CAR_Public/170427.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Thursday, April 27, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 84



                            Headlines

12291 CBW LLC: "Tarver" Seeks Minimum Wages, Misallocated Tips
618 MAIN CLOTHING: "Archer" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
A&R LOGISTICS: Faces "Ratliff" Suit Over Background Checks
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: UFCW Local Sues over Lidocaine-Prilocaine Price
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Rochester Drug Sues over Ursodiol Price-Fixing

ALDRIDGE IT SERVICES: Technicians Class Certified in Hugdahl Suit
ALLEN EDMONDS: Faces "Walker" Suit in E.D. New York
ALLIANCE MMA: Faces "Shapiro" Securities Suit Over 2016 IPO
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY: "Palacios" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
AMERICAN CHEMICALS: ABC Seeks Final OK of $1.55-Mil. Settlement

AMERICAN CHEMICALS: ABC Amends Bid for Final OK of Class Accord
AMERICAN ROAD: Faces "Frazee" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
AMERICARE INC: "Polyakov" Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages
AMERICAN TEX-CHEM: Gorss Motels Moves for Certification of Class
AMERIGAS PROPANE: "Avila" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court

APPLE INC: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over App Store Monopoly
ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Libby" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
ASSENT INC: Stacy Sues Over Unsolicited Cell Phone Calls
BANNER BANK: Faces "Bolding" Suit in W.D. Washington
BEHR PROCESS: "McBain" Suit Seeks OT, Missed Breaks Premium

BLACKROCK RETIREMENT: Faces "Baird" Suit Over ERISA Violation
BLUE CROSS: Faces "Louis" Suit Alleging Racial Discrimination
BONOBOS INC: Faces "Del-Orden" Suit in S.D. New York
BOOKING.COM: "Amhaz" Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages, Discrimination
BRIDGE LLC: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation Under FLSA

BROADWAY PLAZA: Faces "Del-Orden" Suit in S.D. New York
CAINE & WEINER: Faces "Graham" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
CAMP DRUGSTORE: Hit with Class Action TCPA Fax Lawsuit
CANADA: Disability Group Mulls Class Action Over Public Transit
CAPITOHOME LLC: Melingonis Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls

CARRINGTON TEA: Faces "Zemola" Suit in S.D. California
CELADON GROUP: Block & Leviton LLP Files Securities Class Action
CHARLES P: "Ream" Suit Alleges FLSA, Penn. Wage Law Violation
CIOX HEALTH: "Roscoe" Suit Moved to N.D. Ga. Federal Court
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Howe" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York

CONSTAR FINANCIAL: Faces "Williams" Suit in E.D. New York
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Seeks Final OK of $76.5K "Nyby" Suit Deal
CONVERGYS CORPORATION: Patton Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
CRAFT BREW: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Product Label
CREDIT BUREAU: Faces "Carfora" Suit in E.D. New York

CVS PHARMACY: Corcoran Moves for Certification of 11 Classes
DAWN FOOD: Drivers Forced to Work During Breaks, "Castro" Says
DXP ENTERPRISES: Faces "Perez" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
ELGIN MENTAL: Officers Face "Padilla" Suit in N.D. Illinois
EMERGENCY COVERAGE: Court Certifies "Harbin" Suit as Class Action

EMERITUS CORPORATION: "Francisco" Suit Moved to C.D. California
EXAR CORP: Gusinsky Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with MaxLinear
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Faces "Wells" Suit Over Identity Alert Product
FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE: Wins Prelim. OK of "Dye" Suit Settlement
FIRST ENERGY: Faces "Rice" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania

FLAVOR BOUTIQUE: Tewolde Seeks Unpaid Minimum Pay, OT Under FLSA
FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Hill" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
FRED'S STORES: Faces Williams-Journey Suit over Credit Card Fraud
FREE RX: Gorss Motels Files Lawsuit Over "Unsolicited" Fax Ads
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Wins Settlement Approval; Hearing on July 10

FREEMAN EXPOSITIONS: Utility Cost's Bid to Certify Not Extended
FULLETT ROSENLUND: Class Certification Sought in "Ellison" Suit
GALLUP INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in Calif. Over Automated Call
GLOBAL FITNESS: Separate Fund Backfires for Class Attorneys
GLOBAL TRAVEL: Faces "Romain" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation

GREAT HEALTHWORKS: "Harrison" Suit Removed to S.D. California
GULFSTREAM PARK: "Gonzalez" Files Lawsuit Over 'Tip-Credit'
HAILEY DEVELOPMENT: Windham Sues over $205,293 in Unpaid Services
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Court Grants Prelim OK in Class Settlement
HAMILTON LAW: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania

HOMELAND SECURITY: Faces "Osorio-Martinez" Suit in E.D. Pa.
HOTEL DE POINT: Faces "Del-Orden" Suit in E.D. New York
HTCT LLC: Faces "Lugo" Suit Over Time-Shaving Under FLSA, NY Law
HARRISON GLOBAL: "Benson" Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
ILLINOIS, USA: Status Hearing in "Donegan" Suit Set for May 10

INSPIRON INC: Sky Materials Seeks to Recoup Moise-Related Funds
JCSK USA: Faces "Romero" Suit in Eastern District of New York
JPMORGAN CHASE: Workers' Action Over Stable Value Funds Okayed
KATY MOVERS: Faces "Jefferson" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
KMC ENTERPRISES: "Underwood" Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA

LIVE NATION: Faces Class Suit for Postponed Janet Jackson Concert
LUMENIS INC: Gillespie, et al. Sue Under FLSA, State Labor Laws
M&C GLOBAL: Faces "Gomes" Suit in Tex. Alleging FLSA Violation
MDLIVE: Sued for Allegedly Sharing Patient Data to Third Party
MICHIGAN: Health Department Faces "J.V." Suit in E.D. Michigan

MICROSOFT CORP: Watson Seeks Certification of Three Classes
MINATO RESTAURANT: Faces "Pettus" Wage-and-Hour Suit
MONSANTO COMPANY: 2 Suits Filed in E.D. Mo. Over Roundup
MOMS IN MOTION: Faces "LaRue" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Faces "Moran" Suit in E.D. New York

NETGEAR INC: Faces "Williams" Suit in N.D. California
NICK COYLE: Faces "Watkins" Wage-and-Hour Suit
NORWIN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
PEI WEI: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Denial of Meal Breaks
PENDRAGON NORTH: "Chiu" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court

PERSONNEL STAFFING: Faces "Haack" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Felberbaum" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
PHILIPS & PIONEER: Settles Price-Fixing Class Action for $50.5MM
PLASTC: Customers File Class Suit After Swiping $9MM from Backers
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Elliston" Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal.

PUBLIC STORAGE: "Grassi" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FACTA
RAVEL HOTEL: Faces "Andrews" Suit in E.D. New York
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Faces "Williams" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Settles TCPA Class Action for $17 Million
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Sewell" Suit Transferred to W.D. Okla.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Sanda" Suit Over Washing Machines
SLATE GROUP: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
SM&N HOSPITALITY: "Zevalos" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Pay
SOLOMON & SOLOMON: Faces "Deyneko" Suit in Eastern Dist. of N.Y.
SONY MOBILE: Faces "Landes" Suit Over Xperia Smartphone Ads

SURVEY SAMPLING: "Villanueva" Suit Moved to S.D. California
TAMKO BUILDING: Bill Won't Affect Class Action, Senator Says
TESLA INC: Faces Suit Over Nonfunctional Autopilot Software
TIME WARNER: Manigo's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Court Strikes Ferris' Bid to Certify Class

UNIQLO CALIFORNIA: "Rivera" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court
UNITED KINGDOM: Former Sub-Postmasters File Class Action
UNUM GROUP: Waddle Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation Under FLSA
VERMONT, USA: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Russell" Suit
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Judges Approve Class Action Settlement in Canada

WEATHERFORD INT'L: State Street Global Gets Class Action Claims
WELLS FARGO: To Expand Settlement Back An Additional Seven Years
WELLS FARGO: "Morales" Sues Over Unauthorized Service Fee
WOODMERE CLUB: Rounds Off Work Time, "Rodriguez" Suit Claims
WYNDHAM VACATION: "O'Boy" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California

YARD HOUSE: Faces "Andrews" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
YERINA RESTAURANT: Faces "Morales" Suit in S.D. New York
YORK INT'L: Court Grants Preliminary OK on Class Action Settlement
YZ COMMERCE: Faces Suit Over TCPA Violations
ZOCDOC INC: Unaccepted Settlement Offer Won't Moot Class Action

* Pierce Atwoods Discusses Gorsuch's Approach to Class Actions


                            *********


12291 CBW LLC: "Tarver" Seeks Minimum Wages, Misallocated Tips
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lakeisha Tarver, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. 12291 CBW, LLC d/b/a Temptations
Cabaret and Eric Langan, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00332, (N.D.
Tex., April 15, 2017), seeks overtime compensation, minimum wages,
misappropriated tips, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's
fees, costs and expenses of this action and such other relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

12291 CBW, LLC is a gentlemen's club operating as Temptations
Cabaret with locations throughout Texas and Louisiana. Tarver
worked at Temptations Cabaret located at 12291 Camp Bowie Blvd.,
Aldo, Texas 76008 as an exotic dancer. She did not receive the
mandated minimum wage. Her only compensation came in the form of
tips from club patrons. Moreover, Plaintiff was required to divide
her tips with Defendants and other employees who did not
customarily receive tips. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd Slobin, Esq.
      Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      Email: tslobin@eeoc.net
             rprieto@eeoc.net


618 MAIN CLOTHING: "Archer" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Archer, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated, Plaintiff, v. 618 Main Clothing Corp., Defendant, Case
No. 507477/2017 (N.Y. Sup., April 17, 2017), seeks maximum
liquidated damages and interest for unpaid overtime wages and
regular wages, costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New York
Labor Law and the New York Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant owned and/or operated 96 or more stores in several
states, including several stores in New York State. Defendant
employed Plaintiff at its store located at 144 East 98th Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11212. Plaintiff's work involved packing/unpacking
products, handling and receiving merchandise. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Tel: (718) 740-1000
      Fax: (718) 740-2000
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


A&R LOGISTICS: Faces "Ratliff" Suit Over Background Checks
----------------------------------------------------------
JEROME RATLIFF JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. A&R LOGISTICS, INC., an
Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02787 (N.D.
Ill., April 13, 2017), seeks to declaration that Defendant's
actions constitute violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Seeking to expand its fleet, A&R encourages consumers to apply for
driving positions by visiting its website and completing an online
application, according to the complaint.  As part of its hiring
process, A&R pulls applicants' background reports from HireRight,
LLC -- a leading pre-employment screening provider -- to identify,
among other things, their names, social security numbers, dates of
birth, previous employers, work records, and trucking accident or
incident histories. Using the information contained in these
reports, A&R then decides whether to continue the hiring process
or not. Given the impact that these reports have on an
individual's access to employment, Congress enacted the FCRA,
specifically to protect consumers from the ill effects of
erroneous credit reporting and provide them with a means of
ensuring that the information being distributed about them is
accurate and updated. To that end, when companies like A&R decide
not to hire an individual based in whole, or in part, on the
contents of these reports, they are required under the FCRA to
provide the individual within three business days of taking such
action notice.

A&R is a self-proclaimed leader in the trucking and transportation
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Aschenbrener, Esq.
          Adam C. York, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW LLC
          220 N Green St
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (212) 920 3072
          Facsimile: (212) 202 6364
          E-mail: masch@kamberlaw.com
                  ayork@kamberlaw.com


ACTAVIS HOLDCO: UFCW Local Sues over Lidocaine-Prilocaine Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Actavis Holdco US Inc., Taro
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Taro Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01740, (E.D. Pa., April 17, 2017),
seeks to recover treble damages, costs of suit and reasonable
attorneys' fees resulting from overcharging of generic lidocaine
2.5% and prilocaine 2.5% cream in violation of the Sherman Act and
Clayton Act.

Lidocaine-prilocaine is a commonly prescribed topical anesthetic
used to numb skin to pain from injections and other medical
procedures.

UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund is an employee welfare benefits fund
with its principal place of business at 425 Merrick Avenue,
Westbury, New York, 11590. Local 1500 provides nearly 15,000
members with health and welfare benefits, many of whom live in New
York, among other states.

Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business in Melville, New York. Fougera is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Sandoz, Inc., a Colorado
corporation with its principal place of business in Princeton, New
Jersey.

Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., a subsidiary of Akorn, Inc., is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Amityville, New York.

Impax is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of
business in Hayward, California.

Actavis is a pharmaceutical corporation with its global
headquarters in Dublin, Ireland, and with administrative
headquarters in New Jersey. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
      Paul Costa, Esq.
      Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
      FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Tel: (215) 567-6565
      Fax: (215) 568-5872
      Email: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
             pcosta@finekaplan.com
             apessin@finekaplan.com

             - and -

     Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
     Jay L. Himes, Esq.
     David J. Goldsmith, Esq.
     Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
     Robin A. Van Der Meulen, Esq.
     Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Tel: (212) 907-0700
     Fax: (212) 818-0477
     Email: gasciolla@labaton.com
            jhimes@labaton.com
            dgoldsmith@labaton.com
            kgarvey@labaton.com
            rvandermeulen@labaton.com
            mperez@labaton.com


ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Rochester Drug Sues over Ursodiol Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACTAVIS HOLDCO U.S.,
INC., LANNETT COMPANY, INC. and EPIC PHARMA, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01787-CMR (E.D. Pa., Apr. 18, 2017), seeks to
recover treble damages arising out of the Defendants' unlawful
scheme to fix, maintain, and stabilize the prices of generic
ursodiol, or ursodeoxycholic acid, 300 mg capsules (Ursodiol).

Generic versions of Ursodiol have been approved for the United
States market since 2000. For much of that time, generic versions
of Ursodiol have been priced significantly lower than their
branded counterparts. This is because the presence of multiple
competing versions of generic drugs usually results in vigorous
price competition, benefiting direct purchasers and consumers
through lower prices. However, recently, the price of generic
Ursodiol has experienced unusual and unprecedented prices
increases. Around April 2014, Defendants caused the price of
Ursodiol to dramatically increase in unison. The increases were
the result of an agreement among Defendants to increase pricing
and restrain competition for the sale of Ursodiol in the United
States. The agreement was furthered by discussions hosted by the
Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA), including meetings in
Maryland and Florida in 2013, 2014, and 2015 attended by the
Defendants. Defendants Actavis, Epic and Lannett sold Ursodiol
during the Class Period (as defined below). Soon after the mid-
February 2014 meeting, average prices for Ursodiol increased 195%
in a matter of weeks starting April 2014. Between May 2014 and
September 2014, prices rose over 1,500%. These price increases
were, for the most part, in lockstep. Defendants have maintained
Ursodiol prices at these supracompetitive prices.

Ursodiol is a bile acid available as 300 mg capsules administered
orally. Ursodiol is a naturally occurring bile acid found in small
quantities found in human bile. The drug is indicated for
treatment of gallbladder stones. Ursodiol inhibits intestinal of
absorption of cholesterol suppresses the livers synthesis and
secretion of cholesterol.

Actavis develops, manufactures, and commercializes generic and
branded pharmaceutical products, and biologics and medical devices
for patients worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          Erin C. Burns, Esq.
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923 9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923 9302
          E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
                  eburns@nastlaw.com

               - and -

          David F. Sorensen, Esq.
          Zachary D. Caplan, Esq.
          Christina M. Black, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
          E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
                  zeaplan@bm.net
                  cblack@bm.net

               - and -

          Peter Kohn, Esq.
          Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
          FARUQUI & FARUQUI, LLP
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 277 5770
          Facsimile: (215) 277 5771
          E-mail: pkohn@faruilaw.com
                  jlukens@faruilaw.com

               - and -

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


ALDRIDGE IT SERVICES: Technicians Class Certified in Hugdahl Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Melinda Harmon grants conditional certification and
approves notice to putative class members in the lawsuit entitled
KEN HUGDAHL, and others Similarly situated v. ALDRIDGE IT
SERVICES, LLC, THE DAVID L. ALDRIDGE COMPANY, INC., and, DAVID L.
ALDRIDGE, Case No. 4:16-cv-03073 (S.D. Tex.).  The Class consists
of:

     all current and former Help Desk Technicians employed by the
     David L. Aldridge Company, Inc. in Texas who worked in
     excess of forty (40) hours in any workweek during the time
     period from October 17, 2013 to present.

The Court directed Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff the list
of names and addresses of Putative Class Members, and for the
Plaintiff to mail notice to the Putative Class Members.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VPEBKs7q

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
          ROSS LAW GROUP
          1104 San Antonio Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474-7677
          E-mail: tpadgettlaw@gmail.com


ALLEN EDMONDS: Faces "Walker" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allen Edmonds
Corporation. The case is captioned as Ricardo Walker, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Allen
Edmonds Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02400
(E.D.N.Y., Apr. 21, 2017).

Allen Edmonds is an American upscale shoe manufacturing and retail
company based in Port Washington, Wisconsin. The company was
established in Belgium, Wisconsin in 1922. Allen Edmonds operates
52 retail stores in 28 states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLIANCE MMA: Faces "Shapiro" Securities Suit Over 2016 IPO
-----------------------------------------------------------
ERIC SHAPIRO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. ALLIANCE MMA, INC., PAUL K. DANNER, III,
and JOHN PRICE, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02583 (D.N.J., April
17, 2017), alleges that the Company's Registration Statement
containing the preliminary prospectus for its initial public
offering on or about October 6, 2016, contained material
misstatements.

Allegedly, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the condensed consolidated
financial statements for the three months ended June 30, 2016
could not be relied upon because of an error in recognizing as
compensation transfers of common stock by an affiliate of the
Company to individuals who were at the time of transfer, or
subsequently became, officers, directors or consultants of the
Company; and (2) the condensed consolidated financial statements
for the six months ended June 30, 2016 could not be relied upon
because of an error in recognizing as compensation transfers of
common stock by an affiliate of the Company to individuals who
were at the time of transfer, or subsequently became, officers,
directors or consultants of the Company, says the complaint.

Defendant Alliance focuses on mixed martial arts (MMA) promotional
activities. [BN]

     Laurence Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
     South Orange, NJ 07079
     Phone: (973) 313 1887
     Fax: (973) 833 0399
     Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


ALTERNATIVE ENERGY: "Palacios" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Christian Palacios, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alternative Energy, Inc. and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC658046 (Cal.
Super., April 17, 2017), seeks all unpaid wages and such general
and special damages, pre-judgment interest on any unpaid
compensation, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit
incurred and such other and further relief for failure to provide
meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks, failure
to pay overtime compensation, failure to indemnify for
expenditures or losses incurred in discharge of duties, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements and failure to timely
pay final wages at termination in violation of the California
Labor Code, Unfair Business Practices Act and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Alternate Energy, Inc. is a locally owned and operated alternative
energy company specializing in PV, HVAC, and electrical services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
      RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
      22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 200
      Torrance, CA 90505
      Telephone: (310) 961-9600
      Facsimile: (310)961-9094
      Email: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com


AMERICAN CHEMICALS: ABC Seeks Final OK of $1.55-Mil. Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuits styled ABC BARTENDING SCHOOL OF
MIAMI, INC., individually and as representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. AMERICAN CHEMICALS & EQUIPMENT, INC.
(d.b.a. "AMERICAN OSMENT", "GORILLA GLIDES", and "STOCKUP.COM"),
and STEVEN MOTE, Case No. 1:15-cv-23142-KMW (S.D. Fla.), and BAIS
YAAKOV OF SPRING VALLEY, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN CHEMICALS & EQUIPMENT, INC. d/b/a
AMERICANOSMENT d/b/a STOCKUP.COM, Case No. 16-CV-24705-KMW, file
with the Court their unopposed motion for entry of final approval
order and judgment of the parties' class action settlement
agreement and approval of fee and cost application.

ABC initiated the action on August 21, 2015, alleging that ACE
sent unsolicited fax advertisements to ABC and other members of a
putative class, with the authorization or direct, personal
participation of Defendant, Steven Mote, resulting in losses to
ABC and members of the class.  ABC asserted claims under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and under common law theories of
conversion, trespass to chattels, and negligence per se.

In the meantime, ACE faced a separate lawsuit also premised on its
alleged sending of unsolicited fax advertisements.  Specifically,
on June 15, 2016, Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley filed an action
asserting TCPA and state law claims that overlapped with the
claims asserted in the Miami action.

The Court held a hearing on August 24, 2016, and encouraged the
parties to engage in global settlement discussions.  The
Settlement Agreement, preliminary approved on December 19, 2016,
was the result of those discussions, aided by months of arms-
length negotiations that had previously taken place.

Upon Final approval, the parties' Settlement Agreement will
dispose of all claims related to the sending of unsolicited fax
advertisements to this Settlement Class:

     All persons or legal entities in the United States who,
     during the Class Period [(October 22, 2012 to September 20,
     2016)], owned, used, subscribed to, or controlled any fax
     number(s) on the Facsimile List[2], and who received a
     facsimile advertisement from or on behalf of Defendants
     American Chemicals & Equipment, Inc., including its
     subsidiaries, affiliates, and d/b/a's and/or Steven K. Mote,
     including but not limited to facsimile advertisements
     promoting (1) "Gorilla Glides", "www.GorillaGlides.com", and
     offering "Gorilla Glides" floor protection products, and/or
     (2) "StockUp.com", and offering office supply products.

The Settlement Class includes 13,818 school districts and 90,129
schools and companies, some of which had multiple fax numbers.
There were an additional 53,382 fax numbers in the Facsimile List
that were not associated with a specific person or entity.

In addition to an injunction prohibiting future violations of the
TCPA's restrictive provisions, the Defendants agreed to fund a
Settlement Common Fund of $1,550,000, over a period of five years.
The Settlement Agreement further provides that members of the
Settlement Class will receive monetary relief of up to $500 per
copy of a Qualifying Facsimile Advertisement submitted along with
a valid claim.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives, and their respective counsel as Class Counsel.
They also seek an award of $516,666 to Class Counsel as reasonable
attorneys' fees, $32,278 to Class Counsel as costs and expenses,
and $15,000 to ABC and $10,000 to BYSV as incentive awards.

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

Plaintiff ABC Bartending School of Miami, Inc., is represented by:

          Eric A. Hernandez, Esq.
          Jermaine E. Lee, Esq.
          Arturo Martinez, Esq.
          WALLEN HERNANDEZ LEE MARTINEZ, LLP
          255 Aragon Avenue, Suite 200
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 842-2100
          Facsimile: (305) 842-2105
          E-mail: eric@whlmlegal.com
                  jlee@whlmlegal.com
                  arturo@whlmlegal.com

Plaintiff Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley is represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Eilender, Esq.
          SCHLAM STONE & DOLAN LLP
          26 Broadway #19
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 344-5400
          E-mail: jme@schlamstone.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey N. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Paul J. Sodhi, Esq.
          Ana Tagvoryan, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          One Logan Square
          130 North 18th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998
          Telephone: (215) 569-5553
          Facsimile: (215) 832-5553
          E-mail: Rosenthal-J@BlankRome.com
                  PSodhi@BlankRome.com
                  ATagvoryan@BlankRome.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Brochin, Esq.
          Brian M. Ercole, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 5300
          Miami, FL 33131-2339
          Telephone: (305) 415-3456
          Facsimile: (305) 415-3001
          E-mail: RBrochin@morganlewis.com
                  BErcole@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          David J. Guin, Esq.
          GUIN STOKES & EVANS, LLC
          300 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd. North
          Suite 600/Title Building
          Birmingham, Alabama 35203
          Telephone: (205) 503-4505
          E-mail: davidg@gseattorneys.com


AMERICAN CHEMICALS: ABC Amends Bid for Final OK of Class Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in two lawsuits against American Chemicals &
Equipment, Inc., file with the Court their amended unopposed
motion for entry of final approval order and judgment of the
parties' class action settlement agreement and approval of fee and
cost application.

The two lawsuits are ABC BARTENDING SCHOOL OF MIAMI, INC.,
individually and as representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. AMERICAN CHEMICALS & EQUIPMENT, INC. (d.b.a.
"AMERICAN OSMENT", "GORILLA GLIDES", and "STOCKUP.COM"), and
STEVEN MOTE, Case No. 1:15-cv-23142-KMW (S.D. Fla.), and BAIS
YAAKOV OF SPRING VALLEY, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN CHEMICALS & EQUIPMENT, INC. d/b/a
AMERICANOSMENT d/b/a STOCKUP.COM, Case No. 16-CV-24705-KMW (S.D.
Fla.).

The Amended Motion includes declarations of Class Counsel Jeffrey
M. Eilender, Esq., Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq., and updating
Cost/Expense Detail accordingly from $32,278 to $42,123.

The actions allege that ACE sent unsolicited fax advertisements in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  The Court
held a hearing on August 24, 2016, and encouraged the parties to
engage in global settlement discussions.  The Settlement
Agreement, preliminary approved on December 19, 2016, was the
result of those discussions, aided by months of arms-length
negotiations that had previously taken place.

Upon Final approval, the parties' Settlement Agreement will
dispose of all claims related to the sending of unsolicited fax
advertisements to this Settlement Class:

     All persons or legal entities in the United States who,
     during the Class Period [(October 22, 2012 to September 20,
     2016)], owned, used, subscribed to, or controlled any fax
     number(s) on the Facsimile List[2], and who received a
     facsimile advertisement from or on behalf of Defendants
     American Chemicals & Equipment, Inc., including its
     subsidiaries, affiliates, and d/b/a's and/or Steven K. Mote,
     including but not limited to facsimile advertisements
     promoting (1) "Gorilla Glides", "www.GorillaGlides.com", and
     offering "Gorilla Glides" floor protection products, and/or
     (2) "StockUp.com", and offering office supply products.

In addition to an injunction prohibiting future violations of the
TCPA's restrictive provisions, the Defendants agreed to fund a
Settlement Common Fund of $1,550,000, over a period of five years.
The Settlement Agreement further provides that members of the
Settlement Class will receive monetary relief of up to $500 per
copy of a Qualifying Facsimile Advertisement submitted along with
a valid claim.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives, and their respective counsel as Class Counsel.
They also seek an award of $516,666 to Class Counsel as reasonable
attorneys' fees, $42,123 to Class Counsel as costs and expenses,
and $15,000 to ABC and $10,000 to BYSV as incentive awards.

Copies of the Amended Motions for each of the lawsuits are
available at no charge at:

   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=t3ZBKrU3
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=d8UFrnNl

Plaintiff ABC Bartending School of Miami, Inc., is represented by:

          Eric A. Hernandez, Esq.
          Jermaine E. Lee, Esq.
          Arturo Martinez, Esq.
          WALLEN HERNANDEZ LEE MARTINEZ, LLP
          255 Aragon Avenue, Suite 200
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 842-2100
          Facsimile: (305) 842-2105
          E-mail: eric@whlmlegal.com
                  jlee@whlmlegal.com
                  arturo@whlmlegal.com

Plaintiff Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley is represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Eilender, Esq.
          SCHLAM STONE & DOLAN LLP
          26 Broadway #19
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 344-5400
          E-mail: jme@schlamstone.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey N. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Paul J. Sodhi, Esq.
          Ana Tagvoryan, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          One Logan Square
          130 North 18th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998
          Telephone: (215) 569-5553
          Facsimile: (215) 832-5553
          E-mail: Rosenthal-J@BlankRome.com
                  PSodhi@BlankRome.com
                  ATagvoryan@BlankRome.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Brochin, Esq.
          Brian M. Ercole, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 5300
          Miami, FL 33131-2339
          Telephone: (305) 415-3456
          Facsimile: (305) 415-3001
          E-mail: RBrochin@morganlewis.com
                  BErcole@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          David J. Guin, Esq.
          GUIN STOKES & EVANS, LLC
          300 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd. North
          Suite 600/Title Building
          Birmingham, Alabama 35203
          Telephone: (205) 503-4505
          E-mail: davidg@gseattorneys.com


AMERICAN ROAD: Faces "Frazee" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Frazee, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. American Road Management, Inc., a Florida for
Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00671-JA-TBS (M.D.
Fla., April 13, 2017), alleges that Defendant failed to comply
with the Fair Labor Standards Act because Plaintiff, and those
similarly situated, performed services for Defendant for which no
provisions were made by Defendant to properly pay Plaintiff and
those similarly situated, for all overtime hours worked.

American Road Management Inc. provides Harley-Davidson motorcycle
sales, rentals, service/parts, and Harley-Davidson apparel.

Plaintiff was responsible for making motorcycle sales at the
Defendant's dealership.[BN]

     Matthew R. Gunter, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
     P.O. Box 4979
     Orlando, FL 32802 4979
     Phone: 407 420 1414
     Fax: 407 867 0946
     E-mail: mgunter@forthepeople.com


AMERICARE INC: "Polyakov" Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------
Yevgeniy Polyakov, on behalf of himself, Individually, and all
others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Americare, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 507515/2017, (N.Y. Sup., April 17, 2017),
seeks damages and equitable relief for violation of the overtime
provisions of the New York Labor Law, and for failure to furnish
employees with wage statements on each payday containing specific
categories of accurate information under the New York Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

Defendant is a New York corporation providing nursing, therapy and
home healthcare services for elderly and disabled individuals in
New York City and the surrounding areas. Plaintiff worked for
Defendant as a Certified Home Health Aide, providing fulltime
patient care that included more than 20 percent of general
household work.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jon Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
      Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq.
      JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
      225 Broadway, Suite 2700
      New York, NY 10007
      Tel: (212) 227-5700
      Fax: (212) 406-6890


AMERICAN TEX-CHEM: Gorss Motels Moves for Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled GORSS MOTELS, INC., a
Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons v. AMERICAN TEX-CHEM
CORPORATION, a California corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No.
3:17-cv-00485-VLB (D. Conn.), moves for class certification
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Gorss Motels also asks the Court to take 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.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=isyh3rFt

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


AMERIGAS PROPANE: "Avila" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cresencio Avila, as an individual,
and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff,
v. Amerigas Propane, Inc., and Does 1-50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC653093, was removed on Apr. 14, 2017, from
the Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02867 to the
proceeding.

Amerigas Propane markets retail propane to residential,
commercial, industrial, agricultural, and motor fuel propane
customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


APPLE INC: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over App Store Monopoly
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meng Jing, writing for South China Morning Post, reports that
Apple Inc may face legal action for allegedly monopolising iPhone
apps in China, the No 1 market for its App Store, after a Beijing
law firm called for Chinese app developers to join a proposed
class-action lawsuit against the American tech giant.

Beijing Dare & Sure Law Firm claims that Apple may be violating
China's antitrust laws because its unique iOS operating system
does not allow iPhone users to download apps anywhere other than
its App Store.

"There is a possibility for Apple to abuse its dominant position
in the iOS operating system, damaging the legal rights of app
developers, operators and consumers," the law firm said on its
official website, asking Chinese app developers which believe they
have been wrongfully treated by Apple to join a proposed class
action lawsuit.

A dozen Chinese app developers, mostly in gaming and video, have
already joined the group since the notice was posted on April 16
and the number is growing daily, the law firm said.

"The question over Apple's alleged monopoly is not new and it is
not only in China. Some Chinese companies have been asking us for
advice over the past years but they were hesitant to take real
action because they were afraid of being banned from the App Store
eternally," Lin Wei, a partner with the law firm told the South
China Morning Post.

He added that the law firm only launched the class action after
finding some clients that agreed to sue. Typical complaints
include apps being delisted from App Store without adequate
explanation for the reason, and the requirement to use Apple's in-
app purchases rather than any other third-party payment methods.

Apple China declined to comment on the possible class action
lawsuit on April 20.

The lawsuit attracted mainland Chinese media attention after Apple
ruled against WeChat on April 19, requesting that the app with
more than 800 million users in China use Apple's in-app purchase
system rather than its self-developed payment system for a tipping
feature.

"Small-and-medium sized app developers in China are taking Apple's
App Store very seriously because they rely heavily on the channel
to make money," said Zhao Ziming, an analyst with the Beijing-
based internet consultancy Analysys.  He said many of Apple's
competitors in China allow users to install third-party software
stores on their Android operating system devices and download apps
for free.

Mainland media reported that about 60,000 apps developed in China
were delisted from the App Store for broadcasting inappropriate
information, or over intellectual property issues and other
reasons.

"It is hard to say whether or not Apple is a monopoly because it
has the right to manage its App Store based on laws and to keep
everything in order," Mr. Zhao said.

The company has also been sued in the US over allegations of
monopolising the iPhone app market and taking a hefty 30 per cent
cut for delivering software to end-users.

Launched in 2008, App Store generated more than US$8.5 billion in
revenue for Apple in 2016.

In the third quarter of last year, China overtook the United
States as Apple's largest market in terms of App Store revenue,
driven by the growing popularity of in-app subscriptions,
particularly for entertainment such as gaming and live streaming.

According to analytics firm App Annie, China accounted for over
US$1.7 billion in revenue from the iOS App Store in the third
quarter of 2016 while the US, which had been the top market for
iOS apps since 2010, now trails China by 15 percentage points,
with Japan in third place.


ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Libby" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Kelly Libby, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ARS National Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02299
(E.D.N.Y., Apr. 17, 2017).

ARS offers accounts receivable management services. It caters to
financial services organizations, Banks, and credit card
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


ASSENT INC: Stacy Sues Over Unsolicited Cell Phone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Stacy, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Assent, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-00783-WQH-NLS (S.D. Cal., Apr. 18, 2017), seeks to recover
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

On April 12, 2017, at 11:39 a.m., Ms. Stacy received a telephone
call on her cellular telephone from Defendant, in which Defendant
utilized an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS), using an
"artificial or prerecorded voice" as prohibited by U.S.C. par.
227(b)(1)(A). The calls to Ms. Stacy's cellular telephone number
(ending in 6635) from Defendant came from phone number, including
but not limited to: (909) 390-0003. Ms. Stacy answered the call
and said "hello" two or three times before someone came on the
line. It was a woman who stated she was calling from "Lender
Services" to see if Plaintiff could qualify to refinance her home.
The woman confirmed Plaintiff's address and transferred her to a
"Senior Supervisor."

Plaintiff at no time provided "prior express consent" for
Defendant to place telephone calls to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone with an artificial or prerecorded voice utilizing an
ATDS. The Plaintiff had not provided her cellular telephone number
to Defendant. The Plaintiff was not a customer of Defendant. The
Plaintiff had no "established business relationship" with
defendant.

The Defendant is in engaged in lending business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          Kevin Lemieux, Esq.
          HYDE AND SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233 7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
                  kevin@westcoastlitigation.com


BANNER BANK: Faces "Bolding" Suit in W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Banner Bank. The
case is titled as Kelly Bolding and Michael Manfredi, individually
and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Banner Bank, a Washington Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00600 (W.D. Wash., Apr. 17, 2017).

Banner Bank is a Washington-chartered commercial bank
headquartered in Walla Walla, Washington, with roots that date
back to 1890. The bank provides services in commercial real
estate, construction, residential, agricultural and consumer
loans.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jordan A Taren, Esq.
          Robin J Shishido, Esq.
          THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM
          1000 Second Avenue, Ste 3250
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 343 2700
          E-mail: jtaren@blankenshiplawfirm.com
                  rshishido@blankenshiplawfirm.com


BEHR PROCESS: "McBain" Suit Seeks OT, Missed Breaks Premium
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan McBain, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Behr Process Corporation, a corporation, Behr Paint
Corporation and Does 1-10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
RG17855986, (Cal. Super., April 7, 2017), seeks to recover missed
breaks premium, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, litigation
costs, costs of court, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
under the provisions of the California Labor Code, applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and Private Attorneys
General Act.

Behr is a manufacturing company that produces paints, primers,
stains, and floor coatings where Plaintiff worked as a field
representative.

Behr allegedly failed to pay all overtime wages, missed meal or
rest periods premium pay, failed to provide accurate wage
statements, failed to reimburse Plaintiff for all business
expenses and all wages owed at discharge and damages for late
wages.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laura L. Ho, Esq.
      William C. Jhaveri-Weeks, Esq.
      Byron Goldstein, Esq.
      Ginger L. Grimes, Esq.
      GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
      300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (510) 763-9800
      Fax: (510) 835-1417
      Email: lho@gbdhlegal.com
             wjhaveriweeks@gbdhlegal.com
             brgoldstein@gbdhlegal.com
             ggrimes@gbdhlegal.com


BLACKROCK RETIREMENT: Faces "Baird" Suit Over ERISA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Baird, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and on behalf of the BlackRock Retirement Saving Plan,
Plaintiff v. BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A.;
BlackRock, Inc.; The BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee; Jason
Herman, named Plan Sponsor; John and Jane Does 1-40, Members of
the BlackRock Retirement Committee; The Administrative Committee
of the Retirement Committee; John and Jane Does 1-20, Members of
the Administrative Committee of the Retirement Committee; The
Investment Committee of the Retirement Committee; John and Jane
Does 21-40, Members of the Investment Committee of the Retirement
Committee; each an individual, and John and Jane Does 41-60, each
an individual, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01892-SK (N.D. Cal.,
April 5, 2017) is a civil enforcement action brought pursuant to
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended,
(ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2) & (a)(3), for violations of
ERISA's fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions provisions. It
is brought as a class action by Charles Baird, who is a
participant in the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan (the
"BlackRock Plan" or the "Plan"), on behalf of the Plan and all
similarly situated Plan participants and beneficiaries, and all
predecessor plans.

This suit is about corporate self-dealing at the expense of a
company's own retirement plan. The complaint says Defendants are
all Plan fiduciaries who are required by ERISA to act prudently,
solely in the interest of the Plan's participants, and to prevent
the Plan from engaging in prohibited transactions when acting with
respect to the Plan. However, the Fiduciary Defendants failed to
honor their duties. Instead of using BlackRock's sophistication
and the Plan's bargaining power to benefit participants and
beneficiaries, BlackRock selected and retained high-cost and poor-
performing investment options, with excessive layers of hidden
fees that are not included in the fund expense ratios. As a
result, the BlackRock LifePath Funds in the Plan underperformed
relative to target date benchmarks and alternative target date
funds with comparable investment strategies, says the complaint.

Plaintiff seeks relief including disgorgement of all investment
advisory fees paid to BlackRock and/or its subsidiaries from Plan
assets, as well as the losses caused to their retirement accounts
from the many fiduciary breaches and prohibited transactions.

Defendant BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. is a
national banking association organized under the laws of the
United States that operates as a limited purpose trust company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Nina Wasow, Esq.
   Todd Jackson, Esq.
   Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow, LLP
   383 4th Street, Suite 201
   Oakland, CA 94607
   Tel: (510) 269-7998
   Fax: (510) 269-7994
   Email: nina@feinbergjackson.com
          todd@feinbergjackson.com

        - and -

   Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
   Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
   Cohen Miltein Sellers & Toll, PLLC
   1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
   Suite 500, West Tower
   Washington, DC 20005
   Tel: (202) 408-4600
   Fax: (202) 408-4699
   Email: khandorf@cohenmilstein.com
          myau@cohenmilstein.com


BLUE CROSS: Faces "Louis" Suit Alleging Racial Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHEDLEY LOUIS, Plaintiff, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD
OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida company, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
21401-JEM (S.D. Fla., April 14, 2017), states that Plaintiff (and
others similarly situated) brings this action under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Sections 706(a) and 706(g) for
damages caused by Defendant's unlawful employment practices
committed against Plaintiff because Plaintiff was denied incentive
pay and promotions on the basis of her race.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., doing business as
Florida Blue, provides managed health solutions in the United
States.  Plaintiff was hired by BCBS as a temporary employee in
2013 and became permanent on or about January 6, 2014 as a
Customer Service Representative handling telephone calls in
English and Creole. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles Eiss, Esq.
     Lindsay M. Massillon, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES EISS, P.L.
     7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 308
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone: (954) 914-7890
     Fax: (855) 423-5298
     E-mail: ceiss@icelawfirm.com
             lmassillon@icelawfirm.com


BONOBOS INC: Faces "Del-Orden" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bonobos, Inc. The
case is entitled as Jose Del-Orden, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bonobos, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02744 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 17, 2017).

Bonobos is an e-commerce-driven apparel company headquartered in
New York City that designs and sells men's clothing. Bonobos
offers a full line of men's suits, trousers, denim, shirts,
shorts, swimwear, outerwear and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOOKING.COM: "Amhaz" Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages, Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Amhaz, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class, Plaintiff v. Booking.Com (USA) Inc., The Priceline
Group Inc. and John Does #1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02120
(S.D. N.Y., March 23, 2017) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff further alleges that, pursuant to the New York Labor Law
(NYLL), she is entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid
overtime compensation, (2) statutory penalties, (3) liquidated
damages and (4) attorneys' fees and costs.  She also asserts that
she was deprived her statutory rights as a result of Defendants'
unlawful discrimination practices and sexual harassment pursuant
to New York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law Sec.
296 (NYSHRL), and New York City Human Rights Law, Administrative
Code of the City of New York Sec. 8-107 (NYCHRL) and brings this
action against Defendants to recover (1) compensatory damages for
emotional distress, (2) punitive damages and (3) attorneys' fees
and costs.

Plaintiff worked as an Account Manager for Defendants 45 hours per
week and Key Account Manager 60 to 70 hours per week, says the
complaint.

Defendants Booking.Com (USA) Inc. and The Priceline Group Inc.
operate an online accommodation booking website under the trade
name "Booking.com".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Anne Seelig, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181


BRIDGE LLC: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO RODRIGUEZ, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BNR THE BRIDGE LLC and BOBBY
RISHER, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00346 (W.D. Tex., Apr.
18, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed to
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all current and former
construction workers not paid overtime who performed work for
Defendants during the three-year period before the filing of this
Case.

The Defendants required Plaintiff to work more than 40 hours a
week as a construction worker. Defendants paid Plaintiff under a
compensation system which violates the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). The Defendants paid Plaintiff and other construction
workers a flat hourly rate regardless of the number of hours they
worked per week. In other words, Defendants pay their construction
workers straight time for overtime. Defendants' conduct violates
the FLSA, which mandates that non-exempt employees, such as
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, be compensated
at one and one-half times their regular rate for each hour worked
over forty hours per week.

Bridge, LLC, is a premier residential and commercial remodeling
firm in the San Antonio metro area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (281) 885 8844
          Facsimile: (281) 885 8813
          E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com


BROADWAY PLAZA: Faces "Del-Orden" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Broadway Plaza Hotel
Inc. The case is captioned as Jose Del-Orden, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Broadway
Plaza Hotel Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02742 (S.D.N.Y.,
Apr. 17, 2017).

Broadway Plaza Hotel is a boutique hotel located in the heart of
Manhattan.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CAINE & WEINER: Faces "Graham" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caine & Weiner
Company. The case is styled as Anthony C. Graham, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Caine & Weiner Company, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
02295 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 17, 2017).

Caine & Weiner provides domestic and international commercial
collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CAMP DRUGSTORE: Hit with Class Action TCPA Fax Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq., at Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, writing for
Lexology, wrote that a class action fax lawsuit has been filed
against a medical supply company in the federal district court for
the Southern District of Illinois. The plaintiff seeks to
represent a nationwide class of persons and entities who received
one or more faxes alleged to have been sent in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

What are the alleged violations asserted in the fax lawsuit?
The plaintiff, a drug store, alleges that the subject facsimiles
contain TCPA violations including: (1) non-compliant or missing
opt-out notices required by the TCPA; and (2) unsolicited
transmission of the advertisements to recipients with whom it did
not have an established business relationship. The complaint also
attempts to circumvent any procedural standing concerns raised by
the recent Supreme Court decision in Spokeo by claiming that the
alleged recipients of these unsolicited fax advertisements
suffered injury through fax machine wear and tear, lost paper and
toner, invasion of recipient privacy, tied-up and occupied
telephone lines, and prevention of recipient fax machines from
receiving authorized faxes. Given the potential certification of a
nationwide class, the medical supply company could be exposed to
millions of dollars in liability.

Protect Your Business from a Fax Lawsuit

We have previously blogged about TCPA-related liability resulting
from fax marketing practices and procedures that failed to comply
with the mandates of the TCPA and the FCC's implementing
regulations. The nuanced intricacies and technical requirements
mandated by these rules and regulations, and the potential
liability associated with noncompliance, emphasize the need for
businesses operating in this space to work closely with
knowledgeable counsel prior to engaging in any fax marketing
campaign.


CANADA: Disability Group Mulls Class Action Over Public Transit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Magder, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that last
year, Bill Lavery had to wait for an hour and a half to get on a
bus that could accommodate his motorized scooter.

"I was at a bus stop, and three buses in a row came by with broken
ramps," said Mr. Lavery, a resident of Plateau-Mont-Royal. "It was
a nice summer's day, but if (it had been a cold day) with elderly
people waiting for a bus, that's not a good thing."

Mr. Lavery was one of about 30 people using wheelchairs, scooters,
walkers or crutches who came to the 17th floor of the Montreal
courthouse on April 19 to attend a hearing for a petition to
launch a class-action lawsuit against the city of Montreal, the
Societe de transport de Montreal, and the Agence metropolitaine de
transport.  The group claims the city and the transit agencies are
discriminating against people with reduced mobility because of a
lack of accessibility on buses, trains and at metro stations.  It
claims those with reduced mobility don't have access to efficient
public transit, and are therefore at a disadvantage compared to
the rest of the population.

Ramps on buses are not reliable, few metro stations have elevators
and only one commuter train line out of six is accessible to
people in wheelchairs: That forces them to rely on adapted
transport, a service that has serious limitations, the group
argued.

Linda Gauthier, the co-president of the Regroupement des
activistes pour l'inclusion au Quebec who is representing the
group, said having to rely on adapted transit is a severe limit to
her freedom of movement. She can rarely just leave her house to
travel somewhere within the city. It usually takes hours of
planning.

"You have to make a reservation 24 hours in advance, and you can't
really use the service to do any sort of errands, because you have
to be at the place where you were dropped off for at least an
hour, and you're not allowed to carry any bags," she said.

Mr. Lavery, who has also lived in Kansas City, New York City and
Toronto, said Montreal's transit system is the least accessible of
the four.

"I can't use the metro at all," he said.  Of 68 stations, only 11
have elevators.  "It has to be a fluke if your origin and
destination both have accessible stations."

Mr. Lavery was at the courthouse to lend his support to the cause.
He said he hopes the class-action suit goes ahead, because he
feels it will take a court order before agencies vastly improve
accessibility.

He said in the U.S., transit services are miles ahead of Canadian
ones, mostly because the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
requires all areas of public life to be accessible.

In court on April 19, lawyers for RAPLIQ argued the agencies are
obliged to provide efficient public transit for everyone.

"If they offer a service, it should be offered to anyone," lawyer
Aymar Missakila argued. "They can't exclude an entire group.
That's discrimination."

He argued the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has
prohibited discrimination since in 1982.  All metro stations built
after that time should have been built with elevators.

The lawyer for the AMT argued it is a political decision whether
to make stations accessible, and political decisions are immune
from prosecution in the courts.

Arguments were set to continue on April 20.  A decision on the
case is likely come months later.  If approved, it would take
several years before the class-action suit can be heard.  If the
case is successful, all people with mobility issues, requiring a
wheelchair or a walker, and visually impaired people who get
around with a cane, would be eligible for compensation.

In Quebec, groups are automatically enrolled in class-action
suits, so individuals need to prove they are part of the group to
get compensation.


CAPITOHOME LLC: Melingonis Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Melingonis, Individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CapitoHomes, LLC, and
Jipal Bhalodwala, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00779-L-NLS
(S.D. Cal., Apr. 18, 2017), seeks to recover damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies,
resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants in negligently,
knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

On March 17, 2017 Mr. Melingonis received telephone calls on his
cellular telephone from Defendants, in which Defendants
utilized an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS), using an
"artificial or prerecorded voice" as prohibited by 47 U.S.C. par.
227(b)(1)(A). The March 17, 2017 call to Mr. Melingonis's cellular
telephone number (ending in 9812) from Defendants came from phone
number: (478) 247-7321. Mr. Melingonis hung up on the caller. On
March 20, 2017, Mr. Melingonis received another call from (478)
247-7321 at 10:38 AM. During the March 20 call from Defendants to
Mr. Melingonis's cellular telephone, Mr. Melingonis answered the
phone. He said, "hello" at least four times before someone came on
the line. The man identified himself as Eric Bradley with Capito
Homes. He informed Plaintiff that they were expanding into his
area and asked if he would be interested in joining. He informed
Plaintiff that their website was www.capitohomes.com. Plaintiff
terminated the call.

The Plaintiff at no time provided "prior express consent" for
Defendants to place telephone calls to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone with an artificial or prerecorded voice utilizing an
ATDS. The Plaintiff had not provided his cellular telephone number
to Defendants. Plaintiff was not a customer of Defendants.
Plaintiff had no "established business relationship" with
Defendants. These telephone calls made by Defendants or their
agents were in violation of 47 U.S.C. par. 227(b)(1).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Swigart, Esq. (SBN: 225557)
          Kevin Lemieux, Esq.
          HYDE AND SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233 7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
          E-mail: Josh@westcoastlitigation.com
                  kevin@westcoastlitigation.com


CARRINGTON TEA: Faces "Zemola" Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carrington Tea
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Elizabeth Zemola and Matthew
Beaumont, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, the Plaintiffs, v. Carrington Tea Company,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00760-MMA-KSC (S.D. Cal.,
Apr. 14, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael M.
Anello.

Carrington Tea Company produces teas. It offers black teas, green
teas, white teas, and organic teas, as well as herbal blends.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
          4125 West Point Loma Blvd., No. 206
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 767 0356
          Facsimile: (619) 331 2943
          E-mail: paul@pauljosephlaw.com


CELADON GROUP: Block & Leviton LLP Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing
investors nationwide, on April 19 disclosed that it has filed a
lawsuit against Celadon Group Inc. ("CGI" or the "Company") (NYSE:
CGI) and certain of its officers and directors for violations of
the federal securities laws.

If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Celadon
securities between December 30, 2016 and April 18, 2017 (the
"Class Period"), and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must
move the Court no later than June 19, 2017 to become the lead
plaintiff.

If you wish to become involved in the litigation or have questions
about your legal rights, please contact attorney Bradley Vettraino
at (617) 398-5600, by email at Bradley@blockesq.com or by visiting
www.blockesq.com/cgi.

On April 5, 2017 a report issued by Prescience Point Research
Group charged that "CGI has used off-balance sheet entities . . .
and manipulative accounting practices to hide its insolvent
condition from investors and creditors."  CGI's stock price
declined 14% after the publication of this report on the website
Seeking Alpha.  On April 19, 2017, Prescience Point Research
published another report in which they provided correspondence
from the Unites States Securities and Exchange Commission
indicating that CGI was under investigation by the SEC.  CGI's
stock price has declined by 37% since the publication of the
Prescience Point Research Group report on April 5, 2017.

The lawsuit, pending in the Southern District of New York and
captioned Chavez v. Celadon Group, Inc. et. al.  No. 1:17-cv-
02828, alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
(i) CGI's equity contribution to its joint venture with Element
Financial Corp. was $68.2 million, rather than the $100 million
contribution the Company reported in its public filings; (ii) the
Company is being actively investigated by the SEC; and (iii) that
as a result of the foregoing, CGI's publicly disseminated
financial statements were materially false and misleading.

As a member of the class, you may seek to file a motion to serve
as a lead plaintiff by June 19, 2017, or take no action and remain
an absent class member.  Confidentiality assured to whistleblowers
or others with information relevant to this investigation is
assured.

Block & Leviton LLP -- http://www.blockesq.com-- is a Boston-
based law firm representing investors nationwide.  The firm's
lawyers have collectively been prosecuting securities cases on
behalf of individual and institutional investors for over 50
years, and have recovered billions of dollars on their behalf.
Block & Leviton's investigations into corporate wrongdoing were
recently covered by the New York Times.


CHARLES P: "Ream" Suit Alleges FLSA, Penn. Wage Law Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Ream, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Charles P. and Margaret E. Polk
Foundation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00686-YK (M.D. Pa., April
17, 2017), alleges that Defendant did not pay its Shift Workers
more than eight hours per day regardless of when an individual
Shift Worker punched in or out, thus, receiving unpaid labor from
its Shift Workers each day. This lawsuit is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Ms. Ream resides in Millersburg, Pennsylvania and previously
worked as a Shift Worker for The Polk Foundation.  The Polk
Foundation operates assisted living facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
     Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
     MCCARTHY WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
     2041 Herr Street
     Harrisburg, PA 17103-1624
     Phone: (717) 238-5707
     Fax: (717) 233-8133
     E-mail: dcummings@mwcfirm.com
             lweisberg@mwcfirm.com


CIOX HEALTH: "Roscoe" Suit Moved to N.D. Ga. Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Monique Roscoe, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CIOX Health, LLC,
formerly known as: Healthport Technologies, LLC, Case No.
2017cv87340, was removed from the Superior Court of Fulton County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-
01350-RWS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Richard W. Story.

CIOX provides healthcare information solutions. The Company offers
services including audit management, and electronic records
management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew E. Brashier, Esq.
          Archie Irwin Grubb, II, Esq.
          Jere L. Beasley, Esq.
          W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES-AL
          P.O. Box 4160
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
          Telephone: (334) 269 2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954 7555
          E-mail: Andrew.Brashier@BeasleyAllen.com
                  archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com
                  jere.beasley@beasleyallen.com
                  Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Eric Scott Fredrickson, Esq.
          Matthew Scott Harman, Esq.
          HARMAN LAW, LLC
          3414 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 1250
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 554 0777
          Facsimile: (404) 424 9370
          E-mail: efredrickson@harmanlaw.com
                  mharman@harmanlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Chad Lennon, Esq.
          Christopher Todd Giovinazzo, Esq.
          Joshua F. Thorpe, Esq.
          Steven Rosenwasser, Esq.
          BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W.
          3900 One Atlantic Center
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3417
          Telephone: (404) 881 4168
          E-mail: lennon@bmelaw.com
                  giovinazzo@bmelaw.com
                  thorpe@bmelaw.com
                  rosenwasser@bmelaw.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Howe" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services,
Inc. The case is captioned as Tanya Howe and Alan Ascencio,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Client Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-02296 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 17, 2017).

Client Services is a full service Accounts Receivable Management
(ARM) firm offering a diverse selection of collection and recovery
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


CONSTAR FINANCIAL: Faces "Williams" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Constar Financial
Services LLC. The case is entitled as Alfredo Williams, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. Constar Financial Services LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-02270 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 14, 2017).

Constar Financial provides debt collection services. It offers
accounts receivable management services to Fortune 100 and 500
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Seeks Final OK of $76.5K "Nyby" Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit styled Erik Nyby, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00886-ES-MAH (D.N.J.), file with the Court their
joint motion for final approval of their class action settlement
agreement.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant move for the entry of an order:

   (1) approving the Settlement Agreement as fair reasonable and
       adequate pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of
       Civil Procedure; and

   (2) for the dispersal of the class settlement fund of $76,500
       to class members who have submitted claim forms.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ngHlA4u6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen F. Taylor, Esq.
          Sofia Balile, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW LLC
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          E-mail: staylor@lemberglaw.com
                  sbalile@lemberglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ronald A. Giller, Esq.
          Michael Thomas Miano, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 549-2501
          E-mail: rgiller@gordonrees.com
                  mmiano@gordonrees.com


CONVERGYS CORPORATION: Patton Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
TARA PATTON, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiff, v. CONVERGYS CORPORATION and
CONVERGYS CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-02252 (E.D. Tenn., April 13, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

The Plaintiff is an adult resident of the State of Tennessee. The
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from September 28, 2009, until
February 11, 2017. Accordingly, Plaintiff was employed by
Defendant within both the two and three year statute of
limitations under the FLSA. During her employment with Defendants,
Plaintiff was a covered employee under the FLSA.

When Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked more than
40 hours during a week, Defendants did not compensate them at a
rate of "one and one-half times the regular rate at which the
employee is actually employed" for the first 40 hours of work.
Conversely, Defendants' pay policies and procedures specifically
prevented Plaintiff from being compensated for all hours worked.
Likewise, other similarly situated employees regularly and
repeated worked more than 40 hours per week without proper
overtime compensation. The Plaintiff's actual job duties were not
those of "exempt" employees. Moreover, Plaintiff was not paid on a
"salary basis," as that term is defined by the FLSA.[BN]

Convergys Corporation is a corporation based in Cincinnati, Ohio,
that sells customer management and information management
products, primarily to large corporations.

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 37067
          Telephone: (615) 354 1144
          E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com
                  eemmons@gilbertfirm.com


CRAFT BREW: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Product Label
------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Herbers, writing for Forbes.com, reports that lawsuits over
allegedly deceptive food labels have become commonplace -- a
tried-and-true tactic for some plaintiffs' attorneys to earn an
easy buck.  By claiming that the labels were intentionally
misleading in some way, these lawyers and the purportedly confused
clients they represent, seek to leverage the specter of a class
action to force quick settlements.  Unfortunately, this tactic
often works.  In fact, it has worked so well that entire subsets
of labeling lawsuits have sprung up, among them "healthy food"
labels, "all natural" labels, and slack-fill cases.  We can now
add a new category to the list: plaintiffs alleging they were
deceived because their beer was not brewed where they thought it
was.

Plaintiffs Sara Cilloni and Simone Zimmer filed a putative class
action, Cilloni v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., in the Food Court
(also known as the US District Court for the Northern District of
California) against Craft Brew Alliance, the owners of Kona
Brewing Company (Kona).  Kona was founded in 1995 on Hawaii's Big
Island.  Taking pride in the company's origins, Kona stylizes each
of its beers in an overtly Hawaiian theme, inviting customers to
enjoy the "Liquid Aloha" and "Catch A Wave."  With names like Big
Wave Golden Ale, Longboard Island Lager, and Wailua Wheat, Kona's
products celebrate their history and ties to Hawaiian culture.

According to plaintiffs, however, this branding is merely an
elaborate plan to "exploit strong consumer sentiment for Hawaiian-
made products."  Plaintiffs allege that the labeling on Kona's
products is false and misleading because, even though Kona was
founded in Hawaii and produces beer in Hawaii for that state's
market, none of the beer Kona sells in the continental United
States is produced in Hawaii.  Thus, Kona "intentionally misleads"
its consumers into purchasing Hawaiian beer, when in fact the beer
is produced in several states throughout the continental US.
According to plaintiffs, consumers "would not have purchased the
beer, or would have paid significantly less for the beer, had they
known the true origins of the Kona . . . beer they purchased."
Plaintiffs join an increasing list of litigants claiming that beer
labels are false or misleading because a beer with foreign origins
is actually produced in the US.  The owners of Fosters, Becks,
Guinness, and Kirin Ichiban have all faced mislabeling claims.

Fortunately, courts have begun to push back.  In Dumas v. Diageo
PLC, the plaintiffs alleged that the producers of Red Stripe beer
misled consumers into believing that the beer was imported from
Jamaica because bottles called the beer "Jamaican Style" and
invited drinkers to enjoy "The Taste of Jamaica."  But in
dismissing the lawsuit, the district court properly explained that
such language did not actually make the claim that the beer was
from Jamaica, and that "Taste of Jamaica" was a "vague and
meaningless phrase" in which reasonable consumers do not put much
stock.  Finally, the court pointed to the label itself, noting
that it clearly identified the corporate headquarters to be in
Pennsylvania.

Similarly, in Bowring v. Sapporo USA, Inc., the plaintiffs alleged
that Sapporo's slogans "Sapporo -- the Original Japanese Beer" and
"Japan's Oldest Brand" did not mislead reasonable consumers into
thinking that the beer was imported from Japan because the bottles
themselves stated that it was brewed in Wisconsin or Canada.  Any
language stating that Sapporo was "imported" was truthful, as
those beers were imported to the United States from Canada.  The
court thus dismissed the complaint.

The district court should reject the allegations against Kona for
the same reasons.  Like Red Stripe and Sapporo, Kona chooses to
celebrate its history on its labels and packaging.  But a
reasonable consumer would not see that history and automatically
assume that all Kona products are made in Hawaii -- especially
since all Kona labels truthfully list the various facilities
throughout the continental US where the beer is brewed.  By
invoking the spirit and culture of its founding, Kona
distinguishes its product from its competitors, but in no way
"falsely advertise[s]," "misrepresent[s]," or "intentionally
misleads" its customers.

Until courts forcefully push back on labeling lawsuits,
plaintiffs' attorneys have every reason to continue to bring them
in hopes of procuring a quick settlement.  While this strategy had
some initial success, recently district courts have begun to
dismiss the mislabeling claims at the pleadings stage -- as they
should.  Hopefully the case against Kona will join the ranks of
dismissed labeling class actions soon.


CREDIT BUREAU: Faces "Carfora" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Bureau of
Napa County, Inc. The case is captioned as Lauren Carfora, on
behalf of herself individually and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc. doing
business as Chase Receivables, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
02272 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 14, 2017).

Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc. is a debt collection agency now
known as Chase Receivables. Credit Bureau of Napa started in 1953
in Sonoma, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
          FAGENSON & PUGLISI
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 704
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 268 2128
          Facsimile: (212) 268 2127
          E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


CVS PHARMACY: Corcoran Moves for Certification of 11 Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned Christopher Corcoran, et
al. v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-03504-YGR (N.D. Cal.),
seek to certify a class for each of these 11 states:

     All CVS customers in [California] [Arizona] [Massachusetts]
     [New York] [Ohio] [Texas] [Florida] [Illinois] [New Jersey]
     [Pennsylvania] [Georgia] who, between November 2008 and the
     present (the "Class Period"), (1) purchased one or more
     generic prescription drugs that were offered through CVS's
     Health Savings Pass ("HSP") program at the time of the
     purchase; (2) were insured for the purchase(s) through a
     third-party payor plan (except those that did not use usual
     and customary pricing or expressly excluded discount
     programs from usual and customary pricing); and (3) paid
     CVS an out-of-pocket payment for the purchase greater than
     the HSP price for a 90-day supply of the prescription (or,
     greater than a price proportionate to the HSP price but for
     a prescription less than or greater than a 90-day supply).

The Plaintiffs allege that CVS unlawfully overcharged the class
members for their purchases of generic prescription drugs made
using insurance.  The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint
them as class representatives, and to appoint their attorneys of
record as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eLuFfgx1

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
          HAUSFELD
          600 Montgomery St., Suite 3200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: bsweeney@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Richard Lewis, Esq.
          Kristen Ward Broz, Esq.
          HAUSFELD
          1700 K St. NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: rlewis@hausfeld.com
                  kward@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Pat A. Cipollone, Esq.
          Rebecca R. Anzidei, Esq.
          Robert B. Gilmore, Esq.
          STEIN MITCHELL CIPOLLONE BEATO & MISSNER LLP
          1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 737-7777
          E-mail: pcipollone@steinmitchell.com
                  ranzidei@steinmitchell.com
                  rgilmore@steinmitchell.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
          Bethany L. Caracuzzo, Esq.
          PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 692-0772
          Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
          E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
                  jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
                  bc@pritzkerlevine.com


DAWN FOOD: Drivers Forced to Work During Breaks, "Castro" Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP CASTRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DAWN FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., a
Michigan corporation; and DOES 1-50 inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. RG17857155 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 18, 2017), seeks to
recover damages, restitution, and/or monetary penalties resulting
from Defendants' violation of California law.

The class action complaint challenges the policies and practices
of the Defendants, which violate rights of Californians under the
California Labor Code, California's Unfair Competition Law, and
other applicable laws. Defendants require their employees to work
during meal and rest periods, automatically deduct a half-hour
meal period from employees' pay, whether the employees were
actually received a meal period or not, require employees to work
in excess of 10 hours per day without allowing them to take a
second meal period, require employees to work in excess of 12
hours per day without paying double-time for all hours worked in
excess of 12 hours per day, provide inaccurate wage statements,
and fail to pay all wages due in a timely manner. Defendants'
current and former employees have been damaged as a direct result
of the unlawful employment practices. Thus, Plaintiff and other
similarly situated current and former Dawn Food drivers are owed
substantial unpaid wages and applicable penalties.

Dawn Foods is a family company that has been creating bakery
ingredients and products for nearly 100 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
          J.E.B. Pickett, Esq.
          WYNNE LAW FIRM
          Wood Island
          80 E. Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Suite 3G
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 461 6400
          Facsimile: (415) 461 3900
          E-mail: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com
                  jebpickett@wynnelawfinn.com


DXP ENTERPRISES: Faces "Perez" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADALBERTO PEREZ on behalf of himself individually, and ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. DXP ENTERPRISES INC.,
Defendant, alleges that Defendant does not pay its Welders
overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Instead, DXP
Enterprises Inc. pays its Welders straight time, not time and a
half for overtime hours worked.

Defendant manufactures drilling rigs and provide drilling services
for customers in the oil and gas industry.  Adalberto Perez worked
for DXP Enterprises Inc. as a welder. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELGIN MENTAL: Officers Face "Padilla" Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joanna Langley et
al. The case is titled as Daniel Padilla, Sean Gunderson, Paul
Olsson Abby Grason, Gustavo Rodriguez, Mark Owens, Ali
Nadzhafaliyev James Baker, and Mary Smith, Other Similarly
situated detainees who fear retaliation All residents of the Elgin
Mental Health Center Elgin, Illinois, the Plaintiffs, v. Joanna
Langley in her individual and official capacity; Brian Dawson, in
his official and individual capacity; and Jeff Pharis, in his
official and individual capacity, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-03028 (N.D. Ill., Apr. 21, 2017). The case is assigned to the
Hon. Joan H. Lefkow.

Elgin Mental Health Center (formerly Elgin State Hospital) is a
mental health facility operated by the State of Illinois in Elgin,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


EMERGENCY COVERAGE: Court Certifies "Harbin" Suit as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Travis R. McDonough grants the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify the action captioned DUSTIN HARBIN and JIMMY PRUITT, on
behalf of themselves and the class defined herein v. EMERGENCY
COVERAGE CORPORATION and ACCOUNT RESOLUTION TEAM, INC., Case No.
3:16-cv-00125-TRM-HBG (E.D. Tenn.), as a class action.

The class is defined as:

     (a) All persons sued by Defendants; (b) [i]n the General
     Session Court of Hamblen County, Tennessee; (c) [t]hat had
     garnishments issued against their wages that included
     amounts of postjudgment interest or fees that exceed[ ] the
     amount allowed under Tennessee state law; (d) [t]hat made
     payments to Defendants as a result of the wrongful
     garnishments issued to their employers by garnishment of
     wages or direct payment to the clerk; (e) [i]n the six years
     preceding the filing of this action, for all persons as to
     the state law claims; and (f) [i]n the one year preceding
     the filing of this action, and on or before a date 20 days
     after the filing of this action, as to the FDCPA claims.

The Court also appoints the Plaintiffs as class representatives,
and their counsel as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants attempted to collect
debts in excess of amounts owed by: (1) charging post-judgment
interest in excess of the maximum rate allowed under Tennessee
law; and (2) calculating the interest amount identified in
garnishment requests through the end of the month in which the
garnishment requests were filed, rather than through the date the
garnishment requests were filed.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Inq3AeQr


EMERITUS CORPORATION: "Francisco" Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Aristides Francisco, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Emeritus Corporation, an unknown corporation; Brookdale Senior
Living Communities, Inc., an unknown corporation; and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC654023, was removed from the Los
Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02871 to the
proceeding.

Emeritus Corporation is a fully integrated senior housing services
company focused on operating residential-style assisted-living
communities.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


EXAR CORP: Gusinsky Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with MaxLinear
--------------------------------------------------------------
THE VLADIMIR GUSINSKY REV. TRUST, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. EXAR CORPORATION,
GARY MEYERS, RYAN A. BENTON, BEHROOZ ABDI, IZAK BENCUYA, PIERRE G.
GUILBAULT, BRIAN HILTON, JEFFREY JACOBOWITZ, MAXLINEAR, INC., and
EAGLE ACQUISITION CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
02150-SI (N.D. Cal., Apr. 18, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing a proposed transaction, and in the event
Defendants consummate the proposed transaction, rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on March
29, 2017 (Proposed Transaction), pursuant to which Exar
Corporation will be acquired by MaxLinear, Inc. and Eagle
Acquisition Corporation.  On March 28, 2017, Exar's Board of
Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan
of merger (Merger Agreement) with MaxLinear. Pursuant to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, MaxLinear commenced a tender offer set to
expire on May 11, 2017, and stockholders of Exar will receive
$13.00 in cash for each share of Exar common stock. On April 13,
2017, defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement
(Solicitation Statement) with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Solicitation Statement omits material information
with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the
Solicitation Statement false and misleading. Accordingly,
plaintiff alleges herein that defendants violated Sections 14(e),
14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act)
in connection with the Solicitation Statement.

Exar Corporation is an American semiconductor manufacturer. Having
acquired companies such as hifn, in March 2017, MaxLinear Inc.
announced it would buy Exar Corporation for about $661.6 million
cash. Exar is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 291 2420
          Facsimile: (415) 484 1294
          E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com


FIFTH THIRD BANK: Faces "Wells" Suit Over Identity Alert Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
KERI WELLS, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00178-D (E.D.N.C., April 13, 2017), seeks to
recover monetary damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive
relief against Defendant for deceptive sales practices with
respect to its "Identity Alert" product, which is an add-on to
consumer checking accounts offered by the Bank.

Fifth Thirds "Identity Alert" ($9.95 per month) and "Identity
Alert Premium" ($14.95 per month) products purportedly offer
consumers protection against identify theft by monitoring credit
reports for fraudulent new accounts and insurance in the event of
identity theft.  According to the complaint, using deceptive sales
practices and omissions, Fifth Third as a matter of course enrolls
consumers in the more expensive "Premium" product without
adequately disclosing the availability of the much less expensive
regular Identity Alert product, and it misrepresents the
characteristics and benefits of the "Premium" product in order to
deceive consumers into enrolling in that service.

Fifth Third is a state-chartered, federally insured bank with
branches located throughout the United States, including North
Carolina, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and
Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith J. Merritt, Esq.
          HAMILTON STEPHENS STEELE & MARTIN, PLCC
          201 South College Street, Suite 2020
          Charlotte, NC 28244
          Telephone: (704) 344 1117
          Facsimile: (704) 344 1483
          E-mail: Kmerritt@lawhssm.com


FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE: Wins Prelim. OK of "Dye" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. David A. Faber grants the Plaintiff's unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of settlement, conditional class
certification and entry of scheduling order filed in the lawsuit
titled JOHN DYE, JR., Individually and on Behalf of a class of
persons v. FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE COMPANY, Case No. 1:15-cv-12820
(S.D.W.V.).

The Court adopts the proposed schedule for the parties to fulfill:

   1. Class Notice Mailed: 14 days after preliminary approval;

   2. Objection/Exclusion Date: 30 days after the mailing of
      class notice;

   3. Final Approval Submissions: 14 days after
      objection/exclusion date;

   4. Final Approval Hearing: to be set upon the Court's being
      notified by the parties that the other obligations have
      been completed.

The parties are directed to carry out their obligations pursuant
to the Settlement Agreement and the Order.

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


FIRST ENERGY: Faces "Rice" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FIRST ENERGY CORP.
The case is captioned as HOLLY RICE, Individually and as parent
and natural guardian of N.R., D.W., D.W., D.W., Minor children,
YMA SMITH, RUDOLPH SMITH, GARY J. KURKLISH, KIMBERLY KURKLISH,
GEORGE MARKISH, URSULA C. MARKISH, DARREL REDMAN, and GINA REDMAN,
individually and or behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. FIRST ENERGY CORP., NRG ENERGY, INC.
and MATT CANESTRALE CONTRACTING, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-00489-LPL (W.D. Pa., Apr. 14, 2017). The case is assigned
to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan.

First Energy controls an extensive transmission network, operates
a clean, low-cost generation fleet, and provides electricity to 6
million customers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William Steven Berman, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
          One Greentree Center, Suite 201
          10,000 Lincoln Dr. East
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 988 5574
          Facsimile: (636) 843 7603
          E-mail: wsberman@napolilaw.com


FLAVOR BOUTIQUE: Tewolde Seeks Unpaid Minimum Pay, OT Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
NAPOLEAN TEWOLDE, LORRAINE DORNICK, ADAMA SAYE WILSON, EDWIN J.
ADRADE, AMINE OUACHER, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FLAVOR BOUTIQUE 796
INC., FLAVOR BOUTIQUE 522 INC., 392 CPW LLC, MICHAEL FRIEDLANDER,
and JOHN DOES No. 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02687
(S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages
and to unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

The Plaintiffs were counter worker employees at an ice cream store
who like similar employees were illegally not paid for all their
hours worked and not paid time and one half for their hours worked
over forty in a week ("overtime") and were not paid for the tips
that they earned. The Plaintiffs allege on behalf of themselves
and other similarly situated current and former employees of the
Defendants who elect to opt into this action pursuant to the FLSA,
that they are: (i) entitled to unpaid minimum wages and to unpaid
overtime wages from Defendants for overtime work for which they
did not receive overtime premium pay, as required by law, and (ii)
entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William C. Rand, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
          501 Fifth Ave., 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 286 1425
          Facsimile: (646) 688 3078


FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Hill" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS HILL, Individually and On behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES OPERATING COMPANY,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01324-WSD (N.D. Ga., April 13,
2017), alleges that in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Plaintiff, and all other inside sales representatives, routinely
worked over 40 hours without any pay or compensation, or any
record of their actual times, and the Defendant maintained a
common unlawful pay practice and policy of simply not paying
overtime wages even when it absolutely knew the inside sales
representatives were routinely working over 40 hours in work
weeks.

Defendant provides fuel cards and workforce payment products to
businesses, commercial fleets, oil companies, petroleum marketers
and government entities throughout the United States.  Plaintiff
worked as an inside sales representative selling fuel cards.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
     1201 Peachtree Street
     Colony Square, Suite 200,
     Atlanta, GA 30361
     Phone: (813) 639-9366
     Fax: (813) 639-9376
     E-mail: mlf@feldmanlegal.us


FRED'S STORES: Faces Williams-Journey Suit over Credit Card Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LILLIE WILLIAMS and CUSSETTA JOURNEY, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FRED'S STORES OF
TENNESSEE, INC. (d/b/a Fred's, Fred's Super Dollar, Fred's
Pharmacy); and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 2017CV288702 (Ga. Super. Ct., April 13, 2017), seeks to
recover statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney
fees, as a result of Defendant's unlawful practice of violating
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act's (FACTA) provisions
intended to safeguard against identity theft and credit and debit
card fraud.

The law gave merchants who accept credit and or debit cards up to
three years to comply with its requirements, requiring full
compliance with its provisions no later than December 4, 2006.
Although Defendants had up to three years to comply, Defendants
have willfully violated this law and failed to protect Plaintiffs
and others similarly situated against identity theft and credit
and debit card fraud by printing the expiration date of the card
and the last four digits of the card number on receipts provided
to debit card cardholders transacting business with Defendants.
This conduct is in direct violation of FACTA.

Fred's Stores owns, manages, maintains, and/or operates many
physical brick-and-mortar retail store locations throughout
the State of Georgia, through which it offers various goods and
services for sale to the public, and it does extensive business
throughout the State of Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Claries Austin Gower Jr., Esq.
          Shaun Patrick O'Hara, Esq.
          CHARLES A. GOWER PC
          1425 Wynnton Road
          P.O. Box 5509
          Columbus, GA 31906
          Telephone: (706) 324 5685
          Facsimile: (706) 322 2964
          E-mail: austin@cagower.com
                  shaun@cagower.com

               - and -

          Chant Yedalian, Esq.
          CHANT & COMPANY
          1010 N. Central Ave.
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (877) 574 7100
          Facsimile: (877) 574 9411
          E-mail: chant@chant.mobi


FREE RX: Gorss Motels Files Lawsuit Over "Unsolicited" Fax Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. FREE RX SAVER, INC., a Florida corporation, and JOHN
DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60731-KAM (S.D. Fla., April
14, 2017), alleges that Defendants sent facsimile transmissions of
unsolicited advertisements to Plaintiff in violation of the Junk
Fax Prevention Act.

Free Rx Saver, Inc. offers discount prescription card program.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
     ANDERSON + WANCA
     3701 Algonquin Rd., Ste. 760
     Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
     Tel: 847-368-1500
     Fax: 847-368-1501
     E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Wins Settlement Approval; Hearing on July 10
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Anne Y. Shields grants preliminary approval of the
Class Action Settlement Agreement in the lawsuit titled
Christopher Cruckshank, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 2:16-
cv-00011-AYS (E.D.N.Y.).

The Settlement Classes are defined as:

   (1) Class A consists of (a) all individuals (b) with a New
       York address (c) who were sent a letter from Freedom in a
       form materially identical or substantially similar to
       Exhibit A to Exhibit 1 (d) which was not returned as
       undeliverable (e) on or after a date one year prior to the
       filing of this action and on or before August 30, 2016
       (f) concerning a mortgage loan that Freedom began
       servicing while the mortgage loan was in default (g) where
       the letter in question either (1) only listed the unpaid
       principal balance of the debt or (2) failed to disclose
       that Freedom was a debt collector or (3) failed to
       disclose that the letter was an attempt to collect a debt
       or (4) otherwise allegedly violated the [Federal Debt
       Collection Practices Act] or the Real Estate Settlement
       Procedures Act; and

   (2) Class B consists of (a) all individuals (b) with a New
       Jersey address (c) who were sent a letter from Freedom in
       a form materially identical or substantially similar to
       Exhibit B to Exhibit 1 (d) which was not returned as
       undeliverable (e) on or after a date one year prior to the
       filing of this action and on or before August 30, 2016 (f)
       concerning a mortgage loan that Freedom began servicing
       while the mortgage loan was in default (g) where the
       letter in question either (1) only listed the unpaid
       principal balance of the debt or (2) failed to disclose
       that Freedom was a debt collector or (3) failed to
       disclose that the letter was an attempt to collect a debt
       or (4) otherwise allegedly violated the FDCPA or the Real
       Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

Judge Shields appoints Christopher Cruckshank as Class
Representative of Class A; Jonbu Adebo as Class Representative of
Class B; and Ryan Gentile, Esq., of the Law Offices of Gus Michael
Farinella, PC, as Class Counsel for Class A and Class B.

The Court approves the Settling Parties' proposed Class Notice and
directs that it be mailed to the last known address of the Class
Members.  Class Members will have until May 28, 2017, to exclude
themselves from or object to the proposed settlement.  To receive
a portion of the cash payment under the Settlement Agreement, a
Class Member must complete and return to the Class Administrator a
claim form postmarked no later than May 28, 2017.

A final hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the
Settlement Agreement and whether final approval will be given to
it and the requests for fees and expenses by Class Counsel will be
held on July 10, 2017, at 10:30 a.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wDdl3MGn


FREEMAN EXPOSITIONS: Utility Cost's Bid to Certify Not Extended
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Beverly Reid O'Connell denies the Plaintiff's motion
for an extension of time to file a motion to certify class and
appoint class counsel in the lawsuit entitled UTILITY COST
MANAGEMENT, LLC v. FREEMAN EXPOSITIONS, INC. ET AL., Case No.
2:16-cv-01516-BRO-RAO (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff initiated the action in December 2015 seeking
declaratory judgment, among other things, that the Defendant's
charges for electrical power are unlawful, unfair and in violation
of public policy.  The action was removed to the Court in March
2016.

Pursuant to C.D. Cal. L.R. 23-3, the Plaintiff's deadline to file
its motion for class certification expired on June 2, 2016.

"At the very least, Plaintiff should have been diligent in filing
a request for relief from Rule 23-3, rather than filing the
instant Motion in February 2017 -- nearly nine months after the
deadline had passed," Judge O'Connell opines.

According to the Court Civil Minutes, the Plaintiff's conduct here
goes well beyond negligence, however; rather, it appears that the
Plaintiff was fully aware of Rule 23-3's deadline and purposefully
chose to ignore it.  Effectively, Judge O'Connell notes, it
appears that the Plaintiff believed that it was easier to ask for
forgiveness than permission.  But asking for permission -- or, at
minimum, having a viable reason why the Plaintiff failed to do so
-- is exactly what the Court's Local Rules and the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure require.

In sum, Judge O'Connell states, as the Plaintiff has not presented
a sufficient reason for the delay in seeking class certification
or in seeking relief from Local Rule 23-3 and granting the
Plaintiff relief now would significantly impact the proceedings
and prejudice the Defendant, the Court finds that the Plaintiff
has not established that its failure to timely file its Motion for
Class Certification was due to excusable neglect.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=b1cuBPn1


FULLETT ROSENLUND: Class Certification Sought in "Ellison" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JOY ELLISON, on behalf of
plaintiff and a class v. FULLETT ROSENLUND ANDERSON P.C., Case No.
1:17-cv-02236 (N.D. Ill.), seeks certification of a class defined
as:

     (a) all individuals (b) to whom defendants have sent a
     notice in the form requested by Exhibit B (c) where the
     notice is sent to the same address as that of the property
     (d) and was sent at any time during a period beginning one
     year prior to the filing of this action and ending 21 days
     after the filing of this action.

Joy Ellison filed the lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.  The Plaintiff contends that the
Defendant has been attempting to collect from the Plaintiff an
alleged debt for homeowners' association dues on the unit in which
the Plaintiff resides.

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=F6jexvso

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Emiliya Gumin Farbstein, 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: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  efarbstein@edcombs.com


GALLUP INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in Calif. Over Automated Call
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Daniels, Joyce Hanson and Steven Trader, writing for
Law360, report that Gallup Inc. was hit with a putative class
action in California federal court on April 17, alleging the
company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act with an
automated telephone call sent to a cellphone on the National Do
Not Call Registry, though the company defends its practice of
making manual calls.

Jason Hartley, a San Diego resident, says he added his cellphone
to the registry in December 2004.  But in November 2016, he claims
he picked up an incoming call and heard a "long pause" before he
was connected to someone from Gallup representing Union Bank.

Mr. Hartley claims the call was made with an automatic telephone
dialing system in violation of the TCPA, and used an artificial or
prerecorded voice, which is also forbidden by the act. He also
says he didn't give prior express consent for the call, the
complaint says.

"Through this action, plaintiff suffered an invasion of his
legally protected interest in privacy, which is specifically
addressed and protected by the TCPA," the 11-page complaint says.
"Defendant's call forces plaintiff and class members to live
without the utility of plaintiff's cell phone by forcing him to
silence his cell phone and/or block incoming numbers."

Mr. Hartley seeks to represent a national class of anyone who
received a call on a cellphone from Gallup or its agent made
through an automated telephone dialing system or with an
artificial and prerecorded message within the past four years.

A statement from Gallup sent to Law360 on April 18 said the
company does not use automatic dialing devices for calls to cell
numbers.

"At Gallup, these calls are all manually dialed by the interviewer
(including the call to the individual identified in the
complaint)," the statement said.  "To initiate the call, our
interviewer dials all ten digits of the phone number manually.
Calls manually placed by an individual do not fall within the
purview of the TCPA."

The suit is the second that Mr. Hartley and his attorneys from
Hyde & Swigart and Kazerouni Law Group PC filed last week.  They
lodged a similar complaint against Marriott International Inc. on
April 17 for allegedly calling Hartley's phone with an automated
system and pre-recorded message.

The firms have previously filed putative TCPA class actions. In
another case, San Diego resident Keisha Newsom accused payment
processing company Pivotal Payments Inc. of making repeated
unwanted phone calls and recording those calls without warning.
She dropped her case in March in light of a settlement.

Claims in the Gallup suit include one count of negligent violation
of the TCPA and another count of knowing and willful violation of
the TCPA.  Mr. Hartley seeks damages of $500 for each negligent
violation and $1,500 for each knowing and willful violation on
behalf of the putative class.

The complaint claims the proposed class may contain several
thousand people or more.

The TCPA is intended to give consumers a choice over how they are
contacted and prevent them from receiving calls that are automated
or prerecorded, the complaint says.

The complaint also cites a Seventh Circuit decision from 2012 that
described how an automated call to a cellphone "adds expense to
annoyance." Hartley claims he "was frustrated and distressed"
about the call made with an automatic telephone dialing system,
and noted how he incurs a charge for incoming calls.

Representatives for Mr. Hartley declined to comment on April 17.
A request for comment from Gallup wasn't immediately returned.

Mr. Hartley is represented by Joshua B. Swigart and Veronica
McKnight of Hyde & Swigart and Abbas Kazerounian of Kazerouni Law
Group APC.

Counsel information for Gallup wasn't immediately available.

The case is Hartley v. Gallup Inc., case number 3:17-cv-00768 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.


GLOBAL FITNESS: Separate Fund Backfires for Class Attorneys
-----------------------------------------------------------
Competitive Enterprise Institute's Adam Schulman reports that
in February when the Supreme Court declined to hear CEI's appeal
of the Urban Active Settlement that proposed to pay class members
$1.6 million and their attorneys $2.4 million, the general
consensus was that it was "putting to bed" the matter.  The
settlement would proceed as planned.

But in the realm of class action litigation it's not always so
simple.  In a surprise filing on April 18, the defendant Global
Fitness notified the district court that it has insufficient
remaining assets to pay class counsel's attorneys' fee and the
claims administrator's fee (incurred to send class members notice
and to administer the claims process).  Because the class members'
portion of the settlement was placed in escrow last month, they
will still be paid in full.

The latest twist in the case is not without irony.  Throughout the
district court and appellate proceedings, CEI's client class-
member objector Josh Blackman has insisted that class counsel's
decision to pay themselves from a segregated fee fund is a sign
that they cared more their own welfare than the class's.  If they
had simply negotiated their fee from the total pool of settlement
money available (in legalese from the "common fund"), the judge
would have the authority to send the excess amounts back into
class members' pockets.  But because they negotiated their fee out
of a separate, segregated fund instead, any reduction of the fees
would simply return money to the defendant, an entity that has
already agreed not to oppose the request.  This is a classic
tactic to reduce scrutiny of fee requests by objectors and judges,
a tactic Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner has
referred to as a "gimmick."

This time the gimmick backfired.  If class counsel had proposed to
draw their fee from the common fund -- a more transparent and
beneficial structure for the class -- their fee could have been in
escrow right now alongside the class's money.

Now, the defendant's notice was not completely out of the blue.
They've been in financial distress for some years now and sold off
their gyms to LA Fitness in 2012.  Also, we don't know how large
the shortfall is; if it is small class counsel will still be
netting more money than their clients.

If class action lawyers tie their fate to their clients', there
will be ups and downs.  But if they jump ship, few people will be
sympathetic when their lifeboat springs a leak.


GLOBAL TRAVEL: Faces "Romain" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen M. Romain, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Global Travel International, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00690-PGB-TBS (M.D. Fla., April 17,
2017), alleges that Defendant routinely violates the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by using an automatic telephone dialing
system to place non-emergency calls to numbers assigned to a
cellular telephone service, without prior express consent.

Defendant markets, inter alia, discount buying club memberships
under the trade name Go Shop & Save, which may be found at GoShop
andSave.com. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James L. Davidson, Esq.
     Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
     Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
     GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
     5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
     Boca Raton, FL 33431
     Phone: (561) 826-5477
     Fax: (561) 961-5684
     E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
             jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
             jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
     GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
     106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
     Austin, TX 78701
     Phone: 512 322 3912
     Fax: 561 961 5684
     E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


GREAT HEALTHWORKS: "Harrison" Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Annette Harrison, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Great
Healthworks, Inc. and Does 1-50 inclusive, Case No. 37-02017-
00008009-CU-MC-CTL, was removed on April 6, 2017, from the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00705-
JM-JLB to the proceeding.

Great Healthworks, Inc. offers health and wellness products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq.
      DOSTART HANNINK COVENEY LLP
      4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858) 623-4200
      Facsimile: (858) 623-4299
      E-mail: zdostart@sdlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Shannon Z. Petersen, Esq.
      SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
      12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92130-2006
      Telephone: (858) 720-8900
      Facsimile: (858) 509-3691
      E-mail: spetersen@sheppardmullin.com


GULFSTREAM PARK: "Gonzalez" Files Lawsuit Over 'Tip-Credit'
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case captioned SANTIAGO GONZALEZ, Plaintiff,
vs. GULFSTREAM PARK RACING ASSOCIATION, INC. d/b/a GULFSTREAM PARK
RACING AND CASINO, a Florida profit corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 0:17-cv-60722-JIC (S.D. Fla., April 13, 2017), alleges on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, that during
the employment of the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, the
Defendant illegally claimed a 'tip-credit', and paid those
employees below the statutorily required minimum wage under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, were poker dealers
at the Defendant's casino.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq.
     David Frank, Esq.
     WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
     300 Southeast Thirteenth Street
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
     Phone: (954) 463-2001
     Fax: (954) 463-0410
     E-mail: cjw@whitelocklegal.com
             davidfrank@whitelocklegal.com


HAILEY DEVELOPMENT: Windham Sues over $205,293 in Unpaid Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Windham Contracting Corp., seeks recovery pursuant to N.Y. Lien
Law on behalf of itself individually, and on behalf of Trust Fund
Beneficiaries who have claims against Hailey Development Group,
LLC, by reason of services rendered and materials or equipment
incorporated into a project.  Windham also seeks the determination
and allocation of the respective interests of Windham and the
Trust Fund Beneficiaries.

The case is captioned, WINDHAM CONTRACTING CORP., on behalf of
itself and on behalf of all others entitled to share in the funds
received by HAILEY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, as Trustee, in
connection with the improvement of the real property known as 160
Imlay Street, Brooklyn, New York, Block: 515; Lot: 75, the
Plaintiffs, v. HAILEY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, RICHARD PETROSA,
MARY FILOCAMO, and "JOHN DOE No. 1" through "JOHN DOE No., 100,"
said names being fictitious, true names being those unknown
individuals and/or entities liable for the diversion of trust
funds pursuant to Article 3-A of the Lien Law of the State of New
York, in connection with the construction project Located at 160
Imlay Street, Brooklyn, New York, Block: 515; Lot: 75, the
Defendants, Case No. 507357/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 13, 2017).

On April 3, 2014, Windham entered into an agreement with Hailey
pursuant to which it furnished certain materials, equipment and
labor to Hailey in connection with certain concrete work at the
Project ("Concrete Agreement").  Windham has performed all of the
terms, conditions and work required under the Concrete Agreement.
The total agreed upon price of the Concrete Agreement was
$6,708,863.07 of which $205,293.80 remains unpaid, although
payment has been duly demanded. By reason of the foregoing,
Windham has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but
not less than the sum of $205,293.80 plus interest, costs and
attorneys' fees.

Hailey Development was founded in 2004. The company's line of
business includes providing management services on a contract or
fee basis.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Constantine T. Tzifas, Esq.
          286 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 557 5055


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Court Grants Prelim OK in Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT
FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:  ALL PERSONS WHO purchased OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE PUBLICLY-
TRADED COMMON STOCK OF HALLIBURTON COMPANY ("HALLIBURTON")
(trading symbol NASDAQ:HAL) between AUGUST 16, 1999 and DECEMBER
7, 2001, INCLUSIVE:

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, that a hearing
will be held on July 31, 2017, at 9:00 A.M., before the Honorable
Barbara M. G. Lynn at the Earle Cabell Federal Building, 1100
Commerce St., Courtroom 1570, Dallas TX 75242, for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement for the sum of
one hundred million dollars (USD100,000,000) in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate;
(2) whether, after the hearing, this Action should be dismissed
with prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated as of February
21, 2017; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable
and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the
application of Class Counsel (or any other counsel) for the
payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses incurred
in this Action should be approved.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Halliburton common stock
(trading symbol NASDAQ:HAL) between August 16, 1999 and December
7, 2001, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the settlement
of this Action. If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Settlement Fairness Hearing ("Notice") and a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you should obtain copies
by writing to Halliburton EPJ Fund Securities Litigation, c/o JND
Class Action Administration, P.O. Box 6847, Broomfield, CO 80021,
or by visiting the website at
www.halliburtonepjfundsecuritieslitigation.com. The Notice
contains details about this Action and settlement, including what
you must do to exclude yourself from the settlement, object to the
terms of the settlement, or file a Proof of Claim. 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
postmarked no later than August 12, 2017, establishing that you
are entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
Request for Exclusion postmarked by July 10, 2017, in the manner
and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above. All
Members of the Class who have not timely and validly requested
exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in
the Action pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation
of Settlement. Your objection must be postmarked on or before July
10, 2017 to each of the following (1) the Court; (2) Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, on behalf of
the Lead Plaintiff; and (3) Counsel for the Defendants at the
following addresses:

COURT:

         Clerk of the Court
         Earle Cabell Federal Building
         1100 Commerce Street
         Dallas, Texas 75242

FOR LEAD PLAINTIFF:

         Lewis S. Kahn
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         206 Covington Street
         Madisonville, LA 70447
         Carl E. Goldfarb
         Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
         401 E. Las Olas Boulevard
         Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301-2211

Class Counsel for Lead Plaintiff The Erica P. John Fund, Inc. and
the Class

FOR DEFENDANTS:

         Jessica B. Pulliam
         Baker Botts L.L.P.
         2001 Ross Avenue
         Dallas, Texas 75201-2980

Counsel for Defendants Halliburton Co. and David Lesar

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 Class Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Class at the
address listed above.
DATED: April 21, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS


HAMILTON LAW: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hamilton Law Group.
The case is styled as SYLVIA RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. HAMILTON LAW
GROUP and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-01834-
JFL (E.D. Pa., Apr. 21, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon.
Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.

Hamilton Law is a debt collection law practice firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          1500 Allaire Ave Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695 3282
          E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com


HOMELAND SECURITY: Faces "Osorio-Martinez" Suit in E.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Department
of Homeland Security. The case is titled as WENDY AMPARO
OSORIO-MARTINEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILD,
D.S.R. - O, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; CARMEN ALEYDA LOBO
MEJIA, INDIVIDUALLY, ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILD, A.D.M.-L., AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; MARIA DELMI MARTINEZ NOLASCO,
INDIVIDUALLY, ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILD, J.E.L.-M., AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; and JETHZABEL MARITZA AGUILAR MANCIA,
INDIVIDUALLY, ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILD, V.G.R.-A., AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD
SESSIONS, III, JOHN F. KELLY, THOMAS D. HOMAN, THOMAS DECKER,
DIANE EDWARDS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, and THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-01747-
LS (E.D. Pa., Apr. 17, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon.
Lawrence F. Stengel.

Homeland security is an American umbrella term for "the national
effort to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient
against terrorism and other hazards where American interests,
aspirations, and ways of life can thrive to the national effort to
prevent terrorist attacks within the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Joseph Edelman, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON
          3000 Two Logan Square
          18th & Arch Sts
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 981 4253
          E-mail: edelmanm@pepperlaw.com


HOTEL DE POINT: Faces "Del-Orden" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hotel de Point LLC.
The case is titled as Jose Del-Orden, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hotel de Point LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02268 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 14, 2017).

The Defendant operates a hotel in Flushing, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HTCT LLC: Faces "Lugo" Suit Over Time-Shaving Under FLSA, NY Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA LUGO, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class, Plaintiff, v. HTCT, LLC d/b/a PULQUERIA, CHRISTOPHER
TIERNEY and SARAH MEYER SIMON, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02725
(S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff and other
similarly situated, have had substantially similar job
requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subjected
to Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices,
procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a
willful failure and refusal to pay them compensation for all hours
worked due to a policy of time-shaving.  The case was filed under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants operate a restaurant under the trade name,
"Pulqueria" located at 11 Doyers Street, Basement, New York, NY
10013.  Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action
pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), on
behalf of all non-exempt employees (including cooks, line-cooks,
food preparers, dishwashers, cleaning persons, waiters, busboys,
runners, bartenders, barbacks and hostesses). [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     Shin Hahn, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


HARRISON GLOBAL: "Benson" Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------
Robert Benson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARRISON GLOBAL, LLC DBA BOSTON
COACH, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
17CIV00921, that was originally filed on March 3, 2017, at the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo was
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on April 5, 2017, and assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01894.

Plaintiff and the members of the putative class he seeks to
represent are "all persons employed as chauffeurs/drivers by
Harrison Global, LLC dba Boston Coach in California at any time on
or after March 2, 2013."  The complaint alleges four
causes of action: (1) failure to provide required meal and rest
periods; (2) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
(3) failure to pay wages on termination; (4) unfair business acts
and practices under the Unfair Competition Act (violation of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.).

Harrison Global specializes in corporate limo service, airport
town car service, and coach bus service. BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

   Heather M. Sager, Esq.
   Ayse Kuzucuoglu, Esq.
   Vedder Price (CA), LLP
   275 Battery Street, Suite 2464
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: +1 415-749-9500
   Fax: +1 415-749-9502
   Email: hsager@vedderprice.com
          akuzucuoglu@vedderprice.com


ILLINOIS, USA: Status Hearing in "Donegan" Suit Set for May 10
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on March 23, 2017, in the case
captioned Blake Donegan, et al. v. Felicia F. Norwood, Case No.
1:16-cv-11178 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr.

Felicia Norwood serves as the Director of the Illinois Department
of Healthcare and Family Services (HFS).

The minute entry states that:

   -- Status hearing held and continued to May 10, 2017, at
      10:00 a.m.;

   -- Plaintiff had until April 5, 2017, to file a revised motion
      for class certification;

   -- Response is due on April 26, 2017;

   -- Reply is due on May 10, 2017.

The Court also directs the Defendant to file on the docket, its
position regarding the deadline as to those individuals that will
turn 21 years of age this year.  If at any time the parties
jointly wish to have a settlement conference, they must contact
the Court's Courtroom Deputy for a referral to Magistrate Judge
Finnegan.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UhkOD1QI


INSPIRON INC: Sky Materials Seeks to Recoup Moise-Related Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
SKY MATERIALS CORP., individually, and as representatives of all
trust beneficiaries similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), against
INSPIRON, INC., AK 511 VENTURES, LLC, ALAN GERSHKOVICH, KENNETH
HART, and "John Doe One" through "John Doe Ten," and other Lien
Holders unknown Defendant(s), INDEX NO. 652047/2017 (N.Y. Sup.,
County of New York, April 17, 2017), alleges that without basis or
justification whatsoever, Contractor Defendants (Inspiron, Inc.
and AK 511 Ventures, LLC) have failed to pay Sky Materials for its
work in the construction of the Moise Safra Community Center,
leaving a balance due of at least $1,899,969.25. Sky Materials
seeks recovery of the funds due and related relief.  Sky's work
was performed pursuant to one or more contracts with the owners'
representatives and general contractors, Inspiron and AK 511.


Inspiron Inc. is an Information Technology services company
offering a wide array of solutions customized for a range of key
verticals and horizontals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian L. Gardner, Esq.
     David T. Meglino, Esq.
     COLE SCHOTZ P.C.
     1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1900
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (212) 752-8000


JCSK USA: Faces "Romero" Suit in Eastern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JCSK USA Corp. The
case is captioned as Alberto Romero, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JCSK USA Corp., doing
business as: Soon Deli & Grocery, and Chang K Jang, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-02271 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 14, 2017).[BN]

JCSk USA is located in Flushing, New York. This organization
primarily operates in the Supermarkets business / industry within
the Food Stores sector.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Workers' Action Over Stable Value Funds Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that thousands
of workers who invested their retirement savings in JPMorgan's
stable value funds got approval to sue the company as a certified
class (In re JPMorgan Stable Value Fund ERISA Litig., S.D.N.Y.,
No. 1:12-cv-02548-VSB, order unsealed 4/17/17).

The lawsuit accuses JPMorgan Chase & Co. of mismanaging its stable
value funds -- which are meant to be conservative, low-risk
options that protect against interest rate volatility -- by
overinvesting them in risky mortgage-related assets.  A federal
judge certified the five-year-old lawsuit as a class action in an
order issued March 31 and publicly released April 17.

Stable value funds have become a flashpoint in litigation under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  Retirement plan
sponsors including Anthem Inc., Chevron Corp. and Insperity Inc.
have been sued -- unsuccessfully -- for failing to include stable
value funds in their investment lineups.  Other lawsuits have
targeted the companies that offer and manage stable value funds,
with cases pending against Union Bond & Trust Co., Fidelity
Management Trust Co., CVS Health Corp., Massachusetts Mutual Life
Insurance Co. and Prudential Retirement Insurance & Annuity Co.

In the case against JPMorgan, investors challenged the company's
decision to invest 78 of its stable value funds in a proprietary
bond fund tied to "risky, highly-leveraged assets," including
mortgage-backed securities.  The investors painted this strategy
as imprudent, claiming that it caused losses that ultimately drove
down the crediting rates that determined the return they received
on their investments.

The judge certified the case as a class action after finding that
it presented a "common theory of liability" based on the allegedly
imprudent investment in the company's bond fund by all 78 stable
value funds.  Moreover, the investors likely could show causation
and damages on a classwide basis, the judge said, adding that any
individualized damages calculations that may be needed wouldn't be
difficult to perform.

JPMorgan argued that differences in the goals and risk profiles of
each stable value fund prevented class certification, but the
judge disagreed.  The company was similarly unsuccessful in its
effort to paint the investors as "sophisticated parties" capable
of pursuing their claims through individual actions.

Finally, the company argued that certain investors -- those who
participated in Caterpillar Inc.'s retirement plan -- were barred
by a settlement agreement from bringing these claims. The judge
dealt with this wrinkle by creating a subclass just for
Caterpillar plan participants.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York wrote the decision. Broderick
promised to issue a ruling on summary judgment by June 30.

Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky & Wotkyns LLP and Law Offices
of Michael M. Mulder represent the investors.  Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP represents JPMorgan.


KATY MOVERS: Faces "Jefferson" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA JEFFERSON on behalf of himself, individually and ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED Plaintiff, v. KATY MOVERS INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:17-cv-01177 (S.D. Tex., April 15, 2017), alleges that
Putative class members, like Plaintiff, were paid straight time,
not overtime for hours worked past 40 hours per week for Defendant
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

KATY MOVERS INC. is a house mover.  Members of the "Putative
Class" are current and former employees of Defendant who work, or
have worked, for Defendant as "Movers" and/or "Drivers", whose job
duties included loading and unloading furniture onto trucks and
delivering it to assigned locations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KMC ENTERPRISES: "Underwood" Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Waylon Underwood, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. KMC Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-02615, (D.N.J., April 17, 2017), seeks minimum wages
equaling the value of the tip credit for every hour worked,
prejudgment interest, liquidated damages, litigation costs,
expenses and attorneys' fees and such other and further relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New Jersey
State Wage and Hour Law.

Defendant owns and operates a restaurant called Prospectors
Steakhouse & Saloon located in Mount Laurel, New Jersey where
Plaintiff was employed by as a server and bartender from
approximately February 2016 until approximately May 2016. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      Twining Office Center, Suite 211
      715 Twining Road
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Tel: (215) 884-2491


LIVE NATION: Faces Class Suit for Postponed Janet Jackson Concert
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brock Theissen at Exclaim reports Janet Jackson's recent touring
efforts were nothing short of a train wreck, with the singer and
new-mom-at-50 postponing her "Unbreakable World Tour" multiple
times in recent years. Now, one seriously pissed-off fan has filed
a class action lawsuit against promoter Live Nation.

As TMZ reports, the lawsuit filed by Tiana Adams claims Live
Nation is trying to avoid paying out refunds for the tour by
repeatedly saying it is "postponed" and not "cancelled." At this
point, there has still been no word on when the tour may take
place -- if ever.

As previously reported, Jackson announced the most recent tour
postponement in April 2016 after previously postponements. At the
time, the singer explained that she and her husband are "planning
our family." As a result, the shows were called over on doctor's
orders to "rest up."

Jackson eventually gave birth to her first child on January 3 at
the age of 50.


LUMENIS INC: Gillespie, et al. Sue Under FLSA, State Labor Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
COOPER GILLESPIE, LEIGHTON WYNTER, CHRISTOPHER CASTLE, MICHAEL
CONWAY, WILLIAM SEAN DUNEGAN, SKYLAR FISK, JEFF FOLZ, RANDY HILL,
AND DENNIS WALSH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. LUMENIS INC., and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02080-EDL (N.D. Cal.,
April 13, 2017), alleges that Defendant misclassified Plaintiffs
and the Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Class as exempt from
overtime and thus failed to pay them overtime as required by
federal law.

Plaintiff Gillespie also brings individual claims under California
law extending back four years prior to this action's filing date
through the trial of this action for Defendant's failure to pay
overtime compensation, failure to authorize and provide available
meal and rest breaks, and failure to provide premium pay for
missed meal and rest breaks.

Plaintiff Wynter brings claims against Defendant under New York
law extending back as much as six years prior to this action's
filing date through the trial of this action for Defendant's
failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to pay spread of
hours pay, failure to pay wages when due, failure to comply with
notice and record-keeping requirements, and failure to provide
accurate wage statements.

According to its website, Lumenis Inc. is "a global leader in the
field of minimally invasive clinical solutions for the Surgical,
Ophthalmology and Aesthetic markets," and develops and
commercializes "innovative energy-based technologies, including
Laser, Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) and Radio-Frequency (RF)."

Plaintiffs and the putative class members are or were employed by
Defendant Lumenis Inc., as customer service engineers, field
service engineers, and other job titles performing similar duties
and were denied proper compensation as required by federal and
state wage and hour laws.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bryan Schwartz, Esq.
     Rachel Terp, Esq.
     BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
     1330 Broadway, Suite 1630
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (510) 444-9300
     Fax: (510) 444-9301
     Email: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
            rachel@bryanschwartzlaw.com


M&C GLOBAL: Faces "Gomes" Suit in Tex. Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL GOMES and SEBASTIAN BRADFORD, Individually and On Behalf
Of All Similarly Situated Persons Plaintiffs, V. M&C GLOBAL, INC.
and PAUL BACHET, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17-cv-1141 (S.D.
Tex., April 13, 2017), alleges that in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Plaintiffs and those employees similarly situated
to Plaintiffs were paid on an hourly basis and were paid the same
hourly rate for all hours worked, even those hours over 40 in a
workweek.

The Defendants placed the Employees to work at various automobile
dealers in the Houston area, and possibly other geographic areas.
Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an auto dealership porter, says
the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
     THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
     2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
     Houston, TX 77018
     Phone: 713-868-3388
     Fax: 713-683-9940
     E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

        - and -

     Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
     THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
     2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
     Houston, TX 77018
     Phone: 713-868-3388
     Fax: 713-683-9940
     E-mail: vijay@buenkerlaw.com


MDLIVE: Sued for Allegedly Sharing Patient Data to Third Party
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Castellucci, writing for Modern Healthcare, reports that
MDLive has been hit with a class-action lawsuit accusing the
telehealth provider of violating patients' privacy rights.

The lawsuit, filed on April 18 in a Florida federal court, alleged
MDLive shared detailed patient health information with a third-
party tech company without the patients' consent.  The tech
company, Israel-based Test Fairy, uses health information to fix
bugs with MDLive's mobile app and to test users' experience.

The suit claims the company takes an average of 60 screenshots for
the first 15 minutes patients use the app and then sends those
images to Test Fairy.  Patients' initial interactions with the app
include filling out personal health information like behavioral
health conditions and medications.

Users are led to believe that health information logged into the
MDLive app will only be made available to physicians, the suit
said.

The lawsuit also alleged that MDLive grants its developers and
designers access to patients' medical history without their
knowledge.  "MDLive fails to adequately restrict access to
patients' medical information and instead grants unnecessary and
broad permissions to its employees, agents and third parties," the
complaint said.

MDLive did not respond to a request for comment on April 19.

Plaintiff Joan Richards, a user of MDLive's app and Utah resident,
seeks $5 million in damages.

MDLive, founded in 2009, is a privately held company and its
financial data is not available. It received $23.6 million from
investors in 2015.

Telehealth adoption has raised patient privacy concerns in the
past.  The American Medical Association has issued guidelines to
help physicians understand how to ethically use the services.


MICHIGAN: Health Department Faces "J.V." Suit in E.D. Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nick Lyon. The case
is entitled as J.V., on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nick Lyon, in his official capacity
only as Executive Director of the Michigan Department of Health
and Human Services, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-11184-DPH-RSW
(E.D. Mich., Apr. 14, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon.
District Judge Denise Page Hood.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) is a
principal department of state of Michigan, headquartered in
Lansing, that provides public assistance, child and family welfare
services, and oversees health policy and management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron V. Burrell, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT, PLLC
          500 Woodward Ave., Suite 4000
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 223 3500
          Facsimile: (313) 223 3598
          E-mail: aburrell@dickinsonwright.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Watson Seeks Certification of Three Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled STEPHANIE WATSON, ROBERT
SAIGER, and HOWARD GOLDBERG, on behalf of plaintiffs and the class
members described herein v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Case No. 1:17-
cv-02243 (N.D. Ill.), seek certification of these classes:

   * The class under Count I, alleging violation of the Uniform
     Commercial Code (UCC) and Magnuson-Moss Act, consists of all
     persons in the United States, except Louisiana and Puerto
     Rico, who had the Windows 10 upgrade installed on a computer
     then equipped with Windows 7 or earlier operating systems,
     and who suffered loss of data or damage to software or
     hardware within 30 days thereafter.

   * The class under Counts II, III and IV, alleging products
     liability, negligence and violations of the Washington UDAP
     statute, consists of all persons in the United States who
     had the Windows 10 upgrade installed on a computer then
     equipped with Windows 7 or earlier operating systems, and
     who suffered loss of data or damage to software or hardware
     within 30 days thereafter.

   * The class under Count V, alleging violation of Illinois
     Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, consists of all persons
     in Illinois who had the Windows 10 upgrade installed on a
     computer then equipped with Windows 7 or earlier operating
     systems, and who suffered loss of data or damage to software
     or hardware within 30 days thereafter.

The Plaintiffs further seek their appointment as representatives
of the class, and the appointment of Edelman Combs Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC as counsel for the class.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Tara L. Goodwin, 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: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  tgoodwin@edcombs.com


MINATO RESTAURANT: Faces "Pettus" Wage-and-Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------
JAZMIN PETTUS, an individual; FREITAS, an individual; ALL
INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER
SIMILARLY SITUATED NON-EXEMPT FORMER AND CURRENT EMPLOYEES, the
Plaintiffs, v. MINATO RESTAURANT INC. dba THE LUXE BUFFET dba THE
LUXE SEAFOOD BUFFET dba MINATO SEAFOOD BUFFET, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC657642 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 13, 2017), seeks to
recover equitable and injunctive relief, economic and statutory
damages, prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and
other appropriate relief against Defendants, including DOES 1
through 10, hereinafter all defendants for violations of the Labor
Code.

The Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class Members were employed as non-
exempt restaurant workers, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class
routinely worked periods of four hours or more, twice per work
day, without receiving two full, uninterrupted, 10 minute rest
break periods per every four hours worked, in violation of
California Industrial Commission's Order.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Law, Esq.
          Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq.
          SOLOUKI & SAVOY, LLP
          316W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 814 4940
          Facsimile: (213) 814 2550


MONSANTO COMPANY: 2 Suits Filed in E.D. Mo. Over Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------
Two lawsuits against Monsanto Company seek damages against
Defendant Monsanto Company in connection with the sale of the
herbicide Roundup(TM).

The two lawsuits are:

JUANITA MARAMAN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01326-CDP (E.D. Mo., Apr. 14, 2017);
and

MICHAEL NAFF, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:17-cv-01329-AGF (E.D. Mo., Apr. 14, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM)and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

"Roundup (TM)" refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup
products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate
Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide,
Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export
Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed
& Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide,
Roundup Original 2k herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide,
Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Prodry Herbicide, Roundup Promax,
Roundup Quik Stik Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Quikpro
Herbicide, Roundup Rainfast Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer,
Roundup Rainfast Super Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup
Ready-to-Use Extended Control Weed & Grass Killer 1 Plus Weed
Preventer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup
Ready-to-Use Weed and Grass Killer 2, Roundup Ultra Dry, Roundup
Ultra Herbicide, Roundup Ultramax, Roundup VM Herbicide, Roundup
Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer
Concentrate Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass killer Ready-to-Use Plus,
Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super Concentrate, Roundup Weed &
Grass Killer1 Ready-to-Use, Roundup WSD Water Soluble Dry
Herbicide Deploy Dry Herbicide, or any other formulation of
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jacob A. Flint, Esq.
          FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC
          222 E. Park St., Suite 500
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 205 2017
          Facsimile: (618) 288 2864
          E-mail: jflint@flintfirm.com

               - and -

          David J. Wool, Esq.
          Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq.
          David J. Wool, Esq.
          ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, P.C.
          7171 W. Alaska Drive
          Lakewood, CO 80226
          Telephone: (303) 376 6360
          Facsimile: (303) 376 6361
          E-mail: aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com
                  david.wool@andruswagstaff.com


MOMS IN MOTION: Faces "LaRue" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maryann LaRue, Plaintiff on her own behalf, and for all those
similarly situated pursuant to 19 USC Section 216(b), v. MOMS IN
MOTION, INC., Case No. 7:17cv162-GEC (W.D. Va., April 14, 2017),
alleges that MIM knowingly and improperly misclassified the
Representative Plaintiff and Collective Action Members as exempt
"professional" or "administrative" employees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

MIM provides social worker services.  The Purported class members
are all either current or former "Service Facilitators" or "Senior
Service Facilitators."  MIM Facilitators provide social worker
support services for youth, adults and families with disabilities.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas E. Strelka, Esq.
     L. Leigh R. Strelka, Esq.
     STRELKA LAW OFFICE, PC
     Warehouse Row
     119 Norfolk Avenue, S.W., Suite 330
     Roanoke, VA 24011
     Phone: 540 283 0802
     E-mail: thomas@strelkalaw.com
             leigh@strelklaw.com


NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Faces "Moran" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Enterprise
Systems, Inc.  The case is titled as Kathleen Moran, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
National Enterprise Systems, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-02262 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 14, 2017).

National manages and collects past due debts and accounts
receivable for clients in various industries throughout the
US.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NETGEAR INC: Faces "Williams" Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Netgear, Inc. The
case is captioned as Stewart Williams, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Netgear, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-02096-HRL (N.D. Cal., Apr. 14,
2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Howard R.
Lloyd.

Netgear is an American global networking company that delivers
products to consumers, businesses, and service providers. The
company operates in three business segments: retail, commercial,
and service provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah M. Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          3 Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788 4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788 0161
          E-mail: nschubert@sjk.law


NICK COYLE: Faces "Watkins" Wage-and-Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------
MELANIE WATKINS AND DIANE STIVERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. NICK COYLE, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00233-BSM (E.D. Ark., April 13, 2017),
seeks to recover monetary damages for all overtime worked by
Plaintiffs and the putative class members.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, bring this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendant's
commonly applied policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated the overtime premium
compensation for the hours in excess of forty hours in a single
week that they were/are made to work.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Damel Ford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: Daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com


NORWIN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Pennsylvania Record, reports that an
employee has filed a class action lawsuit against Norwin
Technologies, an IT consulting firm, citing alleged unpaid wages
and violation of workers' compensation acts for unpaid overtime he
says he should have earned.

William Ringler filed a complaint on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated employees on April 5 in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging the
Massachusetts-based employer failed to provide adequate
compensation.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges he regularly
worked more than 40 hours per week but was not paid any overtime
wages at his job as a network engineer.  The plaintiff holds
Norwin Technologies responsible because it allegedly failed to pay
the plaintiff for any hours worked more than 40 hours per week.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, unpaid reimbursed expenses,
interest, court costs and any further relief the court grants.

He is represented by John R. Linkosky of John Linkosky &
Associates in Carnegie.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Case
number 2:17-cv-00423-AJS


PEI WEI: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Denial of Meal Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS HERNANDEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. PEI WEI ASIAN DINER, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00679 (C.D. Cal., April
14, 2017), alleges that employees did not receive a first meal
break within the first five hours of work in violation of the
California Labor Code. [BN]

Defendants operate fast casual restaurants in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Larry W. Lee, Esq.
     DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
     515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 488-6555
     Fax: (213) 488-6554
     E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

        - and -

     Edward W. Choi, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
     515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 381-1515
     Fax: (213) 465-4885
     Email: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com


PENDRAGON NORTH: "Chiu" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled PAUL CHIU, YAN HUA WANG, Jun Wang,
and SUN MEIZHI, all other members of the general public similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PENDRAGON NORTH AMERICA, INC. dba
HORNBURG JAGUAR LAND ROVER SANTA MONICA and HORNBURG LAND ROVER
HOLLYWOOD; SAMI OHEB; SERGEI KALUSTOV; RP AUTOMOTIVE, INC. dba
PENSKE JAGUAR LAND ROVER CERRITOS; AKSEL SARDARYAN; TERRY YORK
MOTOR CARS, LTD. dba LAND ROVER ENCINO; Carlos Diaz; ANAHEIM HILLS
JAGUAR LAND ROVER, INC. dba JAGUAR LAND ROVER ANAHEIM HILLS; JOHN
TOTARO; PENEGON NEWPORT BEACH INC. dba JAGUAR LANDROVER NEWPORT
BEACH; Jennifer Kim; NATASHA BIJELIC; PENEGON MISSION VIEJO INC.
dba JAGUAR LAND ROVER MISSION VIEJO; Terrence Wilson; BRITISH
MOTOR CARS DISTRIBUTOR LTD dba LAND ROVER OF SAN FRANCISCO;
GILLIAN PENITENTI; and DOES 1 to 750, Case No. BC651940, was
removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the Central
District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02877 to the
proceeding.

Pendragon North America is part of Pendragon PLC, the largest
independent operator of franchised motor car dealerships in the
UK.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


PERSONNEL STAFFING: Faces "Haack" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROMAN HAACK, CODY CLAY, and RYAN BANTA, and all other employees
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs vs. PERSONNEL
STAFFING GROUP, LLC, DANIEL S. BARNETT, individually, DAVID
BARNETT, individually, NORTHERN ILLINOIS FENCE, dba COMPLETE
NORTHERN ILLINOIS FENCE or "CNI," COMPLETE FENCE (formerly Fox
Valley Fence) dba CNI, U.S. INSTALLERS, dba NORTHERN ILLINOIS
FENCE, and RAYMOND HOHE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-02854 (N.D. Ill., April 14, 2017), arises under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime wages to the
Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated, known and unknown for
all time they worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more
individual workweeks.

Personnel Staffing Group, LLC provides staffing services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     L. Steven Platt, Esq.
     ROBBINS, SALOMON & PATT, LTD
     180 N. LaSalle, Suite 3300
     Chicago IL 60601
     Phone: (3120 4456-0285
     E-mail: lsplatt@rsplaw.com

        - and -

     LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM J. PROVENZANO & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
     1580 S. Milwaukee Av., Suite 530
     Libertyville, IL 60048
     Phone: (847) 816-6588
     E-mail: wjprovenzano@ameritech.net


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Felberbaum" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phillips & Cohen
Associates, Ltd. The case is entitled as Aron Felberbaum, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. and PCA
Acquisitions V, LLC, doing business as: Portfolio Asset Group, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02413 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 21, 2017).

Phillips & Cohen provides debt collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


PHILIPS & PIONEER: Settles Price-Fixing Class Action for $50.5MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Philips and Pioneer will pay $50.5 million and TEAC $5
million to settle class action price-fixing conspiracy claims by
indirect purchasers of optical disk drives.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg on April 18 preliminarily
approved separate class settlements, one with Philips and Pioneer,
and the other with TEAC, and preliminarily certified the
settlement classes in separate orders.

The Philips defendants, collectively referred to as PLDS, include
Koninklijke Philips, Lite-On IT Corp., and two other Philips-Lite-
On affiliates.

"This court preliminarily finds, for purposes of settlement only,
that the action meets all the prerequisites of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," Judge Seeborg wrote in both
orders.

A long list of plaintiffs, including Hewlett-Packard, sued disk-
drive suppliers in 2010, claiming bid-rigging and price-fixing
gave the defendants control of 90 percent of the optical disk
drive market and more than $45 billion in revenue between 2004 and
2008.

The Justice Department revealed in 2009 that it was investigating
antitrust violations in the optical disk drive industry. Hitachi-
LG Data Storage pleaded guilty to criminal antitrust violations
discovered in the probe and paid a $21.1 million criminal fine,
and some of its employees went to prison.

Under the April 18 settlements, the PLDS defendants will pay $40
million.

The Pioneer defendants -- include Pioneer Corporation, Pioneer
Electronics and two others -- will pay $10.5 million.

The TEAC defendants, TEAC Corp. and Teac America, will pay $5
million.

"The settlements are an exceptional result for the class," the
indirect purchasers said in their March motion for preliminary
approval of the PLDS and Pioneer settlements.

"Had IPPs [indirect purchaser plaintiffs] continued to go to trial
against PLDS, they certainly would have argued that their
liability was limited to single (rather than treble) antitrust
damages, and that it was not subject to joint and several
liability with the other defendants.  The potential success of
this argument would significantly limit the potential liability of
the PLDS defendants," according to the PLDS-Pioneer settlement.

The settlement classes include individuals in 23 states and the
District of Columbia who bought computers and standalone optical
disk drives between 2003 and 2008.  Panasonic-branded computers
were excluded from the class, though its standalone disk drives
were included.

Judge Seeborg preliminarily approved a $124.5 million class
settlement with Sony, Panasonic, NEC and Hitachi-LG for indirect
purchasers in July 2016, and granted final approval in December
2016.

In that settlement, Hitachi-LG agreed to pay $73 million, Sony
$28.5 million, Panasonic $16.5 million and NEC $6.5 million.

Together, the settlements to indirect purchasers amount to $180
million.

Samsung, TSST/Toshiba, BenQ and Quanta remain in the indirect
purchaser case.

The indirect purchasers are represented by Jeff Friedman --
jefff@hbsslaw.com -- with Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in Berkeley,
who could not be reached for comment late on April 18.

PLDS was represented by Evan Werbel with Baker Botts in
Washington, Pioneer by Eric Enson -- epenson@jonesday.com -- with
Jones Day in Los Angeles, and TEAC by Aharon Jaye --
aharon.kaye@kattenlaw.com -- with Katten Muchin Rosenman in
Chicago.

They did not return requests seeking comment.


PLASTC: Customers File Class Suit After Swiping $9MM from Backers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Business Insider reports that angry customers who gave smart
credit card company Plastc USD9 million (GBP7 million) in pre-
orders and then abruptly shut down are hoping to sue the company.
Venture capital investors had also sunk a reported GBP3.3 million
(USD4.3 million) into the fintech startup.

Plastc promised its card device could store information from up to
20 other payment cards, saving customers the bother of carrying
wallets filled with different cards. But the Palo Alto,
California, company said on its site that it was considering
bankruptcy, after failing to close two Series A funding rounds. It
has "let go" all of its employees, and shut down its social media
channels.

Now Plastc's customers want to file a class action lawsuit against
the company, which they describe as "a scam." Each card cost
USD155, and in its terms of conditions Plastc stated that pre-
orders were "non-refundable." It hasn't said whether it will give
money back to customers.

One angry customer has set up a Facebook page called "Plastc Class
Action Lawsuit", and is encouraging others to join the case.
According to one update: "A class action lawsuit is being started
against Plastc to ensure anyone who pre-ordered will receive their
money back."

A later update advises disappointed backers to keep copies of all
their communications with Plastc on file.

One commenter wrote: "I don't care about the USD155 but I want
this clown to be held accountable even if the lawyers are the
[ones] that get paid. It does seem this was a scam for a while
since [CEO Ryan Marquis] was always very evasive. There is no way
investors would pull out from this days before shipping but I'm
sure they saw something we don't know about that hopefully would
come out in the legal proceedings."

There is little trace left of Plastc online, except for furious
customers commenting on Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit.
The company shut down its @PlastcInc Twitter handle in the last 24
hours and deleted the PlastcInc Facebook page. CEO Ryan Marquis
also deleted his personal Twitter account. All that's left of
Plastc's website is a notice titled "We Regret to Inform You..."
and the company's full statement, which you can read below.

If you search for "@PlastcInc" on Twitter, you'll see lots of
comments like this:

According to Crunchbase and other public records, Plastc's venture
backers invested USD4.3 million (GBP3.3 million) in the company.
Backers included Mitsubishi, Grayhawk Capital, Peninsula Ventures,
IncWell, and ZenStone Venture Capital. Of these, IncWell and
Greyhawk Capital list Plastc among their portfolio companies,
while Peninsula Ventures partner Gregory Ennis is listed as a
Plastc board member.

Here's the notice from Plastc in full:

Important Notice

We Regret to Inform You...

For the past 3 years, our mission here at Plastc was to build and
deliver the most technically ambitious smart card on the planet.
After making enormous leaps in development, product innovation and
progress towards our goal, Plastc has exhausted all of its options
to raise the money it needs to continue.

Plastc, Inc. is exploring options to file Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and
will cease operations on April 20, 2017.

While we have fallen short of our goal, we are proud of our team
and the effort that went into developing a working Plastc Card.
However, without the necessary capital to continue, all employees
have been let go, which means that Customer Care and Social Media
channels are unmanned or have been shut down.

How We Got Here:

We were expecting to close a USD3.5 million Series A funding round
on February 28, 2017. There are functioning Plastc Cards, which
were demonstrated to our investors and our backers, and the
capital was to be allocated for the mass production and shipping
of Plastc Cards to pre-order customers. At first, the principal
investment group postponed their investment and a couple of weeks
later the round fell apart.

After the initial funding was unavailable, Plastc made progress
with another investor who offered USD6.75 million. This deal was
scheduled to close and would propel development across the finish
line, as well as allow for Plastc Card pre-orders to be shipped
and for production to continue into a retail phase.

However, once again at the very last minute, our investor gave us
notice that they have decided rescind their investment offer. The
round was a signature away from closing and we were extremely
caught off guard when they notified us they were backing out. Our
existing investors kept us alive and functioning as long as they
could during this fundraising process, but in the end, we needed
new outside capital to get into production.

What This Means For Backers:

It's been a long road with a lot of obstacles. The support of our
amazing backers has been incredible, which makes this announcement
even harder. We were so incredibly ready for production in order
to hit our deadlines but without capital it is impossible for us
to move forward and we will not be able to fulfill any pre-orders.
We are disappointed and emotionally distraught, and while we know
this is extremely disappointing for you, we want our backers to
know that we did everything we could to make Plastc Card a
reality.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Elliston" Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dan Elliston, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-
cv-00804 (filed Mar. 22, 2017), was transferred on April 21, 2017
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
(San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-
00809-JAH-BGS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge John A. Houston.

PRA is a publicly traded debt buyer based in Norfolk,
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Walt D Roper, Esq.
          THE ROPER FIRM PC
          3001 Knox Street, Suite 405
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Telephone: (214) 420 4520
          Facsimile: (214) 856 8480
          E-mail: walt@roperfirm.com


PUBLIC STORAGE: "Grassi" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FACTA
-----------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE R. GRASSI individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PUBLIC STORAGE, a Maryland
Real Estate Investment Trust, Defendant, Case No. 9:17-cv-80468-
DMM (S.D. Fla., April 14, 2017), seeks to put an end to
Defendant's alleged conduct of willfully, knowingly, and/or
recklessly disclosing the personal and confidential financial
information of thousands of consumers throughout the country in
violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Defendant is a self-storage company in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
     HIRALDO P.A.
     401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
     Phone: 954.400.4713

        - and -

     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: (305) 479-2299
     Fax: (786) 623-0915
     E-mail: efilings@shamisgentile.com


RAVEL HOTEL: Faces "Andrews" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ravel Hotel LLC. The
case is styled as Victor Andrews, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Ravel Hotel LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02389 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 21, 2017).

Ravel owns and operates a Long Island City boutique hotel that
overlooks the East River and Roosevelt Island.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Faces "Williams" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Receivables
Performance Management, LLC. The case is captioned as Bria
Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02423 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 23, 2017).

RPM offers accounts receivable management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
          DANIEL COHEN, PLLC
          407 Rockaway Avenue
          Brooklyn, NY 11212
          Telephone: (646) 645 8482
          Facsimile: (347) 665 1545
          E-mail: dancohenlaw@gmail.com


ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Settles TCPA Class Action for $17 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports
that tens of thousands of faxes will cost Roche Diagnostics
Corporation $17 million in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act
settlement.

Last year, Econo-Med Pharmacy Inc. sued Roche alleging that the
company sent "tens of thousands" of faxes to pharmacies across the
country advertising products such as Accu-Chek test strips. The
faxes did not contain the TCPA's required opt-out notice, the
plaintiff alleged, seeking to recover under the federal statute
and Indiana's Deceptive Consumer Sales Act.

In addition to the usual pre-trial motions and discovery, the
proceedings were stayed while Roche pursued a Petition for Waiver
with the Federal Communications Commission.  Last November, the
FCC granted its waiver request through April 30, 2015 for non-
compliant faxes that were sent without the required opt-out
information. Not long after, the parties agreed to mediation and
reached a deal.

The settlement agreement requires Roche to establish a non-
reversionary fund of $17 million.  Class members (pharmacy
recipients dating back to April 2012) are eligible for an
estimated $500 each, with up to one-third of the fund (or $5.6
million) possible for class counsel and a $5,000 class
representative award for Econo-Med.

The value of the deal "falls well within the range of a reasonable
settlement," the plaintiff argued in its memorandum in support of
preliminary approval of the agreement, noting that the estimated
cash payments are "directly in line with the statutory damages
provided in the TCPA."  The estimated recovery also exceeds the
average recovery in similar TCPA cases, the plaintiff added,
citing approval of deals where class members received $30.21,
$80.26, and $255.95.

Roche, which did not oppose the motion in support of settlement,
denies any wrongdoing in the case.

Why it matters: In addition to avoiding the usual "risks,
uncertainties, and delays of continued litigation," the plaintiff
acknowledged that settling the case would avoid the risk of an
unfavorable development in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit in Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCC. That case presents
the issue of whether the FCC had the authority (and reasonably
exercised it) when it retroactively waived violations of the opt-
out requirement.  On March 31, the D.C. Circuit issued its
decision, ruling that the Solicited Fax Rule, which imposed opt-
out requirements on solicited faxes, was unlawful.  The D.C.
Circuit, finding opt-outs were not required for solicited faxes,
did not reach whether the waivers were properly issued.  It is
likely that the plaintiff secured a favorable settlement just in
time -- two weeks before the D.C. Circuit overturned the Solicited
Fax Rule.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Sewell" Suit Transferred to W.D. Okla.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Susan Sewell, on Behalf of Herself
and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Best Buy Co
Inc., Samsung Electronics America Inc., Samsung Electronics Co
Ltd., Lowe's Companies Inc., Sears Holding Corporation., and Home
Depot Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-10209, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma
City). The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-
00434-F to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Stephen P. Friot.

Headquartered in Ridgefield Park, NJ, Samsung Electronics America,
Inc. is a recognized innovation leader in consumer electronics
design.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan L. Kovacs, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN L. KOVACS
          257 Dedham Street
          Newton, MA 02461
          Telephone: (617) 964 1177
          Facsimile: (617) 332 1223

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert D. Friedman, Esq.
          BURNS & LEVINSON LLP
          125 Summer Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 345 3248


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Sanda" Suit Over Washing Machines
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SANDA and MICKI WELLS, on Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated Plaintiff, vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, THE HOME DEPOT, INC.,
LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., BEST BUY CO., INC., SEARS
HOLDING CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-00988-MGL
(D.S.C., April 17, 2017), seeks relief in the form of (1) an
injunction against Defendants from any further sales of recalled
topload washing machines (Recall # 17-028) and to take such other
remedial action as may otherwise be requested herein; and (2)
money damages to adequately and reasonably compensate owners of
the Recalled Washing Machines who have, through no fault of their
own, purchased defective and dangerous Samsung washing machines.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Theile B. McVey, Esq.
     John D. Kassel, Esq.
     KASSEL McVEY, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
     1330 Laurel Street
     Post Office Box 1476
     Columbia, SC 29202-1476
     Phone: 803-256-4242
     Fax: 803-256-1952
     E-mail: tmcvey@kassellaw.com
             jkassel@kassellaw.com
             emoultrie@kassellaw.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

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


SLATE GROUP: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Slate Group,
LLC. The case is titled as Phillip Sullivan Jr., on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The
Slate Group, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02897 (S.D.N.Y.,
Apr. 21, 2017).

Slate Group is a US online publishing entity established in June
2008 by Graham Holdings Company. Among the publications overseen
by The Slate Group are Slate, Slate V, and ForeignPolicy.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SM&N HOSPITALITY: "Zevalos" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Irina Zevallos and Dema Seoane, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. S M & N Hospitality
Group, LLC, Pubbelly Hospitality Group, Co. d/b/a The Pubbelly
Restaurant Group, Pubbelly Sushi, LLC, Jose Mendin, Andreas
Schreiner and Sergio Navarro, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21433
(S.D. Fla., April 17, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages and an
additional and equal amount as liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate Pubbelly Sushi located at 1424 20th Street,
Miami Beach, Florida 33139, where Plaintiffs worked as servers.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
     FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
     28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Telephone: (212) 300-0375


SOLOMON & SOLOMON: Faces "Deyneko" Suit in Eastern Dist. of N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solomon and Solomon,
P.C. The case is captioned as Nataly Deyneko, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Solomon &
Solomon, P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02424 (E.D.N.Y.,
Apr. 23, 2017).

The Defendant id a collection law firm providing collection and
litigation services on delinquent receivables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
          DANIEL COHEN, PLLC
          407 Rockaway Avenue
          Brooklyn, NY 11212
          Telephone: (646) 645 8482
          Facsimile: (347) 665 1545
          E-mail: dancohenlaw@gmail.com


SONY MOBILE: Faces "Landes" Suit Over Xperia Smartphone Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
LOGAN LANDES and JAMES GODDARD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SONY MOBILE
COMMUNICATIONS (U.S.A.), INC. and SONY ELECTRONICS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02264 (E.D.N.Y., April 14, 2017),
accuses Sony of deceptively advertising its "waterproof" Xperia
smartphones and tablets as being able to withstand underwater and
other prolonged use in wet environments when, in fact, the Devices
are not waterproof and are not designed for or capable of ordinary
underwater use.

SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (U.S.A.), INC. develops, manufactures,
and sells mobile communications products. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     SHANNON L. HOPKINS, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Telephone: (212) 363-7500
     Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
     shopkins@zlk.com
     Email:srowley@zlk.com


SURVEY SAMPLING: "Villanueva" Suit Moved to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Zita Villanueva, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Survey Sampling International, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, and DOES 1-50 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-
02017-00009410-CU-MC-CTL, was removed on April 17, 2017 from
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00774-
JAH-WVG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
John A. Houston.

Survey Sampling International is a global provider of data
solutions and technology for consumer and business-to-business
survey research.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq.
          DOSTART HANNINK COVENEY LLP
          4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 623 4200
          Facsimile: (858) 623 4299
          E-mail: zdostart@sdlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christine M Reilly, Esq.
          MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          11355 W. Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312 4237
          Facsimile: (310) 996 7037
          E-mail: creilly@manatt.com


TAMKO BUILDING: Bill Won't Affect Class Action, Senator Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Thomas and Susan Redden, writing for Joplin Globe, report
that the U.S. attorney's office for the Western District of
Missouri has been asked to open a grand jury investigation into a
complaint from a Washington, D.C., watchdog group that state Sen.
Ron Richard's accepted a $100,000 campaign contribution from a
Joplin businessman and his wife within days of filing legislation
that might benefit the donor.

The nonprofit Campaign for Accountability filed the complaint and
request on April 19, alleging the contribution violated federal
criminal law prohibiting campaign contributions in exchange for
legislative assistance.

Sen. Richard is a Republican from Joplin and the Missouri Senate
president pro tem.  The campaign contribution came from David
Humphreys, CEO of TAMKO Building Products, and his wife, Debra.

The legislative bill at issue would limit consumer protections
under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and make it more
difficult to file class-action lawsuits against manufacturers.

Mr. Richard told the Globe the Humphreys' campaign contribution in
no way affected his sponsorship of the bill, a measure he said
he's introduced three times now in legislative sessions to
discourage frivolous lawsuits against Missouri businesses.  He
described the CfA's allegations of favoritism "reckless and not
true, and they will not deter me from doing the work of the
people."

Globe requests for comment from Humphreys went unanswered on April
19.  In a letter to The Kansas City Star, an attorney representing
Humphreys said the check was written on that particular day simply
because voter-imposed contribution limits were set to kick in the
next day. It had nothing to do with the legislation, the lawyer
wrote.

The April 19 complaint and request for a federal grand jury
investigation came after public criticism of Sen. Richard by two
state lawmakers.  One of those legislators, Republican Sen. Ryan
Silvey, just a week ago suggested an investigation was warranted
but said that it would not be his place to pursue the matter.

Rep. Mark Ellebracht, a first-term Democrat from Independence,
said in mid-March that Richard's bill to modify the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act would likely benefit TAMKO and thus
raised concern.

Mr. Richard rejected the implications of the Silvey and Ellebracht
statements as well as the April 19 complaint.  "It's unfortunate,
but it's getting all too common for these types of baseless
allegation to spread in this building," Richard said.

The complaint

The Campaign for Accountability describes itself as a nonprofit
that uses "research, litigation and aggressive communications to
expose misconduct and malfeasance in public life."

Dan Stevens, its executive director, previously served as a senior
researcher at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington, which has been accused of overwhelmingly targeting
conservatives.  One of its board members is Robin Brand, who the
CfA's website said previously worked for the Democratic Party.
Another board member is Nick Hackworth, who most recently served
as director of strategic research for Barack Obama's 2012
presidential re-election campaign. Board member Ben Fortney also
was affiliated with CREW.

The CfA alleges a "quid pro quo" can be established by Richard
accepting a campaign donation from Humphreys in exchange for
introducing legislation, conduct the CfA said may find that both
parties violated the Travel Act, a federal law that forbids the
use of the U.S. mail or foreign travel for the purpose of engaging
in illegal transactions.

The CfA complaint requested a grand jury investigation into
whether Richard used his position to financially benefit TAMKO in
exchange for campaign contributions.  By doing so, the complaint
alleges, he may have deprived his constituents, the Missouri
Senate and the state of Missouri of his honest services.

Mr. Richard received more than $200,000 in campaign contributions
in 2016 from Humphreys, according to campaign reporting records.
He and his wife gave Richard $100,000 on Dec. 7, only six days
after Richard pre-filed Senate Bill 5 for changes to the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act.

On Dec. 8, contribution limits approved by voters in November took
effect.  They set a limit of no more than $2,600 per candidate per
election and were aimed at limiting the influence of money in
Missouri politics.

There had been no limits on contributions to Missouri candidates
since 2008, when the Republican-led Legislature overturned an
earlier law. But Missouri voters last November overwhelmingly
approved limits in a constitutional amendment.

As reported in the Globe in December, Humphreys and other family
members gave away more than $3 million before the Dec. 8 deadline,
including $1 million to Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens. Humphreys,
who has been one of the biggest donors in Missouri politics in the
past decade, made 13 donations that day, and many were to people
who had received earlier donations, the letter from the attorney
noted.

Another of those recipients was Josh Hawley, the Republican
candidate who in November was elected Missouri attorney general.
Hawley received $500,000 each on Dec. 7 from Humphreys and from
Sarah Humphreys Atkins, a sister of the businessman and a
consultant for TAMKO.

Mr. Hawley was one of the team of attorneys who court challenged a
provision in the federal Affordable Care Act over a contraceptive
requirement, known as Hobby Lobby case. One of the lawyers on that
case was Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general who is now
listed as counsel of record for TAMKO in its petition before the
U.S. Supreme Court.

The lawsuit

One of the questions raised by legislative critics of
Mr. Richard's bill is what effect, if any, it would have on a
class-action lawsuit filed in Jasper County Circuit Court in 2014
against TAMKO's Heritage Series Shingles.  The two lead plaintiffs
-- a Texas County man named Lee Hobbs and Jonesburg United
Methodist Church in Montgomery County -- alleged the shingles were
"warping, curling and beginning to fail" before the 30 years TAMKO
said they should last were up, and that they allowed moisture in
and led to damage to the buildings.  The suit accused TAMKO of
violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

TAMKO countered the lawsuit with the assertion the shingles became
defective due to weather damage and improper installation.

The case has stalled for more than a year while courts addressed
the question of whether a class-action suit could even be brought
against TAMKO in the first place, with TAMKO arguing that the
plastic packaging around the shingles bound customers to a
mandatory arbitration agreement.

The warranty included an arbitration provision that stated,
"Mandatory Binding Arbitration: Every claim, controversy, or
dispute of any kind whatsoever including whether any particular
matter is subject to arbitration . . . between you and TAMKO . . .
relating to or arising out of the shingles or this limited
warranty shall be resolved by final and binding arbitration,
regardless of whether the action sounds in warranty, contract,
statute or any other legal or equitable theory."

The claim that customers had agreed to arbitration with TAMKO has
been made not only in Missouri but in other states as well.

As for the Missouri case, both the Jasper County Circuit Court and
the Southern District Court of Appeals disagreed with TAMKO, and
the Missouri Supreme Court deferred to the appeals court's
judgment.  Right now, that question is pending before the U.S.
Supreme Court.

Calls to Holland Law, the St. Louis firm representing both Hobbs
and the church, were not returned.

If the U.S. Supreme Court rejects TAMKO's arbitration claim, the
case returns to Jasper County Circuit Court to address the claims
of Hobbs and others.

Sen. Richard has said his bill to modify the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act does not contain a retroactive
provision and thus would not affect the 2014 class-action suit
against TAMKO or any other pending court actions.

"No bill can do that," he said.

Rep. Ellebracht, the Democratic legislator and also a lawyer,
disagrees.  He said Sen. Richard's Senate bill and those filed by
Rep. Glen Kolkmeyer, R-Wellington, whose House bill is similar to
Richard's Senate bill, take out a clause in the law that says "no
order of dismissal under this section shall operate to divest a
court of venue or jurisdiction otherwise proper at the time the
action was commenced."

By removing that provision, Rep. Ellebracht said, he believes
defendants would have the flexibility to "attack" the
appropriateness of the lead plaintiffs over the issue of class-
action status in pending lawsuits.

While substantive changes to the law can't be retroactive,
procedural changes can be, Rep. Ellebracht said.  Procedure can
include questions over what cases the court can hear. Class
certification requirements are procedural and a defendant can move
"to decertify" at any time, he said.

Rep. Ellebracht said that if the class-action lawsuit is
disallowed by the Supreme Court, all the plaintiffs would have to
challenge TAMKO on the shingle question individually. He said they
most likely would not have the funds to do so.

Two trial attorneys -- David Angle of Columbia, and Ken McClain of
Kansas City, who represented a number of employees of Jasper
Popcorn in lawsuits against the manufacturers of butter flavoring
used at the plant -- backed up Rep. Ellebracht's concerns, though
both said the issue of whether reforms of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act could apply to pending cases would
face a court challenge.

Missouri residents have filed 208 actions under the Missouri
Merchandising Practice Act since 2013. Richard said he does not
intend the bill to prevent those with "legitimate claims" from
joining in a lawsuit and that he does believe there are times when
class actions are appropriate.

Richard said his bill to modify the act is still being redrafted
and will be part of the normal legislative negotiations.  "We're
trying to make sure it's fair and workable," he said.

Mr. Richard also said that Rep. Kolkmeyer's changes to the
merchandising act likely have a better chance of succeeding in the
current legislative session than his own modifications.

Three single-issue bills sponsored by Rep. Kolkmeyer have passed
the House and now await Senate action.  If no changes are made, a
vote by the Senate would put the bills on the governor's desk.
Rep. Kolkmeyer's bills would require all class-action plaintiffs
to be in the same county, and the elements of the case would have
to be similar.

Rep. Kolkmeyer said his intention is to restrict out-of-state
plaintiffs from clogging Missouri's courts.

War chest

Though he has no active campaign, Sen. Richard collected more than
$1 million in campaign contributions over the past year. A form on
file with the Missouri Ethics Commission lists plans for a
statewide run for public office in 2020.

Sen. Richard said the filing keeps his options open and allows him
raise funds to help other Republican candidates so the party can
maintain its legislative majority in 2018.

"It's in case I decide to, but I have no plans for that," he said.
"I have to keep an active committee so I can raise money."

Because of term limits, Sen. Richard will leave the Senate at the
end of 2018.  He has served in Jefferson City since 2003, first in
the House of Representatives and then in the Senate after being
elected in 2010. He has served as speaker of the House and has
been Senate president pro tem since 2015.

He has run without serious -- or any -- opposition since he was
first elected to the House.  That has allowed him to use his
campaign contributions to help elect other Republican candidates.

Sen. Richard started 2016 with nearly $400,000 in his campaign
accounts.  He collected more than $1 million over the year and
made more than $960,000 in donations, primarily to other GOP
candidates.  He currently has about $250,000 in campaign accounts.

Sen. Richard said if he decides to end his political career, he
will give money remaining in his campaign fund to the Senate (GOP)
Majority Fund and to Missouri Southern State University.

Donations

In the month after the election, the Humphreys family made 13
donations to 12 entities the day before Missouri campaign limits
went into effect:

-- $1 million to newly elected Gov. Eric Greitens.

-- $1 million to newly elected Attorney General Josh Hawley.

-- $500,000 to the Missouri Republican Party.

-- $100,000 to newly elected Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft.

-- $100,000 to Senate President Pro Tem Ron Richard, R-Joplin.

-- $100,000 to Senate Majority Floor Leader Mike Kehoe, R-
Jefferson City.

-- $100,000 to Senate Assistant Majority Floor Leader Bob Onder,
R-Lake Saint Louis.

-- $100,000 to Rep. Holly Rehder, R-Sikeston; now House speaker
candidate and right-to-work legislation sponsor.

-- $100,000 to Rep. Rob Vescovo, R-Arnold.

-- $50,000 to House Majority Floor Leader Mike Cierpiot, R-Lee's
Summit.

-- $50,000 to Rep. Shamed Dogan, R-Ballwin.

-- $25,000 to Rep. Courtney Curtis, D-Ferguson.

Source: Missouri Ethics Commission


TESLA INC: Faces Suit Over Nonfunctional Autopilot Software
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on April 19 disclosed that Tesla
owners on April 19 filed a class-action lawsuit against the
automaker for knowingly selling nearly 50,000 cars with
nonfunctional Enhanced Autopilot AP2.0 software that still has not
met Tesla's promises, including inoperative Standard Safety
Features on affected models sold in Q4 2016 and Q1 2017, according
to a lawsuit filed by Hagens Berman.

Though sold as premium automobiles with a focus on safety, the
cars lack basic functions featured in cars at half the price.
Further, the "Enhanced Autopilot," for which customers paid an
extra $5,000, is "essentially unusable and demonstrably
dangerous," the complaint reads.

The lawsuit, filed Apr. 19, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, states, "Unwittingly, buyers
of affected vehicles have become beta testers of half-baked
software that renders Tesla vehicles dangerous if engaged."

The suit details Tesla's deceptive rollout of both the Standard
Safety Features and its new Enhanced Autopilot, which were touted
as safe and "stress-free" for the driver.  Consumers report Tesla
vehicles equipped with the new autopilot AP2.0 "behaving as if a
drunk driver is at the wheel," according to the lawsuit, and the
suit states that the automaker knew that its software was
incapable of upholding its promises to purchasers.

"Tesla has endangered the lives of tens of thousands of Tesla
owners across the country, and induced them to pay many thousands
of dollars for a product that Tesla has not effectively designed,"
said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman, which
represents the plaintiffs.  "Tesla sold these vehicles as the
safest sedan on the road.  What consumers received were cars
without standard safety enhancements featured by cars costing less
than half the price of a new Tesla, and a purported 'Enhanced
Autopilot' that operates in an erratic and dangerous manner."

"To this day, Tesla has not released truly functional software for
its Standard Safety Features or Enhanced Autopilot," Berman added.

According to the complaint, Tesla sold about 47,000 affected Model
S and Model X vehicles in Q4 2016 and Q1 2017, and damages for
each model would include the value of the standard safety features
that do not exist in all the affected cars, plus the $5,000
premium cost of the nonfunctional Enhanced Autopilot feature that
many customers also purchased.

The lawsuit states that Tesla missed deadline after deadline that
it gave purchasers.  Regarding its Standard Safety Features which
include automatic emergency braking, front collision warning, side
collision warning and auto high beams, Tesla told consumers these
features would be available by December 2016 and "roll out through
over-the-air software updates," but to date, only a dangerously
defective Traffic Aware Cruise Control has actually come to
fruition, according to the suit. The remaining features simply do
not exist.

Tesla also promised that its Enhanced Autopilot software would be
disseminated in the same timeframe; it also missed this deadline,
according to the complaint.

In both instances of failed functionality and delivery, Tesla
modified the text on its website, removing any previously
disclosed deadlines and timeframes for functional Standard Safety
Features or Autopilot.  "Rather than deliver safe and advanced
autopilot features, Tesla has delivered software that causes
vehicles to behave erratically," the suit states.

The lawsuit seeks to represent consumers who purchased or leased
an affected Tesla, to reclaim economic losses for the premium
purchasers paid for the safety features and enhanced autopilot
that do not function as Tesla promised. Sign up for the lawsuit.

The lawsuit details accounts of three named plaintiffs who
purchased affected Tesla vehicles for prices ranging from about
$81,000 to $113,000.  In each instance, when purchasers received
their vehicles from Tesla, the Standard Safety Features and
Enhanced Autopilot were non-functioning, despite Tesla's website
and marketing materials indicating that both features would be
available in December 2016.

The suit also showcases online anecdotes from owners using Tesla's
new autopilot: "That driver also describes a situation where
'[y]ou can be sailing along at 50 mph and the radar spots [an
approaching] bridge and immediately slams on the brakes.' 'The
other extreme is that you approach a stoplight with a car already
stopped, and the Tesla doesn't apply the brakes at all,' said the
driver. 'It's really a pretty scary experience,' he said."

"When consumers received these pricy vehicles, it became clear
that Tesla's marketing was all smoke and mirrors," Mr. Berman
said. "And Tesla knew when it made these promises that it didn't
have the capabilities to follow through on its deal.  It knowingly
deceived tens of thousands who put their faith in these cars and
in Tesla."

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities.


TIME WARNER: Manigo's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable John F. Walter has taken under submission the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled
Lois A. Manigo, et al. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:16-cv-06722-JFW-PLA (C.D. Cal.).

According to the civil minutes, the Court finds that the matter is
appropriate for decision without oral argument.  Hence, the
hearing on the matter is vacated and is taken off calendar.  The
matter will be deemed submitted on the vacated hearing date and
the clerk will notify the parties when the Court has reached a
decision.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WP7RJS9w


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Court Strikes Ferris' Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on March 23, 2017, in the case titled
Richard Ferris v. Transworld Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-
cv-03703 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan.

The minute entry states that the motion to certify class is
stricken without prejudice.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1ZHs2ona


UNIQLO CALIFORNIA: "Rivera" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Azariah Rivera, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Uniqlo California, LLC, Fast Retailing USA, Inc., and Does 1-50
inclusive, Case No. BC646781, was removed from the Los Angeles
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02848-JAK-JPR to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John A.
Kronstadt.

Uniqlo California is in the design services business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
          Carey A James, Esq.
          Randall B Aiman-Smith, Esq.
          Reed W L Marcy, Esq.
          AIMAN-SMITH AND MARCY
          7677 Oakport Street Suite 1020
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Telephone: (510) 817 2711
          Facsimile: (510) 562 6830
          E-mail: hvr@asmlawyers.com
                  caj@asmlawyers.com
                  ras.asm@gmail.com
                  rwlm@asmlawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew Bryan Riley, Esq.
          Elliot Wilson, Esq.
          Julie A Dunne, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          501 West Broadway Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232 0441
          Facsimile: (619) 232 4302
          E-mail: mriley@littler.com
                  jdunne@littler.com


UNITED KINGDOM: Former Sub-Postmasters File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Alex_Richards, writing for Devonlive.com, reports that dozens of
former sub-postmasters in the South West who say they were wrongly
accused of theft or fraud are taking legal action against the Post
Office to clear their names.

They say a faulty computer system was to blame.

Fifty former sub-postmasters in the region -- including 14 from
Devon and 13 from Cornwall -- have joined a class action against
Post Office Limited.

Nationally, 1,000 sub-postmasters have applied to join the group
claim, arguing that the company did not investigate losses
properly or warn them their cases weren't isolated.

Many lost their jobs and had to pay back thousands of pounds
missing from their branches.  Some were given prison sentences or
fined.

The Post Office is defending the claim, which is set to go before
the High Court.  The company says it has confidence in the system,
which continues in use.

The Justice for Sub-postmasters Alliance is bringing the action
and the group's founder, Alan Bates, says he believes more people
in the South West will join the fight as word spreads.

"Undoubtedly more people will come forward," Mr Bates told the
Western Morning News.

"When MPs looked at this they said it was a 'national scandal'. I
kept raising issues with the Horizon computer system, but the Post
Office got rid of me, terminating my contract," the former North
Wales sub-postmaster said.

"It is not just the computer system, it is the way Post Office
managers investigated cases.

"This affected whole families and people are still suffering. They
can't get bank accounts.  They have lost the capital invested in
the business.

"The Post Office has said for years that if we had a problem we
should take them to court.  Well now we have got the people and
the money together to do that."

The High Court case, formally known as a Group Litigation Order,
is expected to begin in the autumn.

Meanwhile, the Criminal Cases Review Commission is looking at more
than 30 cases in which sub-postmasters received convictions to
decide if some were unsafe.

That could lead to referrals to the appeal court where the cases
could be overturned.

A spokesperson for the Post Office said: "The Post Office welcomes
the Group Litigation Order as offering the best opportunity for
the matters in dispute to be heard and resolved.

"We will not otherwise comment on litigation whilst it is ongoing.

"We continue to have confidence in and defend the robustness of
the Horizon system which has around 78,000 users across 11,600
branches nationwide to process six million transactions a day."


UNUM GROUP: Waddle Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
JACKIE WADDLE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNUM GROUP a/k/a UNUM GROUP
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00097 (E.D. Tenn.,
April 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff is bringing this claim on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all other similarly-situated Unum employees employed
within the three-year period prior to filing this Complaint.

The Plaintiff was frequently required to work more than 40 hours
in a work week. However, the Defendant did not compensate
Plaintiff for such hours as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act. Rather, Defendant had and still has a practice of failing and
refusing to pay its client specialists overtime compensation as
required by the FLSA. Defendant's violations of this statute were
and are willful, the complaint says.

Unum provides supplemental insurance coverage in the
workplace.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank P. Pinchak, Esq.
          Donna J. Mikel, Esq.
          BURNETTE, DOBSON & PINCHAK
          711 Cherry Street
          Chattanooga, TN 37402
          Telephone: (423) 266 2121
          Facsimile: (423) 266 3324
          E-mail: fpinchak@bdplawfirm.com
                  dmikel@bdplawfirm.com


VERMONT, USA: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Russell" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Geoffrey W. Crawford adopts in part and rejects in part
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation entered in the
lawsuit styled JUSTIN RUSSELL v. ANDREW PALLITO, CYNTHIA MASON,
RICHARD BILODEAU, and LISA MENARD, Case No. 5:15-cv-00126-gwc-jmc
(D. Vt.).

Judge Crawford granted in part and denied in part Defendant Lisa
Menard's motion to dismiss.  The motion is granted insofar as it
seeks to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims for injunctive and
declaratory relief for lack of standing.  The motion is otherwise
denied.

Defendant Andrew Pallito's motion for judgment on the pleadings is
denied.  The Plaintiff's motion to certify class action is denied
without prejudice.

Justin Russell, an inmate of the Vermont Department of
Corrections, has brought the civil-rights lawsuit against four
officials and employees of the DOC: Andrew Pallito, the former
Commissioner; Lisa Menard, the current Commissioner; Cynthia
Mason, a Correctional Officer; and Richard Bilodeau, a
Correctional Facility Shift Supervisor.  Mr. Russell alleges that
Mr. Pallito violated his rights under the Free Exercise Clause of
the First Amendment when he instituted a policy that Muslim
prisoners would be provided kosher meals rather than halal meals.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=X8M8T3e0


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Judges Approve Class Action Settlement in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Keenan at The Globe and Mail reports courts in Quebec and
Ontario have approved a settlement in a class-action lawsuit
brought against Volkswagen Group Canada Inc. by owners of vehicles
equipped with diesel engines containing so-called defeat devices
that allowed the cars to pass regulatory emissions tests then pump
out pollutants during regular use.

The agreement, which applies to owners of about 105,000 vehicles
in Canada, comes more than 18 months after the scandal erupted in
September, 2015, and after Volkswagen AG was assessed billions of
dollars in fines and penalties.

The Canadian settlement offers cash payments to people who bought
or leased Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with 2.0-litre
diesel engines. Models affected include Jettas and Jetta wagons,
Golfs, Golf Wagons, Golf Sportwagons, Passats, Beetles and Audi
A3s from model years between 2009 and 2015.

Options for owners include keeping their vehicles and having them
modified to meet regulations, selling them back to Volkswagen,
trading them in or terminating their leases without penalties.
Volkswagen Canada also agreed to pay CAD15-million in penalties
for false advertising in an action brought by the Competition
Bureau, which said marketing products with defeat devices in them
as clean-diesel vehicles was false advertising.

The Canadian settlement was reached more than six months after
U.S. regulators imposed penalties on the auto maker, leading to
anger among Canadian owners and questions about whether they would
receive the same treatment as those in the United States.

Justice Edward Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court did not
issue reasons for his judgment, but heard from many owners at a
court hearing that they were unhappy with the deal. The vast
majority of the 105,000 owners did not oppose the settlement,
however, court documents show.

The scandal has cost Volkswagen AG more than USD10-billion (U.S.)
so far -- not including the amount of the settlement in the
Canadian class-action lawsuit -- damaged its reputation among
consumers and sent sales of its vehicles skidding.

Volkswagen Canada said in a statement that its agreement to the
settlement is not an admission of guilt.

The Canadian settlement was approved as a U.S. judge ordered
Volkswagen to pay a USD2.8-billion criminal penalty in the United
States, blessing a deal negotiated by the U.S. government for a
"massive fraud."

U.S. District Judge Sean Cox stuck to the plea deal during a
sentencing hearing in Detroit, which came six weeks after the auto
maker pleaded guilty to conspiracy and obstruction of justice in a
bold scheme involving nearly 600,000 diesel cars sold or leased in
the United States.

"It was an intentional effort on the part of a major corporation
to evade U.S. law and lie to U.S. regulators," Assistant U.S.
Attorney John Neal told the judge.

Speaking from the bench in the heart of the U.S. auto industry,
Justice Cox said he was amazed the company would commit such a
crime.

"Who has been hurt by this corporate greed? From what I can see
it's not the managers at VW, the ones who get paid huge salaries
and large bonuses. As always, it's the little guy," the judge
said, referring to car buyers and blue-collar employees of the
company who might earn less in the future.

Separately, the auto maker is paying USD1.5-billion in a civil
case, mostly to settle allegations brought by U.S. environmental
regulators, and spending USD11-billion to buy back cars and offer
other compensation.


WEATHERFORD INT'L: State Street Global Gets Class Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports State Street Global Advisors says it received a
payment as authorized claimant from a class action settlement
related to Weatherford International Ltd.


WELLS FARGO: To Expand Settlement Back An Additional Seven Years
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Samson at Financial Times reports Wells Fargo said on April
21 that it is expanding the previously-announced settlement on the
class action lawsuit over its sham account scandal to include
customers going back an additional seven years.

The San Francisco-based lender said the widening of the pact will
increase the settlement value by USD32 million to USD142 million.
The original deal was initially unveiled in March.

Wells Fargo's settlement now includes customers who were affected
by sales issues going back to May 2002, from the earlier date of
January 2009.

"The expansion of this agreement is another important step to make
things right for our customers," said Tim Sloan, chief executive.

The bank has been trying to dislodge itself from a scandal in
which employees signed customers up for accounts without their
knowledge, something that has tarnished the lender's reputation.


WELLS FARGO: "Morales" Sues Over Unauthorized Service Fee
---------------------------------------------------------
Anita Marie Morales, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo &
Company, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Does 1 through 100, Case No.
BC657880 (Cal. Super., April 17, 2017), seeks all available
injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code.

Wells Fargo offered and continues to offer its "Credit Defense"
service as an optional product for which consumers could enroll
for an additional monthly fee of $0.39 per each $100 of
outstanding balance. This service purportedly provides consumers
with debt cancellation in the event the enrollees experience a
predefined catastrophic event such as a disability or loss of a
job.

Many consumers, including Plaintiff and Class Members, never
enrolled in such service but Wells Fargo simply added the said fee
to their bill and imposed the monthly fee nevertheless, says the
complaint.

Wells Fargo & Company is a financial services company that
provides banking, insurance, investments, mortgage and consumer
and commercial finance. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is a national
banking association chartered under the laws of the United States
with primary place of business in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. provides Wells Fargo & Company personal and
commercial banking services and is Wells Fargo & Company's
principal subsidiary. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Walter J. Lack, Esq.
      Paul A. Traina, Esq.
      Ian P. Samson, Esq.
      ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB & LACK
      10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 12th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-4113
      Tel: (310) 552-3800
      Fax: (310) 552-9434
      Email: ptraina@elllaw.com
             isamson@elllaw.com

             - and -

      Brian J. Soo-Hoo, Esq., Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN J. SOO-HOO
      601 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 105
      Santa Ana, CA 92705-3543
      Tel: (714) 589-2252
      Fax: (714) 589-2254
      Email: soohoolaw@gmail.com


WOODMERE CLUB: Rounds Off Work Time, "Rodriguez" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
AD ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ and JOSE RODRIGUEZVARGAS, the Plaintiffs, v.
WOODMERE CLUB, INC. d/b/a WOODMERE COUNTRY CLUB, JAMES HALLQUIST,
and JOHN BOOTH, Individually, The basis of venue is Plaintiffs
place of residence., the Defendants, Case No. (S.D. Fla., April
13, 2017), seeks to redress the economic loss suffered by
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated as a result of
Defendants' 'rounding off' of the time actually worked by their
employees each day, which resulted in the failure of Defendants to
pay all wages due under the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs for all hours
worked each week in violation of Labor Law and regulations
promulgated thereunder as a result of Defendants' improper
practice of "rounding off" of the hours of work performed each
week. The Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to recover
from Defendants unpaid wages, plus and additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs of
this action.

Woodmere Club offers introductory golf membership packages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil M. Frank, Esq.
          FRANK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          500 Bi-County Blvd., Suite 465
          Farmingdale, New York 11735
          Telephone: (631) 756 0400
          Facsimile: (631) 756 0547
          E-mail: Nfrank@laborlaws.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          KAUFMAN DOLOWICH SCHNEIDER
          135 Crossways Park Dr, Ste No. 201
          Woodbury, NY 11797
          Telephone: (516) 681 1100


WYNDHAM VACATION: "O'Boy" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Veronica O'Boy, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Wyndham
Vacation Ownership, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 30-02017-00907397, was removed on April 10, 2017, from the
Orange County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:17-cv-02707 to the proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc. develops and markets flexible,
points-based vacation ownership products.

Veronica O'Boy is a pro se plaintiff.


YARD HOUSE: Faces "Andrews" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yard House
Westchester County, LLC. The case is entitled as Victor Andrews,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Yard House Westchester County, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-02393 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 21, 2017).

The Defendant is a high-end sports-bar chain with a huge menu of
New American fare & an extensive list of draft beers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


YERINA RESTAURANT: Faces "Morales" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yerina Restaurant
Corp. The case is styled as Alfredo Morales, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Yerina
Restaurant Corp., doing business as: Arte, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-02935 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 21, 2017).

Founded in 1994, Yerina Restaurant Corp is a small organization in
the restaurants industry located in New York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317 1620
          E-mail: michael@faillacelaw.com


YORK INT'L: Court Grants Preliminary OK on Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Angeion Group disclosed that a class action settlement with York
International Corporation and Johnson Controls Inc. (together,
"JCI") has been preliminarily approved by the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The class
action lawsuit alleged that JCI sold defective copper evaporator
coils and copper condenser coils. An evaporator coil is a part of
an air conditioning system, heat pump system, or HVAC system, and
is located inside the house, and a condenser coil is a part of a
condensing unit and is located outside the house (together,
"Copper Coils"). JCI denied all claims and filed a motion to
dismiss the case in its entirety, but elected to settle the case
in order to avoid the time and expense of further litigation.

If you have owned a York, Fraser-Johnston, Luxaire, Coleman,
Evcon, Guardian, Champion, or Dayton brand residential or light-
commercial HVAC unit, air conditioning or heat pump system, and
incurred expenses as a result of a failed Copper Coil (whether a
copper evaporator coil or a copper condenser coil), you may be
entitled to benefits from the class action settlement.

Who's included in the Settlement Class?

The Settlement Class is defined as "all individuals and entities
in the United States who during the time period from January 1,
2008 to March 15, 2017 purchased an uncoated York, Fraser-
Johnston, Luxaire, Coleman, Evcon, Guardian, Champion, or Dayton
brand copper evaporator coil or copper condenser coil manufactured
and sold by JCI or any of its Affiliates, separately or as part of
a split system or packaged residential air handler, condensing
unit, or HVAC unit, that is covered by the original limited five
year warranty or extended ten year warranty.

What benefits does the Settlement provide?

1. Authorized Claimants who prior to March 15, 2017, experienced
    one failure of their Copper Coil while the Copper Coil was
    covered by the original limited five year warranty or extended
    ten year warranty and incurred any out-of-pocket expenses will
    receive a USD75 Service Rebate Certificate valid for one year
    to be used as payment for maintenance on their HVAC system.

2. Authorized Claimants who prior to March 15, 2017, experienced
    two or more failures of their Copper Coil while the Copper
    Coil was covered by the original limited five year warranty or
    extended ten year warranty, and paid for labor, refrigerant,
    or parts associated with the replacement of their Copper
    Coils, will receive a check as reimbursement for their out-of-
    pocket expenses of up to USD550 for each replacement (but no
    more than USD1,100 for all replacements).

3. Authorized Claimants who after March 15, 2017, experience a
    first failure of their Copper Coil while the Copper Coil is
    covered by the original limited five year warranty or extended
    ten year warranty, will receive at no cost a new replacement
    coil, plus a USD75 Service Rebate Certificate valid for one
    year to help defray the cost of the installation of the
    replacement coil or to be used as payment for maintenance on
    their HVAC system.  Replacement coils for failed evaporator
    coils will be aluminum (where feasible according to the
    requirements/specifications for the model/unit at issue) or
    tin-coated copper.  Replacement coils for failed condenser
    coils will be copper, and will also include a new 8-year
    Extended Copper Coil Warranty running from the date of
    installation.

4. Authorized Claimants who after March 15, 2017, experience two
    or more failures of their Copper Coil while the Copper Coil is
    covered by the original limited five year warranty or extended
    ten year warranty, if at least one of the failures occurs
    after March 15, 2017, and paid for labor, refrigerant, or
    parts associated with the replacement of their Copper Coils,
    will receive at no cost a new replacement coil, plus a check
    as reimbursement for their out-of-pocket expenses of up to
    USD550 for each replacement (but no more than USD1,100 for all
    replacements).  Replacement coils for failed evaporator coils
    will be aluminum (where feasible according to the
    requirements/specifications for the model/unit at issue) or
    tin-coated copper.  Replacement coils for failed condenser
    coils will be copper, and will also include a new 8-year
    Extended Copper Coil Warranty running from the date of
    installation.


YZ COMMERCE: Faces Suit Over TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado at Northern California Record reports a Studio City
individual has filed a class-action lawsuit against a credit
repair business over allegations it contacted her without her
permission.

Lala Sloatman filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on April 12 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against YZ Commerce LLC and Does 1 through
10 citing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in
September 2016, she suffered damages from receiving several
unwanted calls on her cellular telephone from the defendants in
their attempt to solicit their services. The plaintiff holds YZ
Commerce LLC and Does 1 through 10 responsible because the
defendants allegedly called her without her consent and despite
the fact that her 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. She is represented by Todd M.
Friedman -- tfriedman@toddflaw.com -- Adrian R. Bacon --
abacon@toddflaw.com -- and Meghan E. George --
mgeorge@toddflaw.com -- of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman  PC in
Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:17-cv-02784-RGK-JEM


ZOCDOC INC: Unaccepted Settlement Offer Won't Moot Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports
that an unaccepted settlement offer did not moot a Telephone
Consumer Protection Act class action, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit ruled, reversing dismissal of the suit
based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald v.
Gomez.

Radha Geismann, M.D. sued ZocDoc, Inc., accusing the doctor-
finding service of violating the statute by sending two
unsolicited fax advertisements.  After Dr. Geismann filed the
complaint as well as a motion for class certification, the
defendant made a settlement offer as to Dr. Geismann's individual
claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.

Dr. Geismann rejected the offer of $6,000, attorney's fees, and an
injunction not to violate the TCPA in the future.  ZocDoc then
moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, arguing that its offer afforded Dr. Geismann
complete relief, mooting the action.

A U.S. District Court Judge granted the motion, entered judgment
in Dr. Geismann's favor under the terms offered by the defendant,
and dismissed the action. Dr. Geismann appealed and while the case
was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in
Campbell-Ewald.

In Campbell-Ewald, the five-justice majority ruled that an
unaccepted Rule 68 offer is a nullity and that "[w]ith the offer
off the table, and the defendant's continuing denial of liability,
adversity between the parties persists," and the district court
retained jurisdiction.  The Court also recognized that a class
representative with a live claim "must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted," and that so
long as the named plaintiff's individual claim remains alive, so
do the alleged claims of the purported class.

Considering the Supreme Court's opinion, the Second Circuit
reversed, finding that the instant case mirrored the situation
presented in Campbell-Ewald.  "The district court's conclusion in
the case now before us is, of course, understandable, it having
been reached before Campbell-Ewald was decided," the panel wrote.
"And, as we have noted, 'our prior case law has not always been
entirely clear on this subject.'  But the basis upon which the
district court entered judgment did not exist: An unaccepted Rule
68 offer of judgment does not render an action moot."

ZocDoc made two attempts to distinguish Campbell-Ewald. First, the
defendant argued that the district court had entered judgment in
the Geismann case, giving effect to the unaccepted offer. But the
Second Circuit panel was not persuaded.  "We do not find this
distinction meaningful because the judgment should not have been
entered in the first place," the panel wrote. "The result in
Campbell-Ewald cannot be avoided simply by entering a judgment
effectuating an otherwise precluded dismissal."

Further, Dr. Geismann contested whether the offer in fact exceeded
any recovery possible under the TCPA, in part because the parties
had divergent legal theories regarding the amount of damages
available under the TCPA (the plaintiff argued the statute allows
a person to recover $500 in damages for each violation, not just
limiting recovery to $500 per call or fax). The court agreed,
noting that this issue "constitutes a live controversy precluding
dismissal on the basis of mootness."

ZocDoc's second argument, that Geismann was not left "emptyhanded"
by the offer, also failed to pass muster with the Second Circuit.
"Geismann has not been compensated in satisfaction of its claim,
which would require, at a minimum, its acceptance of a valid
offer," the panel wrote. "Geismann thus remains emptyhanded."

The defendant's post-judgment actions moved it no closer to its
goal, the court added, as the check was deposited in furtherance
of a judgment that should not have been entered in the first place
and did nothing to satisfy the demand for injunctive relief.

Finally, the court noted that the facts of the case did not match
the hypothetical posed by Campbell-Ewald, where the Supreme Court
declined to consider whether the outcome would be different had
the "defendant deposit[ed] the full amount of the plaintiff's
individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the
court then enter[ed] judgment for the plaintiff in that amount."

"Here, the district court entered a judgment that should not have
been entered in the first place, and ZocDoc then more than one
year later deposited an amount in satisfaction of that errant
judgment in an account payable to Geismann," the panel said.

The court reversed dismissal of the plaintiff's suit and remanded
the case back to the district court.

Why it matters: The Second Circuit left no room for doubt in its
holding.  "An unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment is, regardless
of its terms, a legal nullity," the panel wrote, rejecting all of
the defendant's attempts to distinguish the Supreme Court's
decision in Campbell-Ewald.  As the case law on Rule 68 offers of
settlement following Campbell-Ewald continues to develop
throughout the country, defendants in the Second Circuit are
effectively foreclosed from using this strategy to dispose of TCPA
suits.


* Pierce Atwoods Discusses Gorsuch's Approach to Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pierce Atwoods, in an article for JDSupra, reports that last week,
Justice Gorsuch donned his black robes and began hearing arguments
alongside his new colleagues on the Supreme Court.  With his
elevation to the high court, Justice Gorsuch assumes many new
responsibilities.  Some, of the lighter kind, include opening the
door during conferences with his colleagues and assuming oversight
of the Court's cafeteria menu.  More serious responsibilities will
include weighing in on important class action cases that will
undoubtedly be heard by the Court in the future.

Despite his lengthy judicial record from having served a decade on
the Tenth Circuit, there are relatively few clues regarding
Justice Gorsuch's approach to class actions.  While on the court
of appeals, he participated in only a few class action cases,
which is not surprising given that the Tenth Circuit has not been
a hotbed of class actions.  His handful of class action opinions,
however, evidences not only his gift with the pen but also a
restrained, textual approach to Rule 23.  These characteristics
are evident in cases such as BP America v. Oklahoma and McClendon
v. City of Albuquerque.  But three other opinions are particularly
worth consideration.

Justice Gorsuch's approach is perhaps best illustrated by Shook v.
Board of County Commissioners.  In that case, the Tenth Circuit
considered a denial of certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class of
prisoners.  At the outset, then-Judge Gorsuch wrote that appellate
review of a certification decision is limited: "While we very well
may have made a different decision had the issue been presented to
us as an initial matter, and while other district courts perhaps
could have chosen, or could choose, to certify similar classes, we
cannot say the district court's assessment was beyond the pale."
Turning then to the district court's analysis, Judge Gorsuch
emphasized that Rule 23(b)(2) requires that "final injunctive
relief be appropriate for the class as a whole."  Given the Rule's
language, Judge Gorsuch found that the Rule "demands a certain
cohesiveness among class members with respect to their injuries."
Judge Gorsuch went on to conclude that this requirement creates a
"textually authorized" manageability requirement.  He then
observed that individualized issues may render a class
unmanageable -- a problem that cannot be remedied "simply by
formulating an injunction at a stratospheric level of abstraction"
-- and that a district court need not sua sponte construct
subclasses to ease these manageability concerns.   While
acknowledging that civil rights suits are "well suited" to (b)(2)
certification, he observed that the court must still pay "careful
attention to the requirements" of Rule 23.

A similar approach can be seen in Hammond v. Stamps.com Inc.  In
that case, Judge Gorsuch considered the jurisdictional
requirements of CAFA.  The plaintiff filed suit in state court,
alleging that Stamps.com had deceptively advertised its fees.
Stamps.com removed, extrapolating from plaintiff's asserted
damages a total amount in controversy exceeding $5 million after
considering all accounts that had been cancelled by customers.
The district court denied removal, reasoning that Stamps.com had
not carried its burden because its calculation of damages assumed
that all customers who had cancelled their accounts had done so
because they "felt duped" by the company's advertising rather than
for any other reason.  Judge Gorsuch, writing for a unanimous
panel, concluded that the district court had committed legal error
"about the meaning of a key statutory term" -- namely, "amount in
controversy." Referring to this as a term of "legal art," Judge
Gorsuch quoted Justice Frankfurter for the proposition that when
"a word is obviously transplanted form another legal source, . . .
. it brings the old soil with it." Based on the "rich soil" of
this term's historical meaning, Judge Gorsuch concluded that the
defendant seeking removal need only prove that "a fact finder
might legally conclude" that damages exceeded the statutory
amount, not that it would likely do so.  "To know that much is to
know how our case must come out," Judge Gorsuch wrote.  The
court's job, he observed, "is to abide Congress' policy
directions, not replace them with others of our own hand."

Justice Gorsuch's opinions also reveal some acknowledgement of the
costs of the class action vehicle.  In Winzler v. Toyota Motor
Sales USA Inc., he considered whether a defect class action was
mooted by Toyota's nationwide recall.  Noting that Toyota had "set
into motion the great grinding gears of a statutorily mandated and
administratively overseen national recall process," Judge Gorsuch
found the class action to be moot as a prudential matter.  He
observed that continuance of the action would "surely add new
transaction costs for Toyota," but not "even a sliver of
additional relief" for the plaintiff.  "Perhaps the lawyers would
benefit if this would-be class action labored on through
certification," he wrote.  "But it's hard to see how anyone else
could."  He noted that "things might be different" if the
plaintiff could show some "cognizable danger" that she would not
secure complete relief.  Without that, however, "expenditure of
judicial resources" was not warranted.

Justice Gorsuch now fills the seat of Justice Scalia, widely
regarded as an influential member of the Court when it came to
class actions and the author of such decisions as Wal-Mart v.
Dukes and Comcast v. Behrend.  Only time will tell how Justice
Gorsuch will approach open class issues -- like "no-injury"
classes, the use of statistical evidence, or the
"ascertainability" requirement -- but his record suggests a
balanced, textually-based approach.  One thing is certain,
however: like those of Justice Scalia, his opinions will likely be
interesting to read.


                         *********


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  * * *