in ways legislatures likely never envisioned.

The statutes

Around 32 states recognize a right of publicity.  Of those, about
two-thirds recognize the right under the common law, while the
remainder enacted a statute to recognize the right.  The Illinois
Right of Publicity Act, enacted in 1999, is representative:
Illinois' Right to Publicity Act recognizes that an "individual's
identity" (defined as "any attribute of an individual that serves
to identify that individual to an ordinary, reasonable viewer or
listener, including but not limited to (i) name, (ii) signature,
(iii) photograph, (iv) image, (v) likeness or (vi) voice") is a
property right, and that such identity cannot be used for
"commercial purposes" (i.e., for fundraising; in advertising or
promotions; or in connection with the sale of any products,
merchandise, goods or services) without the "previous written
consent" from the individual or his or her representatives.

Notably, the act provides for the recovery of actual damages or
profits from the unauthorized use (or both) or statutory damages
of $1,000, whichever is greater; the recovery of punitive damages
in the case of willful violations; and attorney fees.

Other states with similar statutory damages demands include
Alabama (actual damages or $5,000), Indiana ($1,000 or $3,000 for
willful violations), Ohio (not less than $2,500, not more than
$10,000), Texas ($2,500 and the profits from the unauthorized
use), and Washington ($1,500).

Recent filings

Over the past several months, the plaintiffs' class-action bar has
been testing the Illinois act's limits and other right of
publicity statutes.

For example, in a purported class action filed in February 2016 by
Edelson P.C. on behalf of plaintiff Christine Dancel against
Groupon in the Cook County Circuit Court's Chancery Division, the
plaintiff alleged that Groupon violated the act by using the
photographs and likenesses of individuals who "tagged" their
photographs on Instagram with the name of the restaurant or store
featured in the Groupon offering.

In early October, the court granted in part and denied in part
Groupon's motion to dismiss, striking plaintiff's claim for
punitive damages without prejudice, but otherwise permitting the
case to go forward.

In another purported class action filed in August of last year by
Edelson in the Northern District of California, the plaintiff
alleged that Hey Inc. and Twitter violated the recently enacted
Alabama Right of Publicity Act when Twitter permitted Hey Inc. to
access and import the identities (including names and photographs)
of Twitter uses without their consent to facilitate Hey Inc.'s
trading-card-type app.

Twitter moved to dismiss the complaint in November, arguing that
the court lacked Article III jurisdiction, and that the First
Amendment, the Communications Decency Act and Twitter's terms of
service (which included a consent provision) barred the
plaintiff's claims.

After the motion was fully briefed, and the day after the initial
case management conference, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
case, only to refile several weeks later in Superior Court in San
Francisco.

On Feb. 22, Twitter moved to dismiss the complaint, reasserting
its arguments that the First Amendment, the Communications Decency
Act and Twitter's terms of service bar plaintiff's claims.

And on Jan. 23, the Edelson firm filed another purported class
action in the Cook County Circuit Court's Chancery Division,
alleging that Everalbum's photo storage service violated the
Illinois act when, without the permission of the users, it sent
allegedly deceptive advertisements to the users' contacts falsely
claiming that the users had "recommended" that their contacts
should "check out your photos on Ever."

On March 1, Everalbum removed the case to federal court in the
Northern District of Illinois.

The recent spate of filings against data aggregators began last
October (perhaps not coincidentally) shortly after the complaint
against Groupon survived the motion to dismiss when Illinois
resident Michael Siegel filed a putative class action against
Intelius Inc., now known as PeopleConnect Inc. in the Cook County
Circuit Court's Chancery Division.

The suit alleged that Intelius is in the business of providing an
online directory containing large amounts of personal information
about individuals in the United States, and that one of the ways
in which Intelius generates business is through internet search
engines: entering a person's name in the search engine generates,
among other things, a link to Intelius' website offering limited
information about that person, along with the option to purchase
more comprehensive information.

Siegel claimed that in so doing, Intelius violated the publicity
act and sought to represent a class of "all Illinois residents
whereby Intelius made public use of, or held out their identity in
connection with the sale, advertising or promotion of Intelius
products" since 2011.

After removing the case to the Northern District of Illinois,
Intelius filed in mid-January a motion to dismiss, arguing the
court lacked personal jurisdiction over Intelius, but
alternatively and in any event, the First Amendment, the
Communications Decency Act and Illinois' act barred Siegel's
claims. Several days later, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
his case.

The day after Siegel filed his notice of voluntary dismissal, the
Edelson firm filed its own putative class action complaint against
Intelius on behalf of Anna Dobrowolski, also in the Cook County
Circuit Court's Chancery Division, also asserting a violation of
the publicity act, that was also shortly thereafter removed by the
defendant to the Northern District of Illinois' district court.

Contemporaneous with this new filing against Intelius, Edelson
also filed three additional suits in the Cook County Circuit
Court's Chancery Division -- one on behalf of Dobrowolski and two
on behalf of another plaintiff, Nicole Vinci -- against Instant
Checkmate, Beenverified and Spokeo.

The theory in these four new filings is that paid advertisements
stating "We found [the person's name]" on search engines like
Google are auto-generated using dynamic keyword insertion, and
that the insertion of the searched-for person's name is designed
to draw attention to informational products for sale and is
therefore violating the Illinois act.

On Feb. 1, a fifth case asserting nearly identical allegations was
filed against Whitepages.com by Kevin Klingler, represented by a
different law firm.

In late February, Intelius, Instant Checkmate, Beenverified,
Spokeo and Whitepages all removed their respective cases to
federal court.  The case against Whitepages was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff shortly after it was
removed. The other cases remain pending.

What's next

Over the past several years, class actions pursuing right of
publication claims have met with varied success.  On the one hand,
there are cases like Perkins v. LinkedIn Corp., filed in the
Northern District of California in 2013, which alleged, among
other things, violations of California's common-law right of
publicity based on LinkedIn's use of members' identities and e-
mail addresses.

The LinkedIn case survived two motions to dismiss asserting
arguments similar to those asserted by Twitter and Intelius and
received in February 2016 court approval of a $13 million class-
wide settlement.

On the other hand, there are cases like Vrdolyak v. Avvo Inc.,
filed in the Northern District of Illinois in 2016, which alleged
that Avvo's listing of attorney profiles ran afoul of the Illinois
act, but which was dismissed with prejudice based on the court's
view that Avvo's actions constituted noncommercial speech
protected by the First Amendment.

Many of the same arguments presented in the motions to dismiss
these two cases are now being made (or are expected to be made) in
the most recent spate of right of publicity cases, and if these
recent filings withstand motions like the case against LinkedIn,
we expect to see further litigation testing the boundaries of
right of publicity statutes.

Justin O. Kay is a partner at Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. He
focuses on defending complex civil matters in federal court, state
court and before federal agencies.  He is a member of the firm's
class actions practice and Telephone Consumer Protection Act
practice.  Zoe K. Wilhelm is an associate at the same firm. She
has a broad litigation practice, with an emphasis on cases
involving privacy-based claims, corporate governance disputes and
consumer class actions.


* Canada's Anti-Spam Law May Spark Class Actions
------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Brown, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that
in-house experts say class action lawyers are rubbing their hands
together and counting the days until phase two of Canada's
Anti-Spam Law comes into effect July 1, ushering in the much
feared private right of action.

The PRA means an individual or organization that feels they have
been affected by a contravention of the legislation can litigate
to enforce the new private rights.

"I have met with a couple of the plaintiff class action firms who
are counting the number of sleeps until July 1," said
Peter Clausi, executive vice president corporate affairs and
general counsel at GTA Resources and Mining Inc.  "I think they
are going to wind up being the Wade Boggs of litigation -- they're
going to go to the hall of fame hitting singles."

Mr. Clausi was speaking on April 3 as part of a panel entitled Get
Smart: Conquering CASL and the New Private Right of Action at the
Canadian Corporate Counsel Association's national conference in
Toronto.  He doesn't think there will be multiple multi-million
dollar settlements, but does predict there will be "strike suits"
given the standard that the plaintiff has to meet which is "almost
nothing and then damages are assumed.

"I have never seen a greater dichotomy between the pervasiveness
of the legislation and the lack of knowledge about it than with
CASL," said Mr. Clausi.  "We all think we've complied with CASL
but I can pretty much guarantee you that there's no one in the
room in compliance with CASL today.  It is a horrible, pervasive,
invasive piece of legislation. It ought to keep you awake at
nights."

Mr. Clausi first started following CASL in 2011 and "thought they
were kidding."  He stayed on top of the legislation and in July
2014 when CASL came into effect he saw the enforcement start to
roll in.

He went on to say that the biggest risk in any business is
actually every single person in that business who sends commercial
electronic messages.  "Every commercial electronic message you
send is subject to CASL and odds are you are not in compliance,"
he said.

CASL is not covered on cyber insurance riders and Mr. Clausi
pointed out that there is no insurance policy yet available in
Canada to cover CASL violations, further compounding the concern
that it is coming into force in a matter of months.

"Without an insurance policy it's coming out of your equity," he
cautioned the audience of in-house lawyers.  "I know two insurance
companies working on it and they're struggling to get the wording
right.  From a businessperson's perspective I find that a
compelling reason for the PRA to be delayed. Not every business
can afford to have it come out of its equity."

In terms of trying to prepare for the PRA, the task should be
shared by a number of stakeholders including HR and risk
management.

"This is not an IT problem, this is not a law problem.  The person
who should be worried about this is the person responsible for
risk management.  They have to pull in human resources. You have
to update policies and train employees and stress test the
system," he said.

The software updates section of CASL scares Mr. Clausi the most. A
section of the legislation says you can't install software on
someone else's device without prior consent.  You are also not
allowed to have software that "broadcasts" information without the
person's consent.

What really has Mr. Clausi uneasy about the pending PRA is
software applications on phones.  Apps that can access contacts on
phones or GPS could be a problem.

"If you're in a company that has your own app or an app developer,
this might bring down your entire business," he said. "The instant
that app squirts the least bit of data back to the mother ship
that's a CASL breach."

Heather Innes, former general counsel with General Motors, said
the CRTC has "many investigations underway.

"What I've heard is if you are pulled into an investigation,
whatever the ultimate outcome you will have spent thousands of
hours trying to manage the investigation and respond to the
inquiries made by the CRTC.  It is rigorous," she said.

So far several companies and one individual have been fined for
alleged CASL violations.  In September Kellogg Canada entered into
an undertaking agreeing to pay $60,000.  Dating site Plenty of
Fish paid $48,000 for a violation in 2015 and the largest fine to
date was $1.1 million in the Compu-Finder violation.

Most of the transgressions have been simple including unsubscribes
didn't work or didn't have proof of consent.

"You can see that they mean business," said Ms. Innes.  "They are
going to fine and even where people have simply made mistakes and
promised to undertake to correct the mistakes and move forward
which seems harsher than what most of us expected.  These are
companies that make good faith, often robust efforts to comply
with CASL but something didn't work in the early days."

William Abbott, assistant general counsel and privacy ombudsman
with Bell Canada, suggested the CRTC should consider a delay or
suspension of statutory damages until after the statutory review
of CASL in July.

"I know the minister's office is considering that now," he said.

To avoid such violation organizations will need to have good
compliance programs with detailed record keeping.

"It's not enough to do the right thing.  Document it and
understand the importance of consent including the fact people
took training. Gather consents and keep them squirreled away,"
said Mr. Abbott.

"We know for sure they're going to enforce, that they're watching,
investigating and focusing on complaints.  We know no organization
is too small, they will go after individuals who make mistakes or
who don't know about the law," said Innes.

She advised that there be one or more people in a marketing
department responsible for all marketing campaigns. At GM one
person had to test every unsubscribe link before any marketing
email campaign was implemented.

"The big takeaway is if you're issued a notice of violation you
jump in during the first 30 days and get submissions into the
CRTC.  It can make a big difference on the penalties imposed upon
you," said Ms. Innes.


* Class Action Spending by Companies Continues to Increase
----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Coutroulis, Esq. -- ccoutroulis@carltonfields.com -- and
Julianna Thomas McCabe, Esq. -- jtmccabe@carltonfields.com -- of
Carlton Fields, in an article for JDSupra, report that class
action spending by companies across industries increased for the
second consecutive year, reversing a downward trend that occurred
between 2011 and 2014.  While the percentage of companies managing
at least one active class action declined, returning to historic
levels, companies perceived that the magnitude of their potential
exposure and risk increased.

These were among the findings of the sixth annual Carlton Fields
Class Action Survey released March 6.  The law firm's survey,
which is based on interviews with general counsel or senior legal
officers at 373 companies operating in more than 25 industries,
strives to help in-house counsel identify and manage the risks and
costs of class action litigation.

This year's survey revealed that companies faced different volumes
of class actions in different practice areas than in past years.
In 2016, labor and employment matters displaced consumer fraud as
the most common type of class action defended.  Labor and
employment cases accounted for 37.7 percent of class actions, a
notable increase from 2015, when the percentage was just 24.1.
This occurred as wage and hour claims surged, particularly in
California.

Although data privacy class actions were highly anticipated for
several years, they remained a small percentage of matters
overall.  And just 11.1 percent of companies now predict that
these matters will form the next wave of class actions.  This may
reflect the proactive steps many organizations have taken to
prepare for and address possible data breaches, and the fact that
plaintiffs have encountered difficulty establishing damages in
these cases.

Companies instead predicted that wage and hour filings will
continue to increase and, along with Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA) cases, will form the next wave of class actions.  The
TCPA provides statutory damages for each unwanted call, text, or
fax by a defendant who runs afoul of its requirements.  As a
result, these cases can represent large exposure.  In addition,
several district courts have decided that an unwanted solicitation
is, indeed, an injury sufficient to confer standing.  These courts
have distinguished TCPA claims from those at issue in the Supreme
Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which held that a
plaintiff lacks Article III standing to sue in federal court under
the Fair Credit Reporting Act absent an allegation of a
sufficiently "concrete" injury.

For many companies, class actions remained a part of everyday
life.  Just over 69 percent of companies reported handling one or
more class actions on an ongoing basis, up from 68.5 percent in
2015.  Both the routine and highest-risk categories of class
actions reflected increases this year, indicating that companies
face class actions that are more polarized in terms of complexity
and exposure level.

The percentage of class actions in the "bet-the-company" and high-
risk categories increased from 9.5 percent in 2015 to 25.3
percent, while the percentage of class actions in the routine
category increased from 28 percent in 2015 to 38.7 percent.  This
impacted defense philosophies, with companies increasingly
reporting that they either "go low," or, in complex cases, "defend
at all costs."  In contrast, only 20.8 percent of companies
reported using a "defend at the right cost" philosophy, down from
a high of 33.9 percent in 2015.

Though they increasingly face higher-risk and higher-exposure
class actions, corporate legal departments continue to reduce the
number of in-house attorneys responsible for managing those cases.
Not surprisingly, these in-house attorneys are spending more time
managing their class action caseloads.  In-house attorneys now
spend, on average, 13 hours per week per matter, up from an
average of just six hours per week, per matter in 2011. In
addition, companies are relying more heavily on trusted outside
counsel to help them manage these cases from inception.

When evaluating the risks presented by class actions, exposure is
still deemed the most important variable and "coming in under
estimated exposure" remains a key determinant of success.
Companies report that they resolve 62.5 percent of their class
action lawsuits by settlement, and that most settlements occur
before a class certification decision.

The use of alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) to manage class
actions continued to decline.  The percentage of companies that
relied on AFAs in their defense of class actions dropped from 49.2
to 35.8 percent.  This decline reflects the challenges inherent in
using alternative fee structures to manage increasingly complex
and unpredictable class action matters. Those companies that do
use AFAs continue to favor fixed fee structures.

The survey showed that legal departments addressed the class
action threat by thinking strategically and developing best
practices.  These practices included making a single in-house
individual accountable for class action outcomes, primarily to
foster a consistent approach, and placing greater reliance on
outside counsel, particularly to conduct early case assessment.
The survey aims to provide corporate counsel with practical
reference points and data to further help maximize class action
defense resources.


* Courts Evaluate Standing in Three Recent TCCWNA Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
The rising tide of class actions alleging violations of New
Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act
(TCCWNA, pronounced "tic-wun-uh") has been a cause of concern for
companies advertising and selling to New Jersey consumers.
TCCWNA's damages and attorneys' fees provisions have resulted in
an increase in case filings but the statute's broad and vague
language has kept corporate defendants guessing. Fortunately,
three recent federal court decisions offer guidance for companies
embroiled in TCCWNA litigation, as well as companies struggling to
understand and comply with the law.

TCCWNA, enacted by the New Jersey legislature more than 30 years
ago, allows for statutory damages, plus attorneys' fees and costs
on behalf of "aggrieved consumers." Section 15 of the law allows
for recovery arising from any violation of any legal right, even
if that right does not have an independent remedy. TCCWNA's
Section 16 prohibits companies from including in any "contract,
warranty, notice or sign" broad language that suggests that the
contract is void in certain jurisdictions without expressly
stating the applicability of New Jersey law. The statute provides
for damages of up to $100 per violation. For the past few years,
enterprising plaintiffs' lawyers have frequently used TCCWNA as a
vehicle to challenge a wide range of practices on a class-wide
basis.

Luca v. WyndhamWorldwide Corp.

In Luca v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., et al., No. 2:16-cv-00746,
2017 WL 623579 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2017), the putative class
representative alleged that the defendants' hotel booking website
failed to disclose certain taxes charged to him after he booked a
room. The plaintiff brought claims under New Jersey's Consumer
Fraud Act (CFA) and TCCWNA. In a February 2017 decision, the
Western District of Pennsylvania denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the CFA claim, finding that the plaintiff had adequately
pled the elements of that statutory claim.

Turning to the TCCWNA claim, however, the court considered two
standing challenges. First, the court held that the plaintiff
properly pled Article III standing sufficient to survive the
motion to dismiss the challenge. The TCCWNA claim was based on
allegations that the Terms and Conditions (T&Cs) precluded the
plaintiff (and putative class members) from asserting claims under
the CFA. The defendants argued that the TCCWNA claim constituted
nothing more than a naked procedural violation, without any
allegation of an independent concrete harm. The court reasoned,
however, that if the plaintiff was in fact precluded (or would be
precluded in the future) by the T&Cs from bringing a claim under
the CFA, the plaintiff would suffer precisely the type of harm
that TCCWNA was enacted to prevent under Section 15's "any legal
right" language. Accordingly, the plaintiff adequately alleged a
concrete and redressable concrete injury-in-fact sufficient to
confer Article III standing. Notably, the court pointed out in a
footnote that its decision was "not intended to suggest that
standing is per se established because a plaintiff pairs a TCCWNA
claim with another claim for relief; likewise it is not intended
to suggest that a TCCWNA claim alone can never confer standing."
Second, and relatedly, the court found that the plaintiff had
alleged statutory standing; that is, the plaintiff sufficiently
pled that he was an "aggrieved consumer" under the express
language of TCCWNA. The court pointed out that the US Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit certified the question of how to
interpret the "aggrieved consumer" language of TCCWNA's Section 17
to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The court allowed the suit to
survive, at least until the New Jersey Supreme Court rules on that
question.

Hite v. Lush Internet, Inc.

A few weeks after the Luca decision, the District of New Jersey
dismissed a TCCWNA putative class action for lack of standing in
Hite v. Lush Internet, Inc., 2017 WL 1080906 (D.N.J. Mar. 22,
2017). In Hite, the plaintiff alleged that she purchased products
from the Lush website, but did not bring any claims arising from
or related to the product itself. Instead, the plaintiff alleged
that the T&Cs violated Sections 15 and 16 of TCCWNA because they
prospectively disclaimed liability and limited the plaintiff's
rights of recovery under other New Jersey statutory laws.

The T&Cs on the website were contained in a "browsewrap
agreement," meaning that in order to review them, the website user
needed to find and access the T&Cs through a link at the bottom of
the website's page. This also meant that the customer did not
actively agree to the T&Cs as one would in a "clickwrap agreement"
where a customer would need to affirm that he or she had read and
understood the agreement.

The defendant's browsewrap T&Cs included language requiring the
parties to arbitrate any disputes individually. Consistent with
the T&Cs, the defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration in
conjunction with a motion to dismiss the complaint. The District
of New Jersey denied the defendant's motion to compel arbitration,
relying in part on the plaintiff's allegation that she never
noticed, much less read and assented to, the T&Cs.

The defendant seized on the plaintiff's argument in opposition to
the motion to compel arbitration, arguing that if the plaintiff
had not read the T&Cs, she couldn't qualify as an "aggrieved
consumer" under Section 17 of TCCWNA. The court agreed and
dismissed the complaint. In doing so, the court distinguished the
allegations from those in the Luca case. Commenting on Luca, the
Hite court pointed out the plaintiff's TCCWNA violation was based
on a violation of an underlying right which the statute was
designed to protect. Here, on the other hand, the plaintiff "is
seeking only to bring the Terms of Use into accord with what she
believes New Jersey law requires, not to actually bring a suit or
recover damages which she believes are unlawfully barred by the
Terms of Use." The alleged damages in Luca were potentially real;
in Hite, they were "metaphysical."

Rubin v. J. Crew Group, Inc.

More recently, in Rubin v. J. Crew Group, Inc., 2017 WL 1170854
(D.N.J. Mar. 29, 2017), the plaintiff alleged that the T&Cs on J.
Crew's website violated Sections 15 and 16 of TCCWNA, for
essentially the same reasons alleged in Hite. But just as in Hite,
the plaintiff did not allege any concrete injury arising from the
presence of the T&Cs on the website. In fact, the plaintiff did
not even allege that she saw or read the T&Cs, despite making
multiple online purchases from J. Crew over a six-year period. The
defendant's naked procedural violation of TCCWNA, without
attendant concrete harm to the plaintiff, was not enough to confer
Article III standing. Accordingly, the court found that it did not
have subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint. J.
Crew also argued that the plaintiff failed to allege statutory
standing because the plaintiff was not an "aggrieved consumer" as
defined by TCCWNA. This argument has been successful for other
defendants, but the court did not need to reach this question in
Rubin.

Given the increasing number of state and federal TCCWNA complaints
filed over the last few years, courts will continue to have the
opportunity to define and comment on this area of law. These
decisions offer nuanced analyses of when and how plaintiffs can
adequately plead claims under the operative sections of TCCWNA,
and provide useful guidance for companies formulating defenses in
class action lawsuits. For those companies not (yet) named in
TCCWNA lawsuits, the case law is a useful guide when reviewing
websites and documents for compliance with the far-reaching
statute. [GN]


* D.C. Circuit Invalidates FCC's Solicited Fax Rule
---------------------------------------------------
Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP reports that in a significant victory
for TCPA junk fax defendants, a split panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit invalidated the
Federal Communication Commission's Solicited Fax Rule.  The
Solicited Fax Rule, created by the FCC in a 2006 Order, required
that fax advertisements sent with a recipient's prior express
invitation or permission contain an opt-out notice requiring
specific information.

Dozens of companies petitioned the FCC seeking a waiver from the
Solicited Fax Rule.  The FCC granted these petitions,
acknowledging the confusion that may have been caused in the
marketplace.  After years of confusion and abounding lawsuits by
opportunist plaintiffs (and their counsel), a group of class
action defendants, led by Anda, a seller of generic drugs facing
$150 million in liability for sending solicited faxes lacking a
detailed opt-out notice, challenged the Solicited Fax Rule in the
D.C. Circuit.

In a concise and pithy opinion, Circuit Court Judge Kavanaugh,
joined by Judge Randolph, disagreed with the FCC's position that
the TCPA's requirement that businesses include opt-out notices on
unsolicited faxes provides the FCC authority to require that
businesses include the same opt-out on solicited advertisements.
The panel reasoned that "Congress drew a line in the text of the
statute between unsolicited fax advertisements and solicited fax
advertisements."

The FCC argued that prior express permission to receive fax
solicitations lasts only until it is revoked, so all fax
advertisements must include a means to revoke that permission.
But, as the panel blithely observed: "If you are finding the FCC's
reasoning on this point difficult to follow, you are not alone.
We do not get it either."  The panel acknowledged that the FCC may
reasonably define prior express permission and may reasonably
provide that a recipient can revoke prior consent.  But the
majority panel was unequivocal that "what the FCC may not do under
the statute is require opt-out notices on solicited faxes that are
sent with prior express invitation or permission."

The panel was also unpersuaded by the FCC's resort to public
policy, reasoning that "the fact that the agency believes its
Solicited Fax Rule is good policy does not change the statute's
text."  Moreover, the majority recognized the potential for
catastrophic damages for faxes sent with permission based on a
company's failure to comply with the detailed opt-out notice
requirements under the regulations, citing Anda as a prime
example.

Judge Pillard, in a lengthy dissent, embraced the policy rationale
provided by the FCC, opining that the "likely result of the
court's decision is to make it harder for recipients to control
what comes out of their fax machines." She did not believe that
the FCC was without authority to require opt-out notices on
solicited faxes.  Having found that the FCC had authority to issue
the Solicited Fax Rule, she also opined on an issue not reached by
the majority: whether the FCC had authority to issue retroactive
waivers of the opt-out notice requirement for solicited faxes.
According to Judge Pillard, the FCC failed to establish "good
cause" for issuing the waivers by overstating the confusion
regulated parties experienced from the Solicited Fax Rule and
"threw open the door to opportunistic waiver-seeks." She further
opined that the FCC failed to show that the waivers were in the
public interest and even went so far as to say that the FCC
"eviscerated its own rule via waiver, rather than employing the
limited safety valve authorized by this Court's precedents."

The impact on pending cases may be significant.  It is generally
accepted that the D.C. Circuit's rulings on agency actions are
binding on courts across the country given that the Hobbs Act
grants the D.C. Circuit primary jurisdiction on administrative law
and agency issues.  The decision could be the death knell for
pending TCPA class actions involving solicited faxes sent without
the detailed opt-out notice required by the regulations.  The
decision might very well pull the rug out from the cottage
industry of plaintiff law firms that have been capitalizing on the
Solicited Fax Rule.  Indeed, up to this point, plaintiffs have
been successful in making junk fax claims under the TCPA based
merely on an improper opt-out notice, which alone was a $500-per-
fax minimum penalty.  Now plaintiffs will have to focus on whether
the fax was solicited.

But, as they say in baseball, "it ain't over till it's over." The
class action plaintiffs may, and likely will, appeal the decision
to an en banc panel of the D.C. Circuit or the United States
Supreme Court, especially given Judge Pillard's pointed dissent.
As for the FCC, given that FCC Chairman Pai dissented from the
FCC's 2014 Order confirming the scope of the Solicited Fax Rule,
stating that the FCC's statutory construction amounted to
"convoluted gymnastics," the new FCC under a Trump Administration
may not support a further appeal.  For now, we can likely expect
class action plaintiffs to use an appeal as a way to keep their
cottage industry alive.


* Final Vote Scheduled for Attorney Fees Issue in House Bill 1941
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Covington, writing for Indiana Lawyer, reports that a bill
designed to limit the collection of attorney fees in government-
related class-action lawsuits was scheduled for a final vote in
the Indiana Senate on April 5.

Tucked a little more than halfway through House Bill 1491, a 233-
page bill dealing with "various motor vehicle law amendments," is
Section 206, which provides that "a court shall not award
attorney's fees without conducting a hearing."  A hearing, the
bill goes on to say, can include the presentation of evidence,
testimony of expert witnesses or "any other evidence the court
requires to make its determination" on the proper attorney fees
award.

HB 1491 was introduced to the General Assembly this year after the
Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles was sued in two class-action
suits for overcharging its customers roughly $30 million for
various services.

Cohen & Malad LLP, the Indianapolis law firm that represented the
members of the class against the BMV, was initially awarded $6.3
million in attorney fees, an award that represented roughly 21
percent of a $30 million settlement, according to the Indianapolis
Business Journal.  Further, the Indianapolis Star has reported
that the firm received an additional $9.6 million in fees as part
of the second suit last November.

The original language of HB 1491 held that attorney fees should be
calculated based on a "reasonable" rate charged for hours worked
in preparation for the action, but critics warned that such a
measure could dissuade law firms from accepting government-related
class action suits.

The amended form of HB 1491, which only includes the requirement
for a hearing on attorney fees, was passed by the Senate on second
reading with another amendment not related to attorney fees, but
instead related to a summer study committee about a motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance program in northern Indiana.


* H.R. 985 Bill Designed to Eliminate Securities Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Gilden, Esq., and Michael Eisenkraft, Esq., of Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, in an article for Law360, report
that here we go again. H.R. 985 places a bull's-eye squarely on
the back of every securities class action.  It does so under the
guise of attempting to fix a supposedly broken litigation system
for class actions, which the bill's proponents allege is rife with
abuse.  But in fact this bill is designed to eliminate all class
actions -- including securities class actions.  Not only is the
"abuse" the bill's proponents claim exists illusory; they ignore
the critical role securities class actions play in maintaining the
integrity of our financial markets and providing recourse to
investors, retirees, pension funds, health and welfare funds,
states and municipalities invested in the market when fraud is
committed.

H.R. 985 shot out of the House at record speed. In fact, the bill
was introduced on a Thursday and voted out of committee the
following Wednesday without so much as a hearing.  The House voted
along mainly party lines, with 14 Republican members joining all
Democratic members in opposing the legislation.  H.R. 984 is now
in the Senate, before the Judiciary Committee, where one can only
hope that Senators will reject this brazen attempt to close the
courthouse doors.

There is much to say about H.R. 985.  It shamelessly seeks to
erect hurdles where none should exist, complicates class
certification proceedings, buries the judiciary with class
certification appeals and data collection and seeks to tie up the
payment of attorneys' fees and require funding disclosures.  This
is all with a view to make cases much more difficult to litigate
and take far longer to resolve than they do now, and
disincentivize plaintiffs' firms from taking on these cases,
thereby denying investors their ability to hold those who defraud
them accountable.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail,
written on April 19, 1963, wrote "justice too long delayed is
justice denied."  The authors of H.R. 985 clearly disagree,
inserting a provision in the proposed bill, Sec. 1723, which
permits guaranteed appeals from grants or denials of class
certification and freezes the case in place during the pendency of
the appeal.  Court cases, especially class actions, already take a
great deal of time and this proposed provision essentially adds a
year or more to every single class action case -- time where
companies can hold onto their ill-gotten gains while victims are
forced to wait.  Quite simply, this is unjust.

Taking a step back, it's important to keep in mind the fundamental
purpose of these cases.  Securities fraud class actions provide
investors with the ability to demand accountability and obtain
recourse from companies and their executives who artificially prop
up the value of company stock through lies, deception and half-
truths.  Innocent investors are the ones on the front line who see
the value of their investments precipitously drop when facts known
to or disregarded by management and hidden from the public, are
revealed to the marketplace, through one means or another.  At
that point, the trading price of their investments drops as the
truth leaks out, and the market adjusts to the true value of the
stock, leaving investors who purchased the stock at the inflated
prices with damages as their investments diminish in value.

Enter the securities class action, which provides investors a
means to recover damages for the very real harm they suffered.
Indeed, in some of these cases, investors have lost of all or most
of their monies invested (think AIG, Lehman Brothers, Bernie
Madoff and MF Global).  Moreover, not to be forgotten, these cases
sometimes bring about desperately needed corporate reform,
changing the corporate environment that encouraged and/or allowed
the fraudulent practices to fester.  And of course, securities
class actions provide deterrent value, as without the private
bar's ability to fund these actions against well-heeled
defendants, only the very wealthy or largest of pension funds with
tens of millions of dollars in losses could bring a claim, leaving
hundreds of thousands of investors without recourse or
compensation.

The vital role that securities class actions serve in our
regulatory system cannot be stressed enough.  The U.S. Supreme
Court, Congress and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
have all, at various times, gone on record recognizing the
importance of private enforcement of the securities laws.  The
Supreme Court has "repeatedly []emphasized that implied private
actions provide 'a most effective weapon in the enforcement'" of
the securities laws and are ''a necessary supplement to Commission
action;" [1] in the House Report for the Private Securities
Litigation Act, it was recognized that "private lawsuits promote
public and global confidence in our capital markets and help . . .
to guarantee that corporate officers, auditors, directors, lawyers
and others properly perform their jobs" and are "an indispensable
tool" used to "protect investors and to maintain confidence in the
securities markets;'"[2] and in testimony before the Senate, then
SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt recognized that "[P]rivate rights of
action are not only fundamental to the success of our securities
markets, they are an essential complement to the SEC's own
enforcement program." [3]

In fact, the role of securities class action and private bar has,
if anything, become even more important in today's regulatory
scheme.  The financial markets have continued to become
increasingly global and complex, which the SEC, with its limited
funding and staffing resources, is not able to come anywhere close
to being able to police.  In fact, the SEC is bracing itself for
the prospect of dramatic funding cuts and restrictions under the
Trump administration, further diminishing their role as "Wall
Street cops" and increasing the need to ensure that securities
class actions remain a viable means to rein in corporate fraud and
provide investors with a means to recover damages.

An apples to apples comparison of monies recovered in one well
known securities class action case, the massive Enron fraud, which
also brought down blue chip accounting firm Arthur Andersen,
provides a stark example of the benefits of securities class
actions.  In actions related to the Enron scandal, the SEC
recovered $440 million, while private attorneys recovered around
$7.3 billion for investors.  Moreover, in many cases, the private
bar led the way.  For instance, in the recent mortgage-backed
securities scandals, private attorneys brought cases under the
1933 Act long before the SEC or other governmental agencies took
action -- if they did anything at all.  For instance, in the New
Jersey Carpenters Health Fund et al. v. Residential Capital LLC et
al., 08-CV-8781 (HB) (S.D.N.Y.), private attorneys recovered $335
million for investors without any government action -- without the
securities class action, these investors would have recovered
nothing at all.   This is actually typical since, even in cases
where the SEC does levy fines or take action, the monies recovered
generally do not go to harmed investors, but rather end up in the
U.S. Treasury.

A telling measure of the onerous proposed bill is who is opposed
to it.  With respect to H.R. 985, plaintiffs' securities class
action attorneys are joined by a wide variety of organizations in
opposing the bill.  First and foremost are other groups who would
be severely harmed by its passage -- specifically, approximately
120 civil rights organizations, 37 disability rights
organizations, and over 80 consumer, environmental and workers'
rights organizations oppose the bill.  Perhaps even more
impressively, neutral and august bodies like the American Bar
Association also oppose H.R. 985. Finally, the House Liberty
Caucus -- the most conservative Republicans in the House of
Representatives, has come out against H.R. 985, recognizing, in a
March 9, 2017, letter, that the bill "benefits bad actors by
making it significantly more difficult for persons to assert their
rights through the court system."  If, in these polarized times,
liberals and conservatives can unite on an issue -- in this case
opposition to H.R. 985, that says a great deal about the harm that
H.R. 985 would do to our legal system.

In summary, in an Alice in Wonderland twist, the roles of victim
and perpetrator are reversed under H.R. 985; the perpetrators of
the fraud are treated as "victims" needing protection, while
investors, whose lawyers put everything on the line to obtain
recourse for them, are now the perpetrators.  It was thinking like
this, a form of caveat emptor, in the days before securities class
actions and regulation, that helped cause the Great Crash of 1929.
If passed in any form, this bill will wreak havoc on our current
system of investor protection.  In short, we can only hope that
the Senate puts aside any partisan games, and sees H.R. 985 for
what it is: a brazen attempt to shut down securities class actions
to the detriment of the integrity of our capital markets and
investors' ability to recover damages caused by those who
perpetrate fraud.

H.R. 985 shot out of the House at record speed.  In fact, the bill
was introduced on a Thursday and voted out of committee the
following Wednesday without so much as a hearing.  The House voted
along mainly party lines, with 14 Republican members joining all
Democratic members in opposing the legislation. H.R. 984 is now in
the Senate, before the Judiciary Committee, where one can only
hope that Senators will reject this brazen attempt to close the
courthouse doors.

There is much to say about H.R. 985. It shamelessly seeks to erect
hurdles where none should exist, complicates class certification
proceedings, buries the judiciary with class certification appeals
and data collection and seeks to tie up the payment of attorneys'
fees and require funding disclosures.  This is all with a view to
make cases much more difficult to litigate and take far longer to
resolve than they do now, and disincentivize plaintiffs' firms
from taking on these cases, thereby denying investors their
ability to hold those who defraud them accountable.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail,
written on April 19, 1963, wrote "justice too long delayed is
justice denied."  The authors of H.R. 985 clearly disagree,
inserting a provision in the proposed bill, Sec. 1723, which
permits guaranteed appeals from grants or denials of class
certification and freezes the case in place during the pendency of
the appeal.  Court cases, especially class actions, already take a
great deal of time and this proposed provision essentially adds a
year or more to every single class action case -- time where
companies can hold onto their ill-gotten gains while victims are
forced to wait. Quite simply, this is unjust.

Taking a step back, it's important to keep in mind the fundamental
purpose of these cases.  Securities fraud class actions provide
investors with the ability to demand accountability and obtain
recourse from companies and their executives who artificially prop
up the value of company stock through lies, deception and half-
truths.  Innocent investors are the ones on the front line who see
the value of their investments precipitously drop when facts known
to or disregarded by management and hidden from the public, are
revealed to the marketplace, through one means or another.  At
that point, the trading price of their investments drops as the
truth leaks out, and the market adjusts to the true value of the
stock, leaving investors who purchased the stock at the inflated
prices with damages as their investments diminish in value.

Enter the securities class action, which provides investors a
means to recover damages for the very real harm they suffered.
Indeed, in some of these cases, investors have lost of all or most
of their monies invested (think AIG, Lehman Brothers, Bernie
Madoff and MF Global).  Moreover, not to be forgotten, these cases
sometimes bring about desperately needed corporate reform,
changing the corporate environment that encouraged and/or allowed
the fraudulent practices to fester.  And of course, securities
class actions provide deterrent value, as without the private
bar's ability to fund these actions against well-heeled
defendants, only the very wealthy or largest of pension funds with
tens of millions of dollars in losses could bring a claim, leaving
hundreds of thousands of investors without recourse or
compensation.

The vital role that securities class actions serve in our
regulatory system cannot be stressed enough.  The U.S. Supreme
Court, Congress and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
have all, at various times, gone on record recognizing the
importance of private enforcement of the securities laws. The
Supreme Court has "repeatedly []emphasized that implied private
actions provide 'a most effective weapon in the enforcement''' of
the securities laws and are ''a necessary supplement to Commission
action; "in the House Report for the Private Securities Litigation
Act, it was recognized that ''private lawsuits promote public and
global confidence in our capital markets and help . . . to
guarantee that corporate officers, auditors, directors, lawyers
and others properly perform their jobs" and are "an indispensable
tool "used to "protect investors and to maintain confidence in the
securities markets;'"and in testimony before the Senate, then SEC
Chairman Arthur Levitt recognized that "[P]rivate rights of action
are not only fundamental to the success of our securities markets,
they are an essential complement to the SEC's own enforcement
program."

In fact, the role of securities class action and private bar has,
if anything, become even more important in today's regulatory
scheme.  The financial markets have continued to become
increasingly global and complex, which the SEC, with its limited
funding and staffing resources, is not able to come anywhere close
to being able to police.  In fact, the SEC is bracing itself for
the prospect of dramatic funding cuts and restrictions under the
Trump administration, further diminishing their role as "Wall
Street cops" and increasing the need to ensure that securities
class actions remain a viable means to rein in corporate fraud and
provide investors with a means to recover damages.

An apples to apples comparison of monies recovered in one well
known securities class action case, the massive Enron fraud, which
also brought down blue chip accounting firm Arthur Andersen,
provides a stark example of the benefits of securities class
actions.  In actions related to the Enron scandal, the SEC
recovered $440 million, while private attorneys recovered around
$7.3 billion for investors.  Moreover, in many cases, the private
bar led the way.  For instance, in the recent mortgage-backed
securities scandals, private attorneys brought cases under the
1933 Act long before the SEC or other governmental agencies took
action -- if they did anything at all.  For instance, in the New
Jersey Carpenters Health Fund et al. v. Residential Capital LLC et
al., 08-CV-8781 (HB) (S.D.N.Y.), private attorneys recovered $335
million for investors without any government action -- without the
securities class action, these investors would have recovered
nothing at all.  This is actually typical since, even in cases
where the SEC does levy fines or take action, the monies recovered
generally do not go to harmed investors, but rather end up in the
U.S. Treasury.

A telling measure of the onerous proposed bill is who is opposed
to it.  With respect to H.R. 985, plaintiffs' securities class
action attorneys are joined by a wide variety of organizations in
opposing the bill. First and foremost are other groups who would
be severely harmed by its passage -- specifically, approximately
120 civil rights organizations, 37 disability rights
organizations, and over 80 consumer, environmental and workers'
rights organizations oppose the bill.  Perhaps even more
impressively, neutral and august bodies like the American Bar
Association also oppose H.R. 985.  Finally, the House Liberty
Caucus -- the most conservative Republicans in the House of
Representatives, has come out against H.R. 985, recognizing, in a
March 9, 2017, letter, that the bill "benefits bad actors by
making it significantly more difficult for persons to assert their
rights through the court system."  If, in these polarized times,
liberals and conservatives can unite on an issue -- in this case
opposition to H.R. 985, that says a great deal about the harm that
H.R. 985 would do to our legal system.

In summary, in an Alice in Wonderland twist, the roles of victim
and perpetrator are reversed under H.R. 985; the perpetrators of
the fraud are treated as "victims" needing protection, while
investors, whose lawyers put everything on the line to obtain
recourse for them, are now the perpetrators.  It was thinking like
this, a form of caveat emptor, in the days before securities class
actions and regulation, that helped cause the Great Crash of 1929.
If passed in any form, this bill will wreak havoc on our current
system of investor protection.  In short, we can only hope that
the Senate puts aside any partisan games, and sees H.R. 985 for
what it is: a brazen attempt to shut down securities class actions
to the detriment of the integrity of our capital markets and
investors' ability to recover damages caused by those who
perpetrate fraud.

Carol Gilden is a partner in Cohen Milstein's Chicago office.
Michael Eisenkraft is a partner in the firm's New York office.
Both are members of the firm's securities litigation and investor
protection practice group and represent public pension funds,
Taft-Hartley pension and health and welfare funds, and other
institutional investors in securities class actions, among other
actions.


* Mandatory Report of Data Breaches for Private Sector Urged
------------------------------------------------------------
Judy van Rhijn, writing for Law Times, reports that hard on the
heels of legislation requiring mandatory reporting of data
breaches for the private sector come recommendations for a similar
overhaul of the public sector.  The introduction of an explicit
requirement by the federal government to force companies to
publicly admit to breaches will enable swift responses from the
class actions bar when they occur.

"Generally, federal and provincial legislation seem to be going
towards two things -- mandatory reporting to the privacy
commissioner and mandatory notification to individuals," says
Patrick Hawkins -- PHawkins@blg.com -- of Borden Ladner Gervais
LLP in Toronto.

In relation to the private sector, s. 10.1 of the federal Personal
Information and Electronic Documents Act requires mandatory
reporting of data breaches that pose a substantial risk of harm to
individuals.  The new legislation was passed in 2015, underwent a
consultation period in 2016 and is expected to come into force
once regulations have been passed.  The Ministry of Innovation,
Science and Economic Development Canada advises that regulations
will be published this year and will be subject to public
consultation and a transition period.

Ted Charney of Charney Lawyers of Toronto considers these
legislative changes to be an "absolute necessity."

"Just as a defective product requires mandatory reporting, by
analogy, a privacy breach poses a risk to consumers, and the
company is not in a position to assess the degree of risk because
of their self-interest," says Mr. Charney.

He has observed that most privacy breaches go unreported.

"To the extent that organizations do not divulge, customers do not
become aware of the breach.  If they suffer identity theft or
fraud or some other privacy breach, they don't know it's related
to a particular organization," he says.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has a voluntary
data-breach reporting program, and some organizations subject to
PIPEDA participate as a matter of best practice.

"Probably every month there are six to 12 privacy breaches that go
undetected and unreported," Mr. Charney estimates.  "That's a
figure I know because businesses that assist insurance companies
and other organizations get six to 12 new cases on a monthly
basis, whereas the degree of reporting to the Privacy Commission
is one or two a month."

One aspect of the changes to PIPEDA is that there is a threshold
for the reporting requirement to kick in. Section 10.1 provides
that organizations must determine if it is reasonable in the
circumstances to believe that the breach creates a real risk of
significant harm to an individual.  They must consider the
sensitivity of the personal information involved and the
probability that the personal information is being, or will be,
misused.

"We have to see how that gets interpreted by the Privacy
Commissioner and the courts," says Mr. Hawkins.  "Not every
potential breach gets triggered.  It's a meaningful threshold."

Jillian Swartz -- jswartz@amsbizlaw.com -- of Allen McDonald
Swartz LLP of Toronto points out that if a company has decided to
notify its customers or clients about a breach, it has admitted
that it's reasonable in the circumstances to believe that the
breach creates reasonable risk. "That will be music to class
action lawyers' ears," she says.

"This will open up a whole new niche area in class actions."

In fact, Mr. Charney has some concerns about it being left up to
the organization to decide what constitutes "reasonable
circumstances," as is laid out in PIPEDA.

"Reporting should be mandatory for all breaches and then it's up
to the privacy commissioner whether to notify the customers or
not," he says.

"If companies are not prepared to notify them voluntarily, the
decision should be made by the commissioner."

In relation to the public sector, the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics tabled a
report in December 2016 entitled "Protecting the Privacy of
Canadians: Review of the Privacy Act."

It includes recommendations "to create an explicit requirement for
government institutions to report material breaches of personal
information to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada in
a timely manner" and "to notify affected individuals of material
breaches of personal information, except in appropriate cases,
provided that the notification does not compound the damage to the
individuals."


* Nullification of Opt-in Regulations Beneficial for Marketers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Dempsey Booher, Esq. -- kbooher@fisherbroyles.com -- and
Martin B. Robins, Esq. -- martin.robins@fisherbroyles.com -- of
FisherBroyles LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that there
has been a good deal of public discussion of pending legislative
action to relieve internet service providers of the obligation to
obtain affirmative consent of customers ['opt-in'] before
collecting and sharing customer information.  Those engaged in
digital marketing via e-mail and text message may wonder what this
means for their efforts.  The correct answer is 'relatively
little'.  The nullification of the pending regulations should not
dictate any relaxation of compliance efforts whether by increased
use of an opt-out strategy or otherwise.

In the first instance, the legislative action simply stopped the
effectiveness of pending rules before they became active, so there
is no change in actual requirements.  Nullification of these rules
may be beneficial to marketers if they are challenged in formal
proceedings by a consumer or a consumer class over their marketing
practices.

However, from the standpoint of avoiding controversy in the first
place, FisherBroyles' Booher and Robins still suggest obtaining
affirmative consent to data collection and sharing in all cases.
There is no question that such action is always required for text
solicitations by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Many
companies have learned this the hard way after being forced into
eight and nine figure settlements of class action claims brought
under the TCPA which provides for statutory damages of $500 per
violation.

As a practical matter, it may be easier (or no harder) to obtain
the opt-in for all digital marketing campaigns without
distinguishing between e-mail and text.  That is, obtain advance
consent for all communications and the dissemination of the
content provided by recipients. It is often the case that this can
be accomplished by having the consumer simply check an 'I AGREE'
box or provide their mobile phone number.

In any event, since there are multiple legal theories and laws
(state and federal) which can be invoked by consumers and consumer
classes who believe that their information has been wrongfully --
i.e. deceptively -- collected or used, exposure can be mitigated
by taking all feasible measures to establish that there was no
overreaching and that the persons in question were well aware of
and agreed to the actions of which they complain.

Good, closely followed website policies disclosing what is to
occur with information of visitors coupled with electronic
recordation of implicit and explicit agreements are most helpful
in responding to such claims.  However, even with the suspended
rules (which by their terms only applied to ISP's), these policies
are not sufficient to immunize marketers from all claims based
upon allegedly deceptive practices or violations of contractual or
statutory privacy rights and obligations. Demonstrating that the
claimant in fact agreed to what they are now claiming was unfair
is likely to discourage the pursuit of many claims or allow
summary disposition of those which do occur. While no one can say
for sure, it may also be the case that consumers respond better to
communications to which they agree than to those which seemingly
just appear, without meaningful request or approval, from the
original marketer or someone else.

Digital marketing is here to stay and an increasingly important
tool for most businesses.  As its importance grows, so does legal
exposure, with or without the suspended rules.  Proper guidance,
taking into account both evolving legal and technical
considerations regarding how to apply the numerous rules which
exist, is essential for marketers to effectively pursue such
campaigns.


* Over 25 Settlements Approved by Ontario Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Deepshikha Dutt, Esq., of Dentons, in an article for International
Law Office, reports that over 25 class action settlements were
approved by the Ontario Superior Court in 2016.  Ontario is
increasingly becoming a preferred jurisdiction for class actions
in Canada, which has consequently led to an increased number of
certification motions, class action hearing and settlements
motions.

In order to settle a class action, court approval is required.
Section 29(2) of the Class Proceedings Act (Ontario) provides that
a settlement of a class proceeding is not binding unless approved
by the court.  The court's role in settlement approval is to
ensure that the settlement reached between the lawyers is in the
best interests of the class as a whole.  However, depending on the
stage in the litigation process at which a settlement is reached,
the courts may not have the benefit of a complete factual record
before them when assessing and approving settlements.
Consequently, courts have in the past placed a high degree of
trust in class counsel who assert their experience with class
actions generally and affirm that they have negotiated the best
possible outcome for the class at hand.

Recently, the Ontario courts have begun to shift away from a
practice of blindly trusting class counsel's conclusions. Instead,
courts are demanding that counsel present transparent reasoning
and evidence which clearly explain the path taken by counsel
towards settlement.

Established criteria for settlement approval

In order to approve a class settlement, the court must ensure that
the rights of class members are properly balanced against other
measures which support a settlement agreement.  The basic test for
court approval is that "the court must find that in all
circumstances the settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best
interests of those affected by it".(1) In 1998 Dabbs v Sun Life
Assurance Co of Canada established a non-exhaustive list of
factors for consideration when approving a class settlement. These
factors have been relied on by Ontario courts since 1998 when
assessing settlements.  They are as follows:

   -- likelihood of recovery or likelihood of success at trial;
   -- amount and nature of discovery evidence available;
   -- settlement terms and conditions;
   -- recommendation and experience of counsel;
   -- future expense and likely duration of litigation;
   -- recommendation of neutral parties, if any;
   -- number of objectors and nature of objections; and
   -- the presence of good faith and the absence of collusion.

This is not an exhaustive list.  Instead, the factors are used as
a guide by courts to allow for a range of possible resolutions.

Given consideration of the above factors, settlement agreements
are generally approved if the court is of the opinion that the
settlement quantum falls within the range of possible outcomes at
trial.  The standard that the courts adopt is one of
reasonableness, not perfection.  Any given case will require one
or more of the factors to have greater significance.  For
instance, the likelihood of recovery will be given substantial
consideration where the defendant is insolvent.  Accordingly, if a
settlement agreement yields an imperfect, yet reasonable, outcome
for class members, Ontario courts are likely to approve it.

Recent developments and increasing threshold

With the Dabbs criteria clearly established and class action
popularity on the rise in Ontario, a pattern has developed among
plaintiffs' class action counsel in Ontario to commence actions in
the hope of seeking a settlement and approval, which has caught
the attention of the courts.  Judge Belobaba (one of the leading
class action judges in Ontario) noted that a counsel seeking early
settlement was using boilerplate formulations and language as
reasons for settlement within their facts submitted on settlement
motions, which are of little to no assistance to the courts when
assessing the merits of a settlement.  Since early 2016, the judge
has actively voiced his concerns within his decisions, stating
that he finds this current standard practice wholly inadequate.
On multiple occasions during 2016, the judge requested
supplementary affidavits from counsel, giving them an opportunity
to use available facts and further elaborate on their reasons for
seeking settlement approval. In Clegg v HMQ Ontario, the judge
stated:

"In the vast majority of early stage class action settlements, the
court hears 'a one-sided presentation about how wonderful the
settlement is and how aggressively class counsel championed the
absent class's cause'.  Class counsel generally set out a list of
self-serving 'boiler-plate' reasons why the settlement should be
approved -- the litigation risks; the hard-fought negotiation; the
arm's length settlement and, of course, class counsel's vast
experience.

This boiler-plate, as I concluded in two recent settlement
approval decisions, reduced to its essence is this: 'We're
experienced class counsel; we negotiated the best possible deal
for the class members; trust us'."(3)

The judge has expressed further scepticism about early-stage
settlements and stated that they ought to be evaluated
particularly critically, as parties have limited evidence
available to determine the merits of the action going forward.(4)
Most plaintiffs' class counsel are retained on a contingency basis
and are therefore interested in securing a guaranteed contingency
through early settlement.  The judge stated:

"In early stage settlements, judges must continue to encourage
class counsel to actually explain why the settlement falls within
a zone of reasonableness and is in the best interests of the
class.  It is no longer correct or appropriate for judges to
succumb to the aforementioned 'boiler-plate' or blithely assume in
the class action context that there is a 'strong initial
presumption of fairness' when the settlement is negotiated at
arm's length and is recommended by experienced class counsel. That
may work for conventional two-party settlements but it is an
unwarranted assumption in the class action context."

On the other hand, in Ramdath v George Brown College, where the
case had advanced beyond certification, the judge approved the
settlement and commended counsel who were able to fully support
their settlement decision with evidence. The judge stated:

"At the time of settlement, class counsel's knowledge base about
the ongoing risks and rewards was at its highest possible point.
In other words, this was not an early stage settlement where the
court is understandably 'suspicious'.  Here the settlement was
negotiated and achieved after the completion of discovery, two
trials and numerous appeals.  Class counsel's recommendations were
thus less likely to be tainted with self-interest and more likely
to be in the best interests of the class."(6)

Similarly, in Rosen v BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc,(7) the judge once
again approved the settlement of a significant employment
misclassification class action after six-and-a-half years of
litigation.  He reiterated that he was more inclined to rely on
class counsel's assessment of the risks of a class action in a
"late stage settlement", particularly after class counsel has
conducted significant investigation and discovery of the merits of
the case.  In this case, counsel submitted evidence from
comparable US settlements (since Canadian data was not available)
to prove the reasonableness of the settlement. The judge found
that this hard evidence established that the quantum of the
settlement fell squarely within the zone of reasonableness.

Comment

In the coming years, Ontario courts are expected to take a more
active approach towards assessing evidence on the reasonableness
of settlements.  Counsel should be prepared for rigorous
questioning and be able to substantively prove that the settlement
is in the best interests of the class.  In order to maintain
objectivity in the settlement process, some have suggested that
judges should perhaps appoint independent counsel that can review
and oppose the settlement if it is not in the best interests of
the class.  The concerns on a settlement motion and the trend
going forward were succinctly summarized by the judge in Leslie v
Agnico-Eagle Mines:

"The shared concern is obvious: class action judges must do more
than acquiesce to the self-serving submissions of class counsel
that often amount to nothing more than -- 'we're experienced class
counsel -- we know what we're doing -- trust us'.

I don't know what the future holds. Perhaps the time has indeed
come for judges in appropriate cases to appoint independent
counsel (with his or her legal fees paid by the parties) in order
to add a much-needed adversarial dimension to the settlement
approval hearing.  One thing, however, is clear: class counsel can
no longer rely on boiler-plate 'reasons' that do nothing more than
describe generic litigation risks or class counsel's so-called
'experience' -- class counsel must at the very least provide the
Court with information why the settlement amount falls within a
range or zone of reasonableness."

Therefore, when seeking approval of class action settlements in
Ontario, in the words of Alexander Graham Bell, "before anything
else, preparation is the key to success".


* Pierce Atwood Atty Comments on Proposed Changes to Rule 23
------------------------------------------------------------
Lucus Ritche, Esq., at Pierce Atwood LLP, in an article for JD
Supra Business Advisor, wrote that he previously wrote about the
Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017, and identified
its potential to bring significant changes to class action
practice. That Act was passed by the House on March 9, 2017, based
on a 220-201 vote, split almost entirely along party lines, and
has now advanced to the Senate for additional consideration.
Whether the Act will become law remains uncertain, and we will
continue to monitor future developments. In the meantime, however,
it is worthwhile to take note of the proposed changes to Rule 23
itself which are also currently under consideration.

In August 2016, the U.S. Judicial Conference's Committee on Rules
of Practice and Procedure published its proposed amendments to
Rule 23. The amendments include a variety of changes concerning
class settlement and notice.  This post will focus on two specific
areas covered by the amendments: electronic notice to class
members, and class settlement objectors. The proposals, if
approved, could become effective in December 2018.

Electronic Notice: As currently worded, Rule 23(c)(2)(B) states
that "the court must direct to class members the best notice that
is practicable under the circumstances, including individual
notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable
effort."  Most courts have construed this language to require
certification notice by first-class mail in every case involving a
(b)(3) class where class members' addresses are available.  The
proposed amendments revise the rule by adding that the notice "may
be by United States mail, electronic means, or other appropriate
means." The amendment thus places "electronic" and "other" means
of notice on equal footing with first-class mail.  In our view,
this is a simple, common-sense change that brings certification
notice into the twenty-first century and is likely to increase the
notice program's reach in certain types of cases.  If adopted, a
court should not hesitate to find that email, text messaging,
social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter or smartphone
applications are better suited than "snail mail" for some notice
programs.  For example, in a case against an app-based company,
such as Uber, ITunes or Instagram, notifying class members of
their options via the app may be more effective than a letter sent
to a physical mailbox.  Further, because most forms of electronic
notification are far cheaper than mailing letters, allowing
electronic notice in the appropriate circumstances would also
produce substantial cost savings to litigants in certain cases.

Settlement Objectors: Class members' rights under Rule 23(e)(5) to
object to settlements that are not fair, reasonable and adequate
serve to protect class members' interests and prevent collusion
among counsel.  Sometimes, however, so-called "professional"
objectors exploit the settlement objection process by filing
frivolous objections and threatening to pursue appeals solely in
the hopes of obtaining a payment for withdrawing their objections.
All too often, litigants are forced to make the tactical decision
whether to pay off professional objectors or face a delay due to
the objector's appeal of the judgment approving the settlement.
Proposed amendments to Rule 23(e)(5) seek to discourage these
bad-faith objections in two ways.

First, the amendments would force objectors to state the grounds
for their objection with specificity, and also to state whether
the objection applies only to the objector, to the entire class,
or to a subset of the class. This change is aimed at cutting down
on the boilerplate objections filed by many professional objectors
solely to obtain negotiating leverage.

Second, the amendments would add new language requiring court
approval for any payment to an objector or objector's counsel in
connection with either the withdrawal of an objection or
abandonment of an appeal of a judgment approving a settlement.
Forcing objectors and their lawyers to seek and obtain court
approval for payments to withdraw their objections, rather than
negotiate them behind closed doors, should deter meritless
objections and help ensure that only those objections that benefit
the class or the court's evaluation of the settlement result in
compensation.

In our view, the proposed amendments to Rule 23(e)(5) would serve
as a useful tool in combating professional objectors' abuse of the
settlement review process, without negatively affecting the
ability for class members to make valuable, good-faith objections
to class settlements. [GN]


* Settlement Values for Accounting Class Actions Hit Record High
----------------------------------------------------------------
Securities class action filings with accounting allegations rose
to 93 in 2016, 33 percent above the previous year and the fourth
consecutive annual increase, according to a new report from
Cornerstone Research.

As reported in Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements --
2016 Review and Analysis, an unprecedented number of federal
filings of class actions involving merger and acquisition (M&A)
transactions drove the increase in accounting-related cases.
"Traditional" accounting case filings, those with Rule 10b-5,
Section 11, and/or Section 12(a)(2) claims, remained relatively
stable, although those filings were much larger as measured by the
defendant firms' market capitalization losses.

"In 2016, total accounting case filings exceeded the historical
average for the third year in a row," said report co-author Elaine
Harwood, a Cornerstone Research vice president and head of the
firm's accounting practice.  "In nearly one-third of the M&A
filings, plaintiffs alleged that the company failed to provide a
reconciliation of non-GAAP measures to GAAP measures.  This is the
first time we have seen so many M&A filings with GAAP-related
allegations."

The number of accounting case settlements fell from 50 to 46.
Total settlement value, however, reached $4.8 billion, nearly 80
percent greater than in 2015 and the highest since 2007.  The
increase was attributable to a relatively large number of approved
settlements, as well as an increase in the average settlement
amount.  Nine accounting case mega settlements (those over $100
million) represented $4.4 billion of the total accounting case
settlement value in 2016.

"Accounting cases often represent the majority of the total value
of all settlements reached in a given year, typically with just a
few settlements contributing much of the value," said report
co-author Laura Simmons, a Cornerstone Research senior advisor.
"In 2016, almost 75 percent of the total value of cases settled
was associated with a handful of accounting case settlements,
including two over $1 billion.  The presence or absence of a few
settlements of this size can have a dramatic impact on the overall
numbers for a given year."

Highlights

   -- The Disclosure Dollar Loss Index(R) (DDL Index(R)) for
accounting cases filed in 2016 rose 38 percent from 2015 to nearly
$48 billion, the highest level in the last eight years.

   -- Accounting case filings against companies in the consumer,
non-cyclical sector (e.g., biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and
healthcare firms) exceeded the historical level for the third year
in a row. The value of accounting case settlements in this sector
has also grown substantially over the last few years.

   -- Both the number and proportion of accounting case
settlements involving restatements increased markedly compared to
recent years.

   -- For the past seven years, the majority of accounting case
filings have included allegations of internal control weaknesses.
This trend continued in 2016, with 59 percent of accounting case
filings containing these allegations. An even larger share of 2016
accounting case settlements, 70 percent, included allegations of
internal control weaknesses.

   -- The median settlement value for cases involving write-downs
spiked to $18.6 million in 2016, compared to $10.5 million for
2007-2015.

                    About Accounting Cases

Cases are considered "accounting cases" if they involve
allegations related to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP) violations, auditing violations, or weaknesses in internal
control over financial reporting.

                   About Cornerstone Research

Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- provides
economic and financial consulting and expert testimony in all
phases of complex litigation and regulatory proceedings.  The firm
works with an extensive network of prominent faculty and industry
practitioners to identify the best-qualified expert for each
assignment.  Cornerstone Research has earned a reputation for
consistent high quality and effectiveness by delivering rigorous,
state-of-the-art analysis for over 25 years.  The firm has 700
staff and offices in Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New
York, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and Washington.


* Senate May Fail to Advance H.R. 985 Class Action Reform Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP said that on March 9, 2017, the U.S. House
of Representatives voted to approve the Fairness in Class Action
Litigation Act of 2017 ("H.R. 985" or the "Bill"), a bill that, if
signed into law, would significantly modify class action practice.

The Bill was sponsored by Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA),
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who previously
sponsored similar legislation in 2015 that cleared the House but
failed to advance in the Senate.  With Republicans retaining
control of the Senate and having recently captured the White
House, the potential for class action legislation becoming law has
increased.  Key provisions of the Bill include:

Class Action Injury Allegations (Sec. 1716):  The Bill prohibits a
court from granting class certification in a case seeking monetary
relief unless the plaintiff "affirmatively demonstrates that each
proposed class member suffered the same type and scope of injury
as the named class representative."  Although it is not clear how
a "same type and scope of injury" requirement would be implemented
in practice, this language could disturb the longstanding
principle that individual damages may vary across class members as
long as the requirements for class certification are met.

Conflicts of Interest (Sec. 1717):   The Bill requires plaintiff's
counsel to disclose whether the proposed class representative is a
relative, current or former employee, present or former client, or
has had any contractual relationship with counsel.  The Bill also
prohibits certification where the class representative or named
plaintiff is a relative or employee of class counsel.  Notably,
however, these new requirements do not apply to securities class
actions that are subject to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").

Distribution of Benefits to Class Members (Sec. 1718(a)):  The
Bill prohibits a court from granting class certification in a
class action seeking monetary relief unless the class is defined
with reference to "objective criteria" and the party seeking to
maintain the class action "affirmatively demonstrates that there
is a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism (a) for the
court to determine whether putative class members fall within the
class definition, and (b) for distributing directly to a
substantial majority of class members any monetary relief secured
for the class."  This section seeks to resolve differences between
the U.S. Courts of Appeals regarding the so-called
"ascertainability requirement."  The Bill resolves the circuit
split in favor of the Third Circuit's more restrictive approach.
See, e.g., Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 725 F.3d 349, 355 (3d
Cir. 2013).

Attorneys' Fees (Sec. 1718(b)):  The Bill limits attorneys' fees
to a "reasonable percentage" of any payments to class members and,
notably, states that no attorneys' fees may be determined or paid
for any reason until "the distribution of any monetary recovery to
class members has been completed."  This provision would likely
eliminate "quick pay provisions" in class action settlement
agreements, which enable class counsel to receive attorneys' fees
prior to final approval.

Data Sharing (Sec. 1719):  The Bill requires that, in any class
action settlement that provides for monetary benefits, class
counsel shall submit an accounting of all funds paid by defendants
pursuant to the settlement agreement to the Federal Judicial
Center and the Director of the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts.  It would also require the disclosure of payments
and the purpose of those payments to third parties, including
class counsel.

Stay of Discovery (Sec. 1721):  The Bill mandates a stay discovery
during the pendency of motions to dismiss, motions to transfer,
motions to strike class allegations, or any other motion to
dispose of class allegations, unless the court finds upon a motion
of any party that "particularized discovery" is necessary to
preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to that party.
This requirement does not modify the stay of discovery
requirements for securities class actions under the PSLRA.

Third-Party Litigation Funding Disclosure (Sec. 1722):  The Bill
requires class counsel to disclose in writing to the court and all
other parties the identity of any person or entity who has a
contingent right to receive compensation from any settlement,
judgment, or other relief obtained in the class action.

Right of Appeal (Sec. 1723):  The Bill would grant parties an
interlocutory appeal as of right from an order granting or denying
class certification.

Remand in Multidistrict Litigation (Sec. 1407(k)):  In
multidistrict litigation, the Bill would amend 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1407 to add a new subsection (k), which states federal courts
of appeals are permitted to accept an appeal from an order
remanding an action to the state court from which it was removed.
Such appeals would need to be filed within fourteen days after the
remand order is entered.  Currently, remand orders are generally
unreviewable by federal courts of appeal.

The Bill now moves to the Senate where it has been reported to the
Senate Judiciary Committee.  It should be noted that the
Republican majority in the Senate remains narrow and it is
possible that the Senate could fail to advance the Bill (as
occurred in 2015) or it could alter the Bill considerably.  The
situation in the Senate thus bears careful monitoring.


                         *********


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  * * *