CAR_Public/170516.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Tuesday, May 16, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 97



                            Headlines

333 BAYVILLE: "Montero" Seeks Tips, Reimbursements, Pay Stubs
ADMA BIOLOGICS: "English" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Biotest Purchase
ADVENTIST MIDWEST: Smith Moves to Certify Classes of Clinicians
AKORN INC: Merger Doesn't Benefit to Shareholders, Suit Says
AKORN INC: Class Certification Hearing Continued to July 18

ANNIE'S HOMEGROWN: "Rosillo" Disputes Natural Ingredients Label
ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Faces "Jenkins" Lawsuit Over Sterling Merger
BARNES & NOBLE: Shopper Says Ruling Doesn't Doom Data Breach Spat
BRIDGEPORT HEALTH: Local 1522 Seeks Certification of Two Classes
BURGER KING: Faces "Anderson" Suit Over CROISSAN'WICH(R) Promo

BURGER KING: Face Class Action Over Bogus BOGO Coupons
BURNER FIRE: Viator Seeks Certification of Technicians Class
CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Disputes Gender Discrimination Claims
COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Court Partly Granted Certification of Class
CORONA SUNNYSLOPE: Land Sold to Mosque May Hold 850++ Gravesites

COX COMMUNICATIONS: Gremillion Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
COX COMMUNICATIONS: Lost Bid to Deny Class Cert. in "Amiri" Suit
DCI RESORTS: "Levchenko" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
DEJA VU: Settles Exotic Dancers' Suit for USD6.5-Mil.
DOVEX FRUIT: Washington Court to Decide Piece-Rate Pay Issue

EARLYSHARES.COM INC: Court Denies Schwanke's Certification Motion
EL TORAZO MEXICAN: Perez Moves to Certify Servers, Waiters Class
FIAT CHRYSLER: Sued Over Defective Devices in Diesel Models
FRONTLINE ASSET: Ahmed Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass
FYRE MEDIA: Fyre Festival Medical Staff Sues Citing Bugs

GRANITE CITY FOOD: Court Certifies Tipped Employees Class
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Case Settlement Preliminarily Approved
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Legal Bills Hit $2.85MM in Cash Bail Suit
HARVEST MANAGEMENT: Faces "Butler" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
HAUDENOSAUNEE DEVELOPMENT: Ontario Court Tosses Class Action

HIGHMARK CONSTRUCTION: "Lopez" Action Seeks Recovery of OT Pay
IDAHO, USA: Certification of "Brown" Suit as Class Action Sought
K.B. SAND: Coate Seeks to Certify Drivers Class
KAISER FOUNDATION: Denied Treatment for Anorexia, Claims "Moura"
KAISER FOUNDATION: Judge OKs Overtime Class Action Settlement

LOOMIS ARMORED: Judge Delays OKs of Proposed $2.2MM Settlement
LOS ANGELES, CA: Garris et al. Seek Certification of Two Classes
LUCAS INDUSTRIES: Class Certification Sought in "Johnson" Suit
MAJOR LEAGUE: Judge Halts Minor League Wage Lawsuit
MARBLECAST OF MICHIGAN: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Denied

MARKSMEN LANDSCAPING: Court Conditionally Certifies Laborer Class
METRO TECH: Faces "Conn" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Ark. Min. Wage Act
METROPOLITAN MUSEUM: Asks Court to Approve Proposed Settlement
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ex-Players Claim Attys Take Too Much of Deal
NATIONAL GRID: Faces "Burdier" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation

NCAA: Judge Dismisses Players' Wage, OT Class Action
NEBRASKA: Court Denied Class Certification in "Johnson" Suit
NFL: Scammers Eye Ex-Players Linked to Concussion Suit
OPEN HEARTS PERSONAL: Faces "Bloodworth" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Role in Ponzi Scheme

PESEK INC: Faces "Hagaman" Suit Over Non-Payment of Minimum Wages
PETRO INC: Faces "Donnenfeld" Class Suit in New York
PIRON LLC: Ali et al. Seek Conditionally Certification of Class
PPG INDUSTRIES: AMOS et al. Seek Certification of Retirees Class
PTT: Indonesia Gov't Sues for $2-Bil. Over Oil Spill

RIVERSIDE, CA: Garcia Moves to Certify Class of Wrong Arrestees
SARATOGA DIAGNOSTICS: Dimensions Medical's Class Cert. Bid Denied
SEMACONNECT INC: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
SENSAY INC: "Damasco" Class Certification Sought in "Meyer" Suit
SILVERTREE MOHAVE HOA: Lewis, et al. Seek to Certify Class

SOUTH AFRICA: RTIA May Face Class Action Over Aarto Traffic Fines
SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL: Class Certified in "Esquivel" Suit
STAPLES GROUP: "Worsley" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
SWISSPORT SA: Faces "Asemy" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: "Robinson" Sues Over Share Drop

SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "College" Securities Lawsuit
TERREBONNE ARC: "Robinson" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
TESLA: Rolled Out New Autopilot Update Amidst Class Action
TEP EVENTS: "Tracey" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Reimbursements
THOMPSON & SONS: Faces "Hubbard" Suit Under FLSA, Fla. Laws

THQ INC: Reaches $2.6MM Settlement on UDraw Class Suit
TRADER JOE'S: Faces "Brumfield" Lawsuit Alleging Misbranding
TSG STAFFING: "Jones" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
UNITED STATES: "Vapne" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
VINMAN CORP: "Unqurait" Files FLSA Suit in Tenn.

VIXXO CORP: Faces "Guanzon" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wags
VOLVO CARS: Neale, et al. Seek Certification of Class
WASHINGTON: McNeil Changing Treatment to Avoid Warehousing
WELLS FARGO: CEO Vows to Fix Broken System Amid Class Actions
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Class Certification Denied in "Kljajic" Suit

* Pepper Hamilton Discusses Employee Misclassification Cases
* Reason Comments on the Disappearing Sixth Amendment





                            *********


333 BAYVILLE: "Montero" Seeks Tips, Reimbursements, Pay Stubs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Montero and Gabriella Papa, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 333 Bayville Avenue
Restaurant Corp. d/b/a The Crescent Beach Club, James Scoroposki
and any other related entities, Defendants, Case No. 603760/2017,
(N.Y. Sup., May 1, 2017), seeks to recover, inter alia, unlawfully
retained tips and gratuities, unpaid minimum wages, illegal
deductions, and other compensation owed plus liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to New York Labor
Law and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.

333 Bayville Avenue Restaurant Corp. operates a restaurant and
catering business under the name The Crescent Beach Club. Montero
and Papa worked for Defendants' business in various food and
service capacities. They allege defendants of withholding tips,
paying below minimum wage rates, not providing wage statements,
unlawful deductions and non-reimbursement of uniform expenses.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Tel: (516) 873-9550
      Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com


ADMA BIOLOGICS: "English" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Biotest Purchase
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan English, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADMA BIOLOGICS, INC., STEVEN A.
ELMS, JERROLD B. GROSSMAN, ADAM S. GROSSMAN, BRYANT E. FONG, DOV
A. GOLDDSTEIN, LAWRENCE P. GUIHEEN, and ERIC I. RICHMAN,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03128-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., May 4, 2017),
alleges that the Board authorized the filing of a materially
incomplete and misleading Definitive Proxy Statement in relation
to a plan of purchase pursuant to which the Company will acquire
certain assets and assume certain liabilities constituting the
therapy business of Biotest Pharmaceuticals Corporation in
exchange for an aggregate equity interest in ADMA equal to
approximately 50% of the issued and outstanding ADMA capital
stock.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for
the Company; (ii) valuation information regarding the core assets
of ADMA will acquire if the Proposed Transaction is consummated;
and (iii) the valuation analyses performed by the Company's
financial advisor, Raymond James & Associates, Inc., in support of
its fairness opinion.

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding the shareholder
vote on the Proposed Transaction on May 25, 2017.

The Company develops, manufactures and intends to commercialize
specialty plasma-based biologics for the proposed treatment of
Primary Immune Deficiency Diseases (PIDD) and the prevention and
treatment of certain infectious diseases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
     New York, NY 10118
     Phone: 212 971 1341
     Fax: 212 202 7880
     E-mail: mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com


ADVENTIST MIDWEST: Smith Moves to Certify Classes of Clinicians
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled RYAN SMITH, on behalf of
himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ADVENTIST MIDWEST HEALTH, an Illinois Non-profit
Corporation, d/b/a ADVENTIST HEALTH CARE AT HOME, Case No. 1:16-
cv-07606 (N.D. Ill.), seeks to certify his Illinois Minimum Wage
Law overtime claim as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, Rule
23(c)(4).  The Plaintiff's proposed class is defined as:

     All individuals employed by the Defendant as Clinicians
     during the period July 27, 2013 to the date of judgment in
     this action, who were classified as exempt and who were not
     paid overtime compensation for time worked in excess of
     forty (40) in given workweeks.

In addition, the Plaintiff seeks to certify his Fair Labor
Standards Act overtime claim as a collective action under 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b).  The Plaintiff's proposed collective is:

     All individuals employed by the Defendant as Clinicians
     during the period from three years prior to the entry of the
     Court's order certifying the collective action to the date
     of judgment in this action, who were classified as exempt
     and who were not paid overtime compensation for time worked
     in excess of forty (40) in given workweeks.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
                  hjenkins@stephanzouras.com


AKORN INC: Merger Doesn't Benefit to Shareholders, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland at Cook County Record reports that a group of
investors wants a court to keep a foreign pharmaceutical firm from
buying an Illinois drug maker, saying shareholders won't get
enough from the deal, which is valued at more than USD4 billion.

On April 24, Fresenius SE, a German firm, announced plans to buy
Akorn, Inc., a generic drug manufacturer based in Lake Forest, for
USD4.3 billion. On May 2, Akorn shareholder Robert J. Shannon Jr.
filed a class and derivative action complaint in Cook County
Circuit Court, alleging breach of fiduciary duties against
Fresenius and Akorn.

Fresenius has its U.S. headquarters in Lake Zurich and global
headquarters in Homburg, Germany. Also named as a defendant is
Quercus, a Fresenius subsidiary, and Akorn founder John N. Kapoor,
who has been board chairman since 1990 and served as chief
executive officer in 2001 and 2002. Shannon also named as
defendants Akorn board members Kenneth S. Abramowitz, Adirenne L.
Graves, Ronald M. Johnson, Steven J. Meyer, Terry A. Rappuhn,
Brian Tambi and Alan Weinstein.

According to the complaint, Akorn's portfolio includes more than
180 generic, branded, over-the-counter and animal health products
classified as "ophthalmic, injectable and niche sterile and
nonsterile pharmaceuticals." Shannon said Akorn revenue grew by 13
percent in 2016 to USD1.1 billion and net income increased 22
percent to USD184 million. Under sale terms, Fresenius would
assume USD450 million in Akorn debt.

The sale would yield USD34 in cash for each share of Akorn common
stock, but Shannon noted those shares were trading for more than
USD34 as recently as July 27. Shannon's complaint said Akorn board
members put "significant personal benefits" ahead of making sure
shareholders got maximum value, adopted "preclusive deal
protection devices that effectively prevent any alternative bidder
from surfacing" and failed to conduct an appropriate sale process.
Fresenius and Quercus, he said, "aided and abetted the board's
breach of fiduciary duty."

Shannon's complaint is derivative on behalf of Akorn. He noted a
demand for the board to file a complaint against its members as
individual defendants "would have been futile . . . a majority of
the board was involved in self-dealing and mismanagement,
essentially extinguishing any possibility an impartial majority
could vote on and oversee this suit."

Saying "Akorn is poised to continue growing well into the future,"
Shannon cited sales and revenue figures from recent years and said
new products were expected to generate USD30 million to USD60
million in additional revenue in 2017. But he said the sale
terminates shareholders' ability to profit from projected growth.

According to the complaint, board members control more than 32
million "largely illiquid shares of Akorn," more than 25 percent
of outstanding shares. That works out to roughly USD1.1 billion
for those board members as a result of the sale. Board members
also would get cash for unvested restricted stock units and stock
options, significant, Shannon noted, because members get a large
portion of annual compensation through those channels.

Shannon also said the sale is intended to salvage the board
members' professional reputations as Akorn is a defendant in a
federal securities class action in Chicago "based on a series of
false and misleading statements in Akorn's SEC filings from May 6,
2014, through April 24, 2015." Shannon's complaint noted the court
dismissed Akorn's motion to dismiss on March 6.

In addition to class certification and a jury trial, the complaint
wants the court to halt the sale until the board adopts a new sale
process aimed at maximizing shareholder value and provides all
material disclosure to stock owners. In the event preventing the
sale is not feasible, Shannon seeks damages for class members.

Representing Shannon, and putative class attorneys, are lawyers
from Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, of San Diego.[GN]


AKORN INC: Class Certification Hearing Continued to July 18
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order in the lawsuit
styled Solomon Yeung, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. Akorn, Inc., et
al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-01944 (N.D. Ill.), continuing
the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on May 11, 2017,
the status hearing is held and continued to July 18, 2017 at 9:15
a.m.   Defendants' response(s) is due by September 8 and
Plaintiffs' reply due is due September 22.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0p9RZ9S9


ANNIE'S HOMEGROWN: "Rosillo" Disputes Natural Ingredients Label
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Rosillo and Jesse Kohn, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Annie's Homegrown Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-02474 (N.D. Cal., May 1, 2017), seeks
relief for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breaches
of express and implied warranty, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

Defendant manufactures, markets, and distributes the Annie's
Naturals (R) Products throughout the United States. Plaintiff
purchased said products based on claims on the Product's label
that the ingredients were "natural." However, products clearly
contain synthetic and highly chemically processed xanthan gum as
indicated on its label. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 300-4455
      Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
      Email: ltfisher@bursor.com

             - and -

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 989-9113
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-Mail: scott@bursor.com


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Faces "Jenkins" Lawsuit Over Sterling Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER JENKINS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ASTORIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
RALPH F. PALLESCHI, MONTE N. REDMAN, JOHN R. CHRIN, JOHN J.
CORRADO, ROBERT GIAMBRONE, GERARD C. KEEGAN, BRIAN M. LEENEY,
PATRICIA M. NAZEMETZ, and STERLING BANCORP, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-02608-MKB-RML (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2017), alleges violation
of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act in connection with the
proposed merger between Astoria and Sterling Bancorp.

Pursuant to the Transaction, the Company's shareholders stand to
receive 0.875 shares of Sterling common stock for each share of
Astoria stock they own.

The case alleges that in order to convince Astoria shareholders to
vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Definitive Proxy
Statement.  In particular, the Proxy contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) financial
projections for the Company and Sterling; (ii) the valuation
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, Sandler
O'Neill & Partners, L.P., and Sterling's financial advisors RBC
Capital Markets, LLC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., in support
of their respective fairness opinions; (iii) the fees Sandler
O'Neill stands to receive in connection with the Proposed Merger;
and (iv) conflicts of interest faced by Astoria's directors.

The Company is a unitary savings and loan holding company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Fax: (212) 983-9331
     Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
            jwilson@faruqilaw.com

        - and -

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
     New York, NY 10118
     Phone: 212 971 1341
     E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


BARNES & NOBLE: Shopper Says Ruling Doesn't Doom Data Breach Spat
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shayna Posses at Law360 reports that Barnes & Noble shoppers
fought back against the retailer's claims that a recent decision
tossing litigation against grocery chain Schnuck Markets Inc.
bolsters the bookseller's efforts to shake their data breach suit,
arguing on May 4 that the other action doesn't apply because it
was brought by financial institutions, not consumers.

Susan Winstead and Heather Dieffenbach told an Illinois federal
judge that their proposed class action stemming from a 2012 breach
that compromised shoppers' payment card information needn't be
dismissed just because another judge in the state recently found
that the financial institutions failed to state a claim in their
breach suit against Schnucks, contending that the other action
isn't pertinent.

The retailer asked the court to take notice of the May 1 decision
on May 3, explaining that the action arose out of a data breach at
Schnucks' grocery stores and, like the shoppers here, the
plaintiffs alleged that the company violated the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act, among other things.

Chief U.S. District Judge Michael J. Regan concluded that the
claim failed because the financial institutions didn't identify a
specific deceptive communication by the grocery chain, a failure
that the Barnes & Noble shoppers' latest complaint shares, the
retailer contended.

"The court likewise held that plaintiffs could not evade the rule
on identifying a specific deceptive communication by relying on
ICFA's general prohibition of 'unfair' practices, because simply
alleging a data breach or a failure to 'maintain adequate data
security' does not establish a violation of any 'concrete public
policy,'" Barnes & Noble said.

The retailer told the court that the ruling bolsters its late
November dismissal bid, which argued that the shoppers still
haven't alleged a sufficient injury, despite revamping their
claims several times.

But the consumers blasted the retailer's efforts on May 4,
arguing, first of all, that Barnes & Noble has never argued that
Illinois has no policy against a retailer maintaining inadequate
data security. The retailer is inappropriately trying to raise a
new argument in supplemental authority, the shoppers asserted.

In any case, the shoppers said, "Schnucks is inapposite because it
involved financial institutions asserting claims against Schnucks
rather than consumers."

On top of not considering the customer-retailer relationship
present in the Barnes & Noble suit, the Schnucks court also didn't
address the shoppers' argument here that the retailer engaged in
unfair trade practices as interpreted by the Federal Trade
Commission and federal courts.

Nor did the judge consider the Barnes & Noble customers' argument
that the retailer impliedly made deceptive representations through
the location, positioning and functionality of the PIN pads in its
stores, the shoppers contended.

The tussle over whether Schnucks affects the litigation marks the
latest effort by the parties to call on recent rulings to bolster
their positions.

The shoppers said a recent California federal court decision
mostly upholding a data breach action against Kimpton Hotel &
Restaurant Group LLC showed that Barnes & Noble's dismissal bid
should be rejected because the plaintiffs there alleged similar
injuries.

The retailer, however, countered that the opinion doesn't change
anything, saying the judge in Kimpton held that money spent on
credit monitoring could constitute damages, but this court has
already held that no plaintiff alleged any expenditure for credit
monitoring that was caused by the alleged breach.

The Barnes & Noble litigation stems from a 2012 breach that
compromised credit and debit cards swiped at PIN pad terminals at
63 stores in nine states, according to court filings.

U.S. District Judge John W. Darrah first tossed the suit without
prejudice in 2013, holding that none of the consumers had shown
that their personal information had actually been stolen when
hackers tapped into the PIN pads and thus lacked standing to bring
the suit.

But on Oct. 3, U.S. District Judge Andrea R. Wood held that the
book buyers had fixed those deficiencies, citing the Seventh
Circuit's 2015 decision in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group. That
decision, which held that allegations that unreimbursed fraudulent
charges and identity theft may occur in the future were sufficient
to establish injury-in-fact, changed the calculus and allowed the
Barnes & Noble plaintiffs to meet the standing bar, Judge Wood
concluded.

However, the judge ultimately held that the book buyers hadn't
sufficiently pled their claims for breach of contract, invasion of
privacy and violations of various Illinois and California consumer
fraud and breach reporting statutes, telling them to try again.

In both its dismissal motion and a late January supporting
memorandum, Barnes & Noble argued that the most recent complaint
should fail not only because of continued pleading deficiencies,
but also due to a lack of standing, urging the judge to revisit
her standing decision.

Meanwhile, plaintiffs have continued to stand by their claims,
arguing in a January brief that they still have standing and have
alleged sufficient injuries, saying Barnes & Noble's "cavalier
attitude contravenes law and public policy."

Representatives for the parties didn't respond to requests for
comment on May 5.

The consumers are represented by Joseph J. Siprut --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- of Siprut PC and Ben Barnow --
b.barnow@barnowlaw.com -- of Barnow & Associates PC.

Barnes & Noble is represented by Peter V. Baugher --
pbaugher@honigman.com -- of Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP
and Kenneth L. Chernof -- kenneth.chernof@apks.com -- of Arnold &
Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.

The case is In re: Barnes & Noble Pin Pad Litigation, case number
1:12-cv-08617, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.[GN]


BRIDGEPORT HEALTH: Local 1522 Seeks Certification of Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled LOCAL 1522 OF COUNCIL 4,
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, ET
AL. v. BRIDGEPORT HEALTH CARE CENTER, INC., ET AL., Case No. 3:15-
cv-01019-JCH (D. Conn.), move to certify these classes:

   (a) All employees of Bridgeport Health Care Center from
       January 1, 2015 to the present, who are represented by
       Local 1522, who receive health insurance coverage from
       Bridgeport Health Care Center pursuant to Article 29 of
       the parties' collective bargaining agreement, life
       insurance or disability insurance, and/or have payments
       deducted for Bridgeport Federal Credit Union, and have
       union dues deducted from their paychecks; and

   (b) All employees of Bridgeport Health Care Center from
       January 1, 2015 to the present, who are represented by
       Local 1522 and are participants in the Bridgeport Health
       Care Center Pension Plan pursuant to Article 33 of the
       parties' collective bargaining agreement.

Plaintiffs Carmen Espejo, Natividade Goncalves, Marion V. Perez
and Carlota Rafael further move to be appointed as class
representatives and to have their counsel appointed as counsel for
the classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IV114R68

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. William Gagne, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF J. WILLIAM GAGNE, JR. & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1 Congress Street, 3rd Floor
          Hartford, CT 06114
          Telephone: (860) 522-5049
          Facsimile: (860) 561-6204
          E-mail: jwgagne@snet.net


BURGER KING: Faces "Anderson" Suit Over CROISSAN'WICH(R) Promo
--------------------------------------------------------------
KOLETA ANDERSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated (6310 Snow Chief Court Upper Marlboro, Maryland
20772 Prince George's County), Plaintiff, vs. BURGER KING
CORPORATION (5505 Blue Lagoon Drive, Miami, Florida 33126) Serve
On: The Corporation Trust Incorporated 351 West Camden Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201-7912, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01204-
JFM (D. Md., May 2, 2017), is a case of consumer deception.

Burger King currently runs a coupon promotion that offers a free
Sausage, Egg, & Cheese breakfast sandwich known as a
CROISSAN'WICH(R) with the purchase of an initial Croissan'wich.
However, allegedly, when a consumer uses Burger King's BOGO
coupon, they are unknowingly forced to pay an inflated price for
the first Croissan'wich they purchase in order to receive the
second Croissan'wich for "free."

BURGER KING CORPORATION is a fast food hamburger chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven D. Silverman, Esq.
     William N. Sinclair, Esq.
     SILVERMAN THOMPSON SLUTKIN & WHITE LLC
     201 N. Charles St., Suite 2600
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: 410/385-2225
     Fax: 410/547-2432
     E-mail: ssilverman@mdattorney.com
             bsinclair@mdattorney.com

        - and -

     Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
     Christopher C. Gold, Esq.
     Alexander D. Kruzyk, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Phone: 561/750-3000
     Fax: 561/750-3364
     E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
             cgold@rgrdlaw.com
             akruzyk@rgrdlaw.com

        - and -

     Roxana Pierce, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     1701 K Street NW, Suite 350
     Washington, DC 20036
     Phone: 202/822-6762
     Fax: 202/828-8528
     E-mail: rpierce@rgrdlaw.com


BURGER KING: Face Class Action Over Bogus BOGO Coupons
------------------------------------------------------
David J. Neal, writing for Miami Herald, reports that a Maryland
woman accuses Burger King of running a nationwide coupon con.

Koleta Anderson felt the fast-food chain with Miami roots engaged
in bad math with bad intentions by jacking up the price of a
Croissan'wich when a customer used a Burger King Buy One, Get One
Free (BOGO) coupon.  And, she claims, she has evidence from Burger
King restaurants in Florida, Maryland, Virginia and the District
of Columbia.

So Ms. Anderson of Upper Marlboro, Maryland, filed a class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in the District of Maryland,
accusing Burger King of deceptive trade practices, breach of
contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.

Burger King, whose main offices remain in the Miami area, is owned
by Restaurant Brands International after a merger with Canadian
coffee and doughnut giant Tim Hortons.

According to her lawsuit, which includes scans of the coupons and
receipts, Anderson used her BOGO coupon at 7:58 a.m. March 12 at a
Burger King in Forestville, Maryland.  She was charged $3.19, pre-
tax, for two Sausage Croissan'wiches.  But, when she bought a
third Sausage Croissan'wich at 7:59 a.m. without a coupon, the
base cost was $2.16.

Wondering if the Forestville location might've gone rogue,
Anderson went to a District of Columbia Burger King on Connecticut
Avenue on April 15.  Once again, she used a BOGO coupon. This
time, the receipt says, she paid a base price of $4.19 at 7:19
a.m. for two Sausage Croissan'wiches.  Immediately after, she
bought a single Sausage Croissan'wich: $1.

Burger King could not be immediately reached for comment on the
lawsuit.

Ms. Anderson went to a Burger King in Alexandria, Virginia, seven
days later.  This time, the lawsuit says, $2.29 when using the
BOGO coupon, $1.79 without.

Ms. Anderson's lawyer sent an investigator to a Burger King at
1001 S. Dixie Hwy. in Lantana: $3.45 with coupon at 10:10 a.m. on
April 21 and $2.29 at 10:19 a.m. without, according to the
receipts on the lawsuit.

When the Miami Herald went to the Burger King at 701 NW 37th Ave.
on a Sunday morning, the base price charged for a Sausage
Croissan'wich when ordered with the BOGO coupon was $3.19, $3.42
with sales tax.  Four minutes later at the same Burger King, the
base for a single Sausage Croissan'wich was $2.99, $3.20 total
with sales tax.

The Herald found similar totals at 1309 NW 20th St., near Jackson
Memorial Hospital.  The breakfast sandwich when ordered with the
BOGO was $3.19, $3.64 total when apparently sales tax was charged
for both sandwiches.  It was $2.99, $3.20 total with sales tax for
one.


BURNER FIRE: Viator Seeks Certification of Technicians Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned WAYNE M. VIATOR, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, v. BURNER FIRE CONTROL,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-01008-RFD-CBW (W.D. La.),
Mr. Viator asks the Court to conditionally certify a class of:

   "current or former Offshore Water Curtain Technicians employed
   by Burner Fire Control, Inc. from three years prior to the
   date of certification to the present who were paid, in whole
   or part, on a day rate basis"

and authorize notice to class members, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mr. Viator further asks the Court that:

   1. Matthew S. Parmet with the law firm of Bruckner Burch,
      PLLC, Andrew W. Dunlap with the Josephson Dunlap Law Firm
      and Kenneth W. DeJean with the Law Offices of Kenneth W.
     DeJean be designated as class counsel; and

   2. Burner Fire Control, Inc. be required to produce, within 21
      days of the Court's granting of this Motion and entry of an
      Order, the names, dates of employment, last known home
      addresses of record and last known personal e-mail address
      of record of all class members as defined above.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XJTIL8W6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877 8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877 8065
          E-mail: mparmet@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352 3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
          417 W. University Ave.
          P.O. Box 4325
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Telephone: (337) 235 5294
          Facsimile: (337) 235 1095
          E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com


CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Disputes Gender Discrimination Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Olson, writing for New York Times, reports that by all
accounts, Mary T. Yelenick had a stellar career at Chadbourne &
Parke, the New York law firm where she spent 35 years, rising to
the position of chairwoman for the product liability practice.

She retired in December to words of praise from the firm.
But in March she joined a lawsuit brought by a colleague,
Kerrie L. Campbell, that accused the firm of sex discrimination
and pay inequity.  Ms. Yelenick's change of heart followed a
letter.

Within weeks of Ms. Campbell's lawsuit in August, Chadbourne
circulated a letter disavowing its claims.  Fourteen female
partners signed the letter, which criticized the description of
the firm as "patriarchal" and urged that the lawsuit be withdrawn.

Ms. Yelenick, 62, did not sign the letter, but after looking at a
draft, she said in an interview, she "disagreed strongly because
the letter contained inaccuracies, including the process that
female partners could use to join any potential class or
collective action that a court certifies."

"My decades of experience," she said, "has made me aware of the
many ways -- both overt and more subtle -- in which both
institutional structures and informal practices continue to work
to impede the advancement, and discount the contributions, of
women."

The third female partner who joined the lawsuit is Jaroslawa Z.
Johnson, an American lawyer who headed Chadbourne's office in Kiev
for a decade. She remained in Kiev after the office closed in
December 2014, and noted during her time there that firm data
"showed that my revenue generation was higher than many male
partners, but my compensation was much lower."

"Male partners," she said in an e-mail, "who generated less
revenue annually made much more than I did."  She decided to join
the lawsuit, she said, once she read Ms. Campbell's complaint.

All three plaintiffs have maintained in legal papers that the
firm's female partners have been "systematically disparately
underpaid, systematically shut out of firm leadership, demoted,
de-equitized, and terminated."  The class-action suit asks for
$100 million for sex discrimination and pay inequity.

Chadbourne is contesting that description.  Its lawyer,
Kathleen M. McKenna -- kmckenna@proskauer.com -- of the Proskauer
Rose law firm, did not respond to a request for comment.  But the
firm has argued in legal papers that each of the three women suing
was paid differently because each had "unique experiences and
roles" at the firm.

Chadbourne also maintains that the three were partners and thus
were not covered by federal equal pay act protections.

The lawsuit and its public aftermath -- including the firm's
cutoff of Campbell's compensation and its vote to oust her from
the partnership on the eve of Chadbourne's merger with Norton Rose
Fulbright -- have spurred discussions about pay among women at
other large law firms.

And it is not the only legal dispute to emerge over compensation
for female partners.

In July, Traci M. Ribeiro, 46, a lawyer, sued Sedgwick, a
San Francisco-based international litigation and business law
firm, saying she was not promoted to full partner or paid
commensurate with the amount of business she was bringing into the
firm.  The firm called her lawsuit, which depicted Sedgwick's
culture as clubby and paternalistic, a "self-serving" and
"disingenuous" exercise in a legal filing to move the contentious
dispute to arbitration.

And the firm, in the same legal papers, called Ms. Ribeiro, who
was a top earner in Sedgwick's insurance practice in its Chicago
office, a "quisling" -- a World War II-era term for a traitorous
collaborator.

Last month, the firm came to terms with Ms. Ribeiro in
arbitration. The outcome was confidential, and neither side is
commenting.

A resolution may be rockier for Campbell's lawsuit, which
Chadbourne has publicly labeled a "national smear campaign" and a
"cynical pursuit of a big and undeserved payday."

Barely 20 percent of women have reached firm partnership status
despite the high number of women who are entry-level associates at
many major firms.  When they graduate from law school -- where
women are now just over half of students -- women are paid in lock
step with male colleagues, but once they make partner, their
compensation can be widely divergent from that of their male
counterparts.

Female law partners on average earn about one-third, or about
$300,000, less annually than their male colleagues, according to a
survey of 2,100 partners at law firms nationwide released last
fall by a legal search firm, Major, Lindsey & Africa.  Over
several years, that adds up quickly to $1 million or more in lost
compensation for a female lawyer.

Chadbourne, like some other major firms, circulates charts with
equity partner payment figures, which contain pay disparities that
can seem inexplicable, the plaintiffs say.

"The matrix of factors was there," Ms. Yelenick recalled, but "it
just didn't add up."

In 2013, the base pay of Chadbourne's male partners was, on
average, 40 percent more than that of their female colleagues,
according to filings in the legal case.  Last year, there was a 21
percent difference between the firm's male and female partners,
according to the documents.

Ms. Yelenick, 62, did not sign the letter, but after looking at a
draft, she said in an interview, she "disagreed strongly because
the letter contained inaccuracies, including the process that
female partners could use to join any potential class or
collective action that a court certifies."

"My decades of experience," she said, "has made me aware of the
many ways -- both overt and more subtle -- in which both
institutional structures and informal practices continue to work
to impede the advancement, and discount the contributions, of
women."

The third female partner who joined the lawsuit is Jaroslawa Z.
Johnson, an American lawyer who headed Chadbourne's office in Kiev
for a decade.  She remained in Kiev after the office closed in
December 2014, and noted during her time there that firm data
"showed that my revenue generation was higher than many male
partners, but my compensation was much lower."

"Male partners," she said in an e-mail, "who generated less
revenue annually made much more than I did."  She decided to join
the lawsuit, she said, once she read Campbell's complaint.

All three plaintiffs have maintained in legal papers that the
firm's female partners have been "systematically disparately
underpaid, systematically shut out of firm leadership, demoted,
de-equitized, and terminated."  The class-action suit asks for
$100 million for sex discrimination and pay inequity.

Chadbourne is contesting that description.  Its lawyer,
Kathleen M. McKenna of the Proskauer Rose law firm, did not
respond to a request for comment. But the firm has argued in legal
papers that each of the three women suing was paid differently
because each had "unique experiences and roles" at the firm.

Chadbourne also maintains that the three were partners and thus
were not covered by federal equal pay act protections.

The lawsuit and its public aftermath -- including the firm's
cutoff of Campbell's compensation and its vote to oust her from
the partnership on the eve of Chadbourne's merger with Norton Rose
Fulbright -- have spurred discussions about pay among women at
other large law firms.

And it is not the only legal dispute to emerge over compensation
for female partners.

In July, Traci M. Ribeiro, 46, a lawyer, sued Sedgwick, a
San Francisco-based international litigation and business law
firm, saying she was not promoted to full partner or paid
commensurate with the amount of business she was bringing into the
firm.  The firm called her lawsuit, which depicted Sedgwick's
culture as clubby and paternalistic, a "self-serving" and
"disingenuous" exercise in a legal filing to move the contentious
dispute to arbitration.

And the firm, in the same legal papers, called Ms. Ribeiro, who
was a top earner in Sedgwick's insurance practice in its Chicago
office, a "quisling" -- a World War II-era term for a traitorous
collaborator.

Last month, the firm came to terms with Ms. Ribeiro in
arbitration. The outcome was confidential, and neither side is
commenting.

A resolution may be rockier for Campbell's lawsuit, which
Chadbourne has publicly labeled a "national smear campaign" and a
"cynical pursuit of a big and undeserved payday."

Barely 20 percent of women have reached firm partnership status
despite the high number of women who are entry-level associates at
many major firms.  When they graduate from law school -- where
women are now just over half of students -- women are paid in lock
step with male colleagues, but once they make partner, their
compensation can be widely divergent from that of their male
counterparts.

Female law partners on average earn about one-third, or about
$300,000, less annually than their male colleagues, according to a
survey of 2,100 partners at law firms nationwide released last
fall by a legal search firm, Major, Lindsey & Africa. Over several
years, that adds up quickly to $1 million or more in lost
compensation for a female lawyer.

Chadbourne, like some other major firms, circulates charts with
equity partner payment figures, which contain pay disparities that
can seem inexplicable, the plaintiffs say.

"The matrix of factors was there," Ms. Yelenick recalled, but "it
just didn't add up."

In 2013, the base pay of Chadbourne's male partners was, on
average, 40 percent more than that of their female colleagues,
according to filings in the legal case.  Last year, there was a 21
percent difference between the firm's male and female partners,
according to the documents.[GN]


COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Court Partly Granted Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JEANNE STATHAKOS, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v.
COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR COMPANY, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
4:15-cv-04543-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers entered an order:

   1. denying Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Goldaper;

   2. granting in part Defendants' motion to exclude Dr.
      Compeau and striking the following paragraphs from his
      expert report: 6; 29 (last sentence); 42 (last sentence);
      43; Heading C; 44; 45 (last sentence); 47 (first sentence);
      48; 50 (first sentence); 53(3); 53(4); and 53(6);

   3. granting summary judgment in favor of defendants with
      respect to plaintiffs' methods for calculating monetary
      relief, but denying summary judgment in all other respects;
      and

   4. granting in part Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification, and conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all consumers who have purchased an Outlet SMU Build at a
      Columbia Outlet store in the State of California since July
      1, 2014, through the conclusion of this action".

The Court said, "Because plaintiffs have satisfied all the
requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a) and Rule
23(b)(2), the Court finds that certification of plaintiffs'
proposed class as a Rule 23(b)(2) class is appropriate. At oral
argument, plaintiffs requested another opportunity to present
a damages calculation acceptable to the Court and preferred the
certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class over a Rule 23(b)(2)
injunctive relief class. Within fourteen days of this Order,
plaintiffs must file a notice indicating their intent to pursue a
Rule 23(b)(3) class. If plaintiffs no longer intend to pursue the
same, the Court's conditional certification of the Rule 23(b)(2)
class shall become final. Otherwise, the parties must file a joint
statement within seven (7) days of plaintiffs' notice setting
forth a proposed briefing schedule for plaintiffs' motion to
certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class. The Court will permit defendants to
move for summary judgment only as to any new methods for
calculating restitution and damages proffered by plaintiffs in
their amended motion for class certification".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AwGdg1hR


CORONA SUNNYSLOPE: Land Sold to Mosque May Hold 850++ Gravesites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Hurt at The Press Enterprise reports that authorities
believe at least 853 people -- far higher than previously attested
-- may have been buried in a Corona paupers graveyard under
investigation after human remains were found near an area sold to
a local mosque.

The operators of Corona Sunnyslope Cemetery, and not the Islamic
Society of Corona-Norco, are being investigated as the mosque's
leader said they were assured the site they bought and another
they have an option to buy were undeveloped land that had never
been used.

Burial records donated to the Corona Public Library in 1994 and
scrutinized recently by Corona Senior Detective Frank Zellers show
603 people buried in the cemetery's lower-level paupers graveyard
or "Potter's Field" and 250 buried in a section marked "unknown,"
Zellers wrote in the search warrant.

Other evidence shows wooden crosses or other grave markers
disappeared, with at least three laid flat or stored.

"There is probable cause to believe that many more graves exist in
the area of Potter's Field than what is currently being reported
by the Corona Cemetery Association," Zellers wrote, using the
cemetery's legal name.

Zellers, who's assigned to the Riverside County District
Attorney's Real Estate Fraud Task Force, led other law enforcement
agents on a search Tuesday, April 25, and Wednesday, April 26,
that found a casket containing human remains at an unmarked grave
in an area some contend is a historic paupers graveyard sold to
the mosque for new burials, according to a court document.

In 2014, a mosque official said the group had bought 400 plots.

On Thursday, May 4, Islamic Society of Corona-Norco President
Ahsan Basser said there was "nothing brought to light" that anyone
might be buried in a 200-plot section the mosque bought in 2014 or
a same-sized section next to it they have an option to buy under a
contract.

"The land we purchased -- there was nothing there. There were no
markers . . . ." he said. "We were told it was virgin land."

Cemetery operators are now being investigated for possible
felonies: destruction or removal of grave markers and mutilating,
disinterring or removing human remains without legal authority,
according to the search warrant.

No charges had been filed or arrests made as of Thursday, May 4,
said DA's spokesman John Hall.

The cemetery operators' attorney, Jesse Marr, would not comment on
Zeller's belief there are at least 853 people buried in the
original pauper's cemetery.

"We're cooperating with this investigation. We will let it play
out for right now," he said.

But the allegations infuriate descendants of those buried there,
including 11 pursuing a class-action suit against the cemetery.

The family of Elisa Ramirez, who was 1 year, 4 months old when she
died in 1926, was outraged to find the baby's grave marker gone
during a visit in 2014. Her nephew, Art Mejia of Corona, recalled
"a feeling of overwhelming violation."

"And then to see my mom -- how it has affected her -- that makes
me even more angry," he said Friday, May 5.

A state investigator documented that the marker was kept in the
cemetery's storage locker, wrote Zeller, who thought it may have
been removed when operators graded the potter's field with a
tractor in 2014.

The historic burial ground was used from the 1890s through 1940s
for Latinos and poor, indigenous or Chinese people.

Local officials and families have said for years parts of the
potter's field sold in the 1980s contained historic gravesites but
were later covered with a storage facility, nursery and
apartments. They also said crosses and headstones have
disappeared. Past investigations turned up nothing.

Riverside County Historic Commissioner Don Williamson, who has
researched cemetery records, documented cemetery practices and led
historic tours there for years, was cited in the search warrant as
providing key information in the case. In 2015, Williamson, who
grew up near the cemetery, told the state Cemetery and Funeral
Bureau he believed grave markers had been removed in a plan to
sell an occupied part of the paupers cemetery.

The "unknown" section could be under the storage facility,
Williamson said Thursday, May 5.

A court document obtained Wednesday, May 3, reports law
enforcement agents found a casket with human remains buried 10 to
12 feet below ground.

Mosque officials who attended the excavations later told Basser
pieces of wood that might be part of a casket were found in the
area the mosque hasn't bought yet.

"I was not told any human remains were found. I was told only
pieces of a casket were found," said Basser.

According to the court document containing the search results, an
unidentified mammal bone fragment was discovered 13.5 feet from a
Sept. 2016 gravesite marker for someone connected to the mosque.

About 45 or 46 Muslims have been buried there wrapped in white
cloth but not in caskets, in observance of conservative Muslim
religious practices. Basser doubted the bone fragment could belong
to a Muslim.

Mosque officials and mourners haven't found remains during those
burials, which are excavated at six to eight feet underground,
Basser said.

Williamson said cemetery operators dig the gravesites using a
backhoe.

Using ground-penetrating radar, Corona Police and the DA's Real
Estate Fraud Task Force investigators also found 45 ground
disturbances possibly indicating pre-existing burials in the area
sold or optioned to the mosque.

Cemetery operators described that area in the contract as
undeveloped.

Ron Mowry, who runs the cemetery, told mapmaker Paul Beltz to draw
up a Potter's Field map showing only 280 graves with an
undeveloped parcel next to it.

Beltz told Zellers he wasn't given measurements or markers as a
reference for existing graves. Mowry filed the map with the
Riverside County recorder in 2003, Zellers wrote.

About the case

Search warrant served: April 25 at Corona Sunnyslope Cemetery,
1125 Rimpau Ave., Corona.

On scene: Corona Police,  Riverside County District Attorney's
Office Real Estate Fraud Task Force, Riverside County Coroner's
Office.

Why: Investigating possible felonies such as destruction or
removal of grave markers and mutilating, disinterring or removing
human remains without legal authority.

Paupers graveyard: Known locally as "Potter's Field," the
cemetery's lower level is a historic burial ground used from the
1890s through 1939 or 1941 for Latinos and poor, indigenous or
Chinese people.

Lawsuit: Eleven people who say relatives are buried in unmarked
graves in parts of the potter's field that have been sold are
pursuing a class-action suit against the cemetery. [GN]


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Gremillion Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled SCOTT GREMILLION, on behalf of himself and
other persons similarly situated, v. COX COMMUNICATIONS LOUISIANA,
LLC and GRAYCO COMMUNICATIONS, L.P., Case No. 2:16-cv-09849-JVM
(E.D. La.), Mr. Scott Gremillion, individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, asks the Court to enter an Order:

   1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action;
      and

   2. authorizing, under court supervision, Plaintiff's proposed
      notice and consent form pursuant to Section 216(b) of the
      Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The putative class to which Plaintiff seeks to facilitate notice
consists of all individuals who:

   1. worked for Grayco Communications, L.P. (Grayco) at any time
      during the past three years; and

   2. worked as a cable technician providing cable repair and
      installation services on behalf of Grayco and were paid
      based upon a "point" system.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=B5kSBWPW

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         George B. Recile, Esq.
         Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
         Ryan P. Monsour, Esq.
         Matthew A. Sherman, Esq.
         Patrick R. Follette, Esq.
         CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY,
            RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P.
         One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
         Metairie, LA 70001
         Telephone: (504) 833 5600
         Facsimile: (504) 613 4528


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Lost Bid to Deny Class Cert. in "Amiri" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Cormac J. Carney denied without prejudice the
Defendant's motion to deny class certification submitted in the
lawsuit entitled FARAMARZ AMIRI V. COX COMMUNICATIONS CALIFORNIA,
LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-00540-CJC-RAO (C.D. Cal.).

Faramarz Amiri brings this wage and hour class action against Cox
Communications California, LLC, alleging seven causes of action
arising out of his work as a field employee.  The Plaintiff's
claims are based primarily on the circumstances under which he
took, was allowed, and recorded breaks, including meal breaks, and
on the restrictions placed upon him during intermittent weeks on
call.

In the interest of judicial efficiency and in light of Local Rule
7-8, Judge Carney authorized the Plaintiff to take the depositions
of the declarants.  The parties are directed to meet and confer
regarding depositions of the declarants, which are to take place
in the next 30 days.

Judge Carney also modified the Court's scheduling order as
follows:

   1. All discovery, including discovery motions, shall be
      completed by October 12, 2017.  Discovery motions must be
      filed and heard prior to this date;

   2. The parties shall have until December 11, 2017, to file and
      have heard all other motions, including motions to join or
      amend the pleadings;

   3. A pretrial conference will be held on Monday, March 5,
      2018, at 03:00 p.m.  Full compliance with Local Rule 16 is
      required;

   4. The case is set for a jury trial, Tuesday, March 13, 2018,
      at 08:30 a.m.;

   5. The parties are referred to ADR Procedure No. 3-Private
      Mediation.  The parties shall have until November 7, 2017,
      to conduct settlement proceedings; and

   6. Plaintiff shall have until July 10, 2017, to file and have
      heard any class certification motion.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=u6927Tlf


DCI RESORTS: "Levchenko" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kirill Levchenko, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DCI Resorts, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00875 (S.D. Cal., May 1, 2017), seeks damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from negligent and/or intentional violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff received unauthorized calls from the Plaintiff
soliciting its travel service whilst using an auto-dialer.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE AND SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 to 26
      Email: Josh@westcoastlitigation.com
             kevin@westcoastlitigation.com

             - and -

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      Email: ak@kazlg.com


DEJA VU: Settles Exotic Dancers' Suit for USD6.5-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------
Paul Eagan at WZZM13 reports that more than 28,000 exotic dancers
at Deja Vu clubs across the country will share in a USD6.5-million
settlement and enjoy more employment rights under a class-action
lawsuit settlement pending in federal court in Detroit.

The suit against Deja Vu Services, related companies and club
principal Harry Mohney alleges the nude and nearly nude dancers
are paid no wages but required to pay rent to the clubs, plus 30%
or more of their tips. The dancers also face monetary penalties
for leaving early or showing up late, the suit alleges.

The case centers on whether the dancers are employees or
independent contractors -- a classification that affects issues
such as whether the clubs must pay them a minimum hourly wage or
can instead charge them for doing business inside the clubs.

Deja Vu maintains that despite the claims made in the lawsuit,
most exotic dancers who are given the opportunity to become club
employees find out they prefer being independent contractors,
because they make more money that way and have more control over
their hours of work.

Under the proposed settlement, Deja Vu will assess all current and
future dancers based on a set of agreed criteria -- including the
dancer's expressed wishes -- to determine whether they should be
hired or retained as employees or as independent professional
entertainers. Those deemed employees will be paid minimum wage,
plus bonuses including commissions of at least 20% on their
private dances and drink sales, and receive club support to pay
for employment-related expenses such as the purchase and cleaning
of costumes and payment of required local license fees.

The dancers can also choose whether to share in a USD1-million
cash payment pool or instead share in a USD4.5-million pool that
will credit them for rent and dance fees paid to the clubs.
Another USD1 million will pay attorney fees and penalties.

So far, only one dancer has objected to the proposed settlement,
which has received preliminary approval from U.S. District Judge
Stephen Murphy as "reasonable, fair and adequate," ahead of a June
7 fairness hearing in Detroit.

Minneapolis-area dancer Stephanie Sage said that with as many as
28,177 dancers sharing in the settlement, the offer is too small.

"It was not easy to make money and there were nights that I walked
out with less than what I came in with," Sage said in a letter to
the court.

The proposed settlement covers more than 60 clubs around the
country, of which 11 are in Michigan, including Deja Vu Showgirls
in Highland Park, Larry Flynt's Hustler in Lincoln Park, and Deja
Vu Showgirls in Lansing.

Jesse Young -- jyoung@sommerspc.com -- at Sommers Schwartz, P.C.,
a Southfield attorney representing the plaintiffs, said many of
the dancers may only receive a couple of hundred dollars, but the
benefits of the settlement go far beyond the cash settlement and
include future wages, unemployment insurance, and the right to
unionize if they are deemed club employees.

"We've heard many stories about clubs taking advantage of dancers
and exploiting them," Young said.

But in backing the settlement, Deja Vu and Mohney deny the
allegations in the suit and admit no wrongdoing.

Deja Vu, founded in Michigan but now a national firm with offices
in Michigan, California and Nevada, has operated many of its clubs
under a model in which the clubs serve no alcohol but dancers
disrobe completely. Until recently, Michigan law prohibited fully
nude dancing at clubs where alcohol was served.

The case began in 2016, when a Bay City dancer filed suit against
Deja Vu clubs in Saginaw, but it was expanded this year to include
Deja Vu clubs and their affiliates nationwide. The lawsuit's roots
go back even earlier, to a similar lawsuit filed in 2008 and
settled in 2011, but that had a settlement that did not include
requirements that Deja Vu determine, going forward, whether
dancers were in fact club employees or independent contractors.

Bradley Shafer -- bshafer@swartzcampbell.com -- of Swartz Campbell
LLC, the Lansing attorney representing Deja Vu and Mohney, said
there has been a raft of similar lawsuits in a wide range of
industries.

"It's not just strippers, but it's hairdressers, cab drivers, Uber
drivers, home health care workers," Shafer said.

Having already gone through the 2008 lawsuit, which involved a
monetary settlement, he said he was determined to resolve the
current lawsuit in a way that would rule out another similar suit
a few more years down the road. This settlement does that, making
the case unique, he said.

Contrary to what many people might think, "the clubs would like
the entertainers to be employees" because "they could then control
the entertainers and the clubs would make a lot more money,"
Shafer said.

"For whatever reason, entertainers and exotic dancers don't want
to be employees."

Young, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said that depends on the
individual dancer. But the settlement provides wages and other
benefits for dancers who become club employees, plus additional
safeguards for those deemed independent contractors, he said.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
state wage and hour laws.

The clubs unlawfully classified the dancers as independent
contractors, rather than employees, failed to pay minimum wages,
and "engaged in unlawful tip-sharing by requiring dancers ... to
share gratuities given to them by patrons with defendants and
their employees, such as doormen and DJs." according to the
lawsuit.

"Defendants knew or should have known that the business model
employed was unlawful as applicable laws confirm that all money
given to dancers by patrons was defined as a gratuity and the sole
property of the dancer," the suit alleges.

Dancers received no wages, but "generated their income solely
through the tips received from patrons when they performed exotic
table, chair, couch, lap and/or VIP room dances," the suit
alleges.

The dancers can't be independent contractors under the law because
the clubs "exercise control over all aspects of the working
relationship," and dictate hours of operation, lengths of shifts,
minimum tips for private dances, tip sharing, even dance themes
and costumes, and  exclusively handle advertising and promotion,
the lawsuit alleges.

"Each time a dancer performs an exotic dance for a patron and
receives a dance tip, the dancer is required to immediately
account ... for their time and any dance tip given to them," the
suit alleged.

"Additionally, defendants employ other employees called
"checkers," doormen and/or floor walkers to watch dancers work,
count private dancers they perform, and record the amount of any
dance tips received.

At the end of each shift, "in addition to any base 'rent' payment,
the dancer is required (to) pay a portion of each dance tip given
to them by patrons" -- typically more than 30% of the total -- as
additional rent, the suit alleges.

Additional "tip-outs" of about USD1 per dance must be paid to
other club employees such as the manager, dance checkers, bouncers
and DJs, the suit alleges.

The clubs maintain that they signed legally binding contracts with
each of the dancers, which have clauses requiring disputes to go
to binding arbitration and which bar participation in class-action
lawsuits. The clubs also maintain that the dancers are properly
classified as nonemployees because they perform when, where and
for whom they choose, are not paid by the hour, control their
profits and losses and must show independent initiative to be
successful, according to records filed in the case. They also
argue that the dancers earned far more than minimum wage. [GN]


DOVEX FRUIT: Washington Court to Decide Piece-Rate Pay Issue
------------------------------------------------------------
Don Jenkins at Capital Press reports that Washington Supreme Court
will decide whether piece-rate farmworkers must be paid separately
for time spent on tasks such as carrying ladders, attending
meetings and moving between fields, an issue the Legislature
declined to settle.

The question stems from a federal class-action lawsuit similar to
one that led the court in 2015 to unanimously rule that piece-rate
farmworkers must be paid for 10-minute rest breaks based on how
much they would have earned by continuing to pick.

The new lawsuit raises the same issue for so-called "piece-rate
down time" -- time spent at work but not picking.

If the court again mandates separate pay, the decision will be
another major change in farm pay practices, said Washington labor
attorney Sarah Wixson, who is not directly involved in the case
but represents agricultural employers that would be affected.

"No longer will you be able to pay straight piece rate and call it
good," she said.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for Eastern
Washington against the Dovex Fruit Co. of Wenatchee by a Seattle
law firm that was involved in the suit against Sakuma Brothers
Farms, a berry company in Skagit County. The Sakuma case changed
the farm industry's longstanding practice of assuming piece rates
compensated employees for rest breaks, as long as workers made at
least minimum wage.

Federal Judge Salvador Mendoza Jr., who is presiding over the
Dovex lawsuit, has asked the Supreme Court to rule whether
Washington law also mandates separate pay for non-picking tasks.

The Washington Tree Fruit Association proposed legislation this
year to set pay for down time at 108 percent of the state minimum
wage. The bill also would have settled back pay claims filed after
the Sakuma decision. Farmworker advocates urged lawmakers to let
the Dovex case and other lawsuits alleging pay violations to play
out in court. The bill failed to pass.

The Supreme Court has not set a date for oral arguments. In an
opening brief, Seattle lawyer Marc Cote argued that piece-rate pay
fails to compensate employees for all work, and "perpetuates
abusive employer actions that take the fruit of workers' labor
without paying for it."

Even if the court agrees, Wixson said that she thinks some form of
piece-rate pay will continue, partly because farmers will have to
continue paying piece rates to attract top employees.

"The best workers are going to go to farms with piece rates," she
said. "It is the economic model to promote production and have
that production awarded, and it's ingrained in workers' and
employees' expectations.

"It does put internal pressure on workers, but that pressure is
rewarded," Wixson said.

The state Supreme Court in recent years has consistently ruled
against agricultural employers in labor cases, including in the
Sakuma decision.

Nevertheless, the Dovex case presents a different question than
the one more narrowly focused on rest breaks, Wixson said.

"We've got some additional arguments to make on the Dovex case,"
she said. "I'm hopeful on Dovex."

In a similar class-action lawsuit against a trucking company,
Western Washington District Judge Robert Lasnik last year rejected
a claim that drivers paid by the mile must be compensated for non-
driving tasks.

The judge ruled that Washington law provides flexibility in
negotiating the method of compensation as long as the employer
pays at least minimum wage for each hour of work. [GN]


EARLYSHARES.COM INC: Court Denies Schwanke's Certification Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Carlos E. Mendoza granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled
LAWRENCE E. SCHWANKE v. EARLYSHARES.COM, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-12,
Case No. 5:16-cv-00593-CEM-PRL (M.D. Fla.).

To the extent the Plaintiff is seeking an extension of time to
move for class certification, the Motion will be granted, Judge
Mendoza opines.  To the extent Plaintiff is seeking class
certification, the Motion is denied without prejudice, Judge
Mendoza adds.

The Plaintiff may file a renewed motion for class certification
within 30 days after the close of discovery.  The Motion is denied
in all other respects.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5ffttOl5


EL TORAZO MEXICAN: Perez Moves to Certify Servers, Waiters Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Felipe Cruz Perez, the Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned PEREZ v.
EL TORAZO MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC., and GUSTAVO ORTIZ, Case No.
3:16-cv-00545-GNS-CHL (W.D. Ky.), on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated individuals, moves the Court for
conditional certification of a proposed class of individuals,
pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Perez asks the Court to conditionally certifying this proposed
collective FLSA class, and to implement a procedure whereby Court-
approved Notice of Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent to:

     All individuals employed by Defendants or its predecessors
     or successors in the state of Kentucky as servers, waiters,
     waitresses, and other tipped employees in other similar job
     positions at anytime from August 24, 2013, through and
     including the present and until the final resolution of the
     case, and who have not been paid the statutory minimum
     and/or overtime wage during anytime in their employment
     (hereinafter "FLSA Collective Action Class").

Mr. Perez also asks the Court to require the Defendants to
identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing a list in
electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses, and e-
mail addresses of all potential opt-in plaintiffs, who worked for
the Defendants in Kentucky at any time from August 24, 2013,
through and including the present and until the final resolution
of the case.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XWgbYZ3q

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trent R. Taylor, Esq.
          Bob DeRose, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
          250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com
                  bderose@barkanmeizlish.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Sued Over Defective Devices in Diesel Models
-----------------------------------------------------------
CASTLE CAR COMPANY, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILE M.V. and FCAUS,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00565-MRH (W.D. Pa., May 2,
2017), concerns the installation of defective devices on hundreds
of thousands of diesel models of its vehicles: Model Year (MY)
2014 - 2016 Ram 1500 and MY 2014 - 2016 Jeep Ram Cherokee sold in
the United States since 2014.  Allegedly, the defective device
installed on the above Vehicles did not provide superior fuel
economy coupled with low emissions as Defendants advised,
represented and promised to purchasers.

Fiat Chrysler Automobile M.V. is a Dutch corporation headquartered
in the United Kingdom and is an international automotive group
engaged in designing, engineering, manufacturing, distributing and
selling vehicle components and production systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aaron Rihn, Esq.
     ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     707 Grant Street, Suite 2500
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918
     Phone: 412-281-7229

        - and -

     Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
     Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
     LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
     510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Phone: 215-592-1500


FRONTLINE ASSET: Ahmed Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RAHEEL AHMED, individually and on behalf of
the class members, the Plaintiff, v. FRONTLINE ASSET STRATEGIES,
LLC; LVNV FUNDING, LLC; and RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02893 (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks
that the Court enter an order determining that this Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) action may proceed as a class
action on behalf of a class and subclass.

The Plaintiff defines the class as:

   "(a) all individuals (b) to whom Frontline sent a letter in
   the form represented by Exhibit A (c) relating to a debt that
   had already been reported to a credit bureau by the current
   owner of the debt or an affiliate (d) which letter was sent at
   any time during a period beginning one year prior to the
   filing of this action and ending 20 days after the filing of
   this action.

The subclass consists of:

   "class members whose debts were allegedly owned by LVNV at the
   time the letter was sent".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that Edelman, Combs,
Latturner and Goodwin, LLC and ShakedLaw Group, PC be appointed
counsel for the class.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have been attempting to
collect from plaintiff an alleged credit card debt incurred, if at
all, for personal, family or household purposes and not for
business purposes. The alleged original creditor was Credit One
Bank. Credit One Bank, LVNV and Resurgent are all part of the
Sherman Financial Group. Credit One Bank reported the debt to
Experian and possibly other credit bureaus (consumer reporting
agencies) as delinquent beginning in March 2016. LVNV began
reporting the debt (or Resurgent reported it for LVNV) to Experian
and possibly other credit bureaus in October 2016, as a
"collection account" held by a "debt buyer." Resurgent, on behalf
of LVNV, placed the alleged debt with Frontline for collection.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1iDgt0m0

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-3593
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          44 Court Street, Suite 1217
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 373 9128


FYRE MEDIA: Fyre Festival Medical Staff Sues Citing Bugs
--------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Evans, writing for Jezebel, reports that Fyre Festival,
which was cancelled before it got underway, is continuing to make
headlines with the many ways in which it fucked over literally
everyone involved.  This latest edition features a lawsuit from
the event's emergency medical staff, who weren't even trying to
have fun and still got massively screwed over anyway!

According to Page Six, the staff's accommodations were straight
from the scene of a campy horror movie probably starring Stephen
Dorff:

Pennsylvania-based National Event Services claims in court papers
that when its personnel arrived at Great Exuma Island a few days
before the April 28 festival start, its staffers "immediately
discovered that the accommodations were uninhabitable, including
bug infestations, blood-stained mattresses and no air
conditioning."

The only thing worse than sleeping on a blood-stained mattress is
knowing that your own sweat is mingling with the blood stains,
giving them new life. But the selfless staff persevered
regardless, setting up a medical tent "in response to obvious
safety and health concerns for the people trapped on the island,
which left NES exposed to serving distressed patrons for an
unprepared festival site," reads the suit.  The group is seeking
unspecified punitive and compensatory damages from organizers.

Meanwhile, a $5 million class action lawsuit was filed on May 5
against organizers on behalf of everyone who purchased a ticket to
the Ja Rule-sponsored shit storm.  This appears to be in addition
to the $100 million class action lawsuit filed on
May 8?! And the other. . . three? Four? There are so many! More
like Fyle Festival, y'know? Sorry, but I had 200 times more fun
making that pun than anyone else even tangentially involved with
the festival did, so there.

By the way, if you were wronged by Fyre and are just dying to sue
Kendall Jenner personally for leading you astray with her
bewitching spon-con, well, you actually stand a shot at winning,
according to Fortune:

According to William McGeveren, a law professor at the University
of Minnesota, concertgoers could have a case against anyone paid
to hype the Fyre Festival.

"In the offline world, there is precedent for such claims. For
example, door-to-door salespersons using deceptive high-pressure
tactics could be personally liable for fraud or violating the
California [commercial code], right alongside the company that
employed them," he said.  "The plaintiffs here are arguing that
Fyrefest is the Instagram equivalent of door-to-door sales fraud."


GRANITE CITY FOOD: Court Certifies Tipped Employees Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CHELSEA KOENIG, the Plaintiff, v. GRANITE
CITY FOOD & BREWERY, LTD., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01396-
MAK (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge J. Kearney entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action under the Fair
      Labor Standards Act of:

      "all former and current Tipped Employees (such as server,
      bartender, busser, food runner) of Cadillac Ranch All
      American Bar & Grill in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Florida, or
      Indiana at any time from September 9, 2013 to the date the
      tipped employee signed Cadillac Ranch's January 2017 Tip
      Credit Policy";

   2. certifying Chelsea Koenig as Class representative;

   3. certifying Lead Plaintiff's counsel Connolly Wells and
      Gray, LLP as Class Counsel; and

   4. directing class counsel to circulate Notice to the Class a
      draft court-facilitated notice and protocol compliant to
      Defendant's counsel no later than May 18, 2017.

The Court said, "Plaintiff makes a modest factual showing Cadillac
Ranch's tipped employees at its five locations are "similarly
situated." Plaintiff adduced evidence Cadillac Ranch failed to
provide her sufficient notice of its utilization of the tip
credit. Plaintiff adduced evidence Cadillac Ranch used the tip
credit for tipped employees and used the same compensation policy
and employee handbook to inform tipped employees about their
compensation across all five locations. This evidence is
sufficient to satisfy our first-tier review of Plaintiffs "modest
factual showing" all tipped employees are "similarly situated" for
purposes of receiving tip credit notification from Cadillac Ranch.
Defendant shall comment upon the draft and protocol to Plaintiff
by May 25, 2017, and Plaintiff shall move for approval of the
proposed Court-facilitated notice with a memorandum not exceeding
ten pages and identifying all areas of disagreement on the notice
in an attached black-lined version of the proposed Notice on or
before June 1, 2017. The Defendant may file memoranda not
exceeding 10 pages explaining its position on any dispute with the
proposed protocol or proposed black-lined notice on or before June
6, 2017".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UG9uHCzJ


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Case Settlement Preliminarily Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit RE: HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:07-cv-01757-RC (D. Colo.), the
Hon. District Judge Rudolph Contreras entered an order:

   1. preliminarily approving Settlement, including all
      provisions, as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class,
      subject to further consideration at the final approval
      hearing;

   2. preliminarily certifying a class for purposes of settlement
      only:

      "all persons or entities who purchased shares of Harman
      common stock between April 26, 2007 and February 5, 2008,
      both dates inclusive.

      Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendants and members of
      the immediate family of ai1y Defendant; (2) any entity in
      which any Defendant has, or had during the Class Period, a
      controlling interest; (3) the officers and directors of
      Harman during the Class Period; and (4) the legal
      representatives, agents, executors, heirs, successors, or
      assigns of any of the foregoing excluded persons or
      entities who assert an interest in Harman common stock
      through or on behalf of any such excluded persons or
      entities. Also excluded from the Class are any putative
      Class Members who exclude themselves by filing a request
      for exclusion in accordance with the requirements set forth
      in the notice.

   3. for the purposes of settlement only, preliminarily
      appointing Lead Plaintiff as class representative for the
      Class and appointing Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC,
      previously appointed Lead Counsel, as preliminarily
      appointed counsel for the Class; and

   4. appointing A.B. Data, Ltd. as the Claims Administrator,
      who shall supervise and administer the notice procedure,
      as well as the processing of Claims.

The Court said, "With respect to the Class, the Court
preliminarily finds, for purposes of settlement only, that the
prerequisites for class certification under Rule 23(a) and Rule
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been
satisfied, in that: (I) the number of Class Members is so numerous
that joinder of all Class Members is impracticable; (2) there are
questions of law and fact common to the Class Members; (3) Lead
Plaintiffs claims are typical of the Class's claims; (4) Lead
Plaintiff and Lead Counsel have and will fairly and adequately
represent and protect the interests of the Class; ( 5) the
questions of law and fact common to Class Members predominate over
any individual questions; and (6) a class action is superior to
other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of
the controversy".

"Only Class Members, the Claims Administrator and Lead Counsel
shall have any right to any portion of, or any rights in the
distribution of, the Settlement Fund, unless otherwise. All funds
held in the Escrow Account shall be deemed and considered to the
custodia legis and shall remain subject to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Cou1t until such time as such funds shall be
distributed pursuant to the Settlement or returned to the D&O
Insurers pursuant to the terms of the Settlement and/or further
order of the Court.

"As set forth in the Settlement, prior to the Effective Date, the
Escrow Agent, without further approval of Defendants, may pay from
the Settlement Fund up to $150,000 in Notice and Administration
Costs actually and reasonably incurred. Prior to the Effective
Date, payment by the Escrow Agent of any Notice and Administration
Costs exceeding $150,000 shall require notice to and agreement
from Defendants, through Defendants' Counsel. Subsequent to the
Effective Date, without fu1ther approval by Defendants, any
Released Parties or the Court, the Escrow Agent may pay from the
Settlement Fund all reasonable and necessary Notice and
Administration Costs in excess of any amount paid prior to the
Effective Date. In the event the Effective Date does not occur or
the Settlement is otherwise terminated pursuant to its terms,
neither Lead Plaintiff, nor Lead Counsel, nor the Escrow Agent
shall have any obligation to repay any such Notice and
Administration Costs actually and properly incurred or paid."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          E-mail: dbunch@cohenmilstein.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kelly A Carrero, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          250 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          E-mail: kacarrero@jonesday.com


HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Legal Bills Hit $2.85MM in Cash Bail Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Banks at Chron.com reports that as legal costs mount,
surpassing USD200,000 per month, pressure is building for Harris
County officials to settle a lawsuit over the county's cash bail
system that a federal judge has ruled unconstitutional.

Newly available documents reveal that teams of defense lawyers are
racking up massive ongoing expenses, including one lawyer on
retainer since June at USD610 per hour and a Washington, D.C.
appellate lawyer on board since mid-April at USD550 per hour.
Among the two dozen county officials named as defendants in the
civil suit, one is fed up.

"It's time to settle," said Criminal Court at Law Judge Darrell
Jordan. "What are we fighting for?"

A settlement offer remains on the table from lawyers representing
poor people stuck in jail for misdemeanor offenses because they
could not afford cash bail. But none of the other defendants in
the suit has budged, according to attorney Neal Manne, whose firm
donated its services in filing the suit with two civil rights
organizations.

First Assistant County Attorney Robert Soard said on May 5 he
anticipates his office will have a recommendation for the
Commissioners Court meeting May 9 morning. Discussion of the case
is included on the Commissioners Court agenda, with possible
action to follow.

As of May 5, however, the county has been billed about USD2.85
million by outside counsel -- a cost the county attorney's office
says is not out of line given the number of defendants and a local
criminal justice system that is one of the largest in the nation.
"Harris County spends about USD1.1 billion per year on criminal
justice, 70 percent of its annual operating budget," Soard said.
At least 22 attorneys plus support staff are now working on the
case, including 10 in the county attorney's office and at least 12
from outside law firms, Soard said. Three firms have been hired to
help with the case -- Gardere Wynne Sewell, Winston & Strawn, and
Cooper & Kirk -- with each submitting their own itemized bills for
transcripts, hourly work and other costs.

Two civil rights groups are handling the case -- Texas Fair
Defense Project and Civil Rights Corps -- with local law firm
Susman Godfrey on behalf of Maranda ODonnell, a single mother who
was held for two days on a charge of driving without a valid
license because she couldn't afford the USD2,500 bail. Similar
lawsuits involving two other people were merged into the case in
August.
Last week, Chief U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal ruled the
county's bail system is unconstitutional because it keeps indigent
people locked up on misdemeanors because they can't post bail,
while people facing similar charges can walk free if they have the
money.

Rosenthal has ordered county officials to begin releasing indigent
misdemeanor inmates starting May 15 on personal bonds without
requiring cash bail, if suspects do not have other outstanding
charges or warrants. She also granted the case class-action
status, meaning it applies to all misdemeanor inmates who might be
eligible for personal bonds.

Legal bills submitted to the county for August 2016 show the
biggest strain on the county's pocketbook was the hourly fees for
attorneys representing the county, sheriff, 16 criminal court at
law judges and hearing officers, who are the first to see a person
after an arrest.

The county's legal costs averaged about USD237,500 per month in
the one year that the case has been active, according to spending
figures released by the county attorney.

An attempt to mediate the case over two days in August cost the
county thousands of dollars, including USD1,200 per day for
mediator Leslie Brock Yates, a former appellate judge hired to
help the parties reach a settlement.

Mike Stafford, a partner at Gardere, earned USD610 an hour. He
billed the county more than USD28,000 for 46 hours of work that
month, part of a USD135,745 bill that included work by four other
lawyers.

Not all the bills have been paid, however. Gardere hosted the
mediation and billed for take-out lunches from the Post Oak Grill
on Aug. 16. The total: USD558, including salads and sandwiches for
30 and USD112 for 30 slices of key lime pie.

The county, however, balked at the bill and it sent it back to the
law firm with questions. It has not been resubmitted.
The county's teams of lawyers occupied two long tables in
Rosenthal's courtroom during a lengthy hearing in March, and now
are poring over the judge's 193-page opinion to decide whether to
settle the case or appeal it.

On May 5, Criminal Court at Law Judge Jordan hand-delivered a
letter to County Judge Ed Emmett asking that he be allowed to
settle the case immediately.

Emmett spokesman Joe Stinebaker explained the office's response to
Jordan's letter.

"Judge Emmett has no authority whatsoever to allow or prevent any
of the defendants in this suit from taking any action they deem
appropriate," he said.

The formalities were of little importance to Jordan, who said it
seems obvious the county should settle, given Rosenthal's comments
that the indigent defendants are likely to prevail at trial.
Jordan became a defendant in the year-old suit when he took office
in January, and was one of two county officials who took the
witness stand during a contentious injunction hearing in March.
Newly elected Sheriff Ed Gonzalez also testified about his
concerns with the county's bail system.

Two other newly elected Democrats, District Attorney Kim Ogg and
County Commissioner Rodney Ellis, submitted statements to the
court in favor of ending a bail system they said unfairly punishes
poor defendants.

Ellis applauded Jordan's letter on May 5.

"It's clearly time to settle and get this case behind us," Ellis
said, "to implement the reforms and move on to other cost-saving
measures that will help us protect the public safety of the
citizens of Harris County and have more resources to deal with
issues like flooding economic development, health care and
congestion."[GN]


HARVEST MANAGEMENT: Faces "Butler" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA BUTLER and WESLEY BUTLER, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, vs. HARVEST
MANAGEMENT SUB, LLC d/b/a HOLIDAY RETIREMENT, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-00685 (W.D. Wash., May 2, 2017), alleges that Holiday
unlawfully classified all Co-Managers (CMs) nationwide as exempt
from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, despite the fact that they should have been
classified as non-exempt employees.

According to its website, Holiday describes itself as ". . . a
robust family of more than 300 senior living communities that
provides seniors a safe, carefree, all-inclusive retirement
lifestyle."

Holiday employed exempt-classified Co-Managers, however variously
titled, at its retirement homes across the United States through
approximately November 2016.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
     Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
     TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
     936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
     Seattle, WA 98103-8869
     Phone: (206) 816-6603
     Fax: (206) 319-5450
     Email: amcentee@terrellmarshall.com

        - and -

     Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
     Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP P.A.
     1515 S. Federal Hwy, Suite 404
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Tel: (561) 447-8888
     Fax: (561) 447-8831
     Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
     Email: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com


HAUDENOSAUNEE DEVELOPMENT: Ontario Court Tosses Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
On April 26, 2017, Justice Andrew J. Goodman of the Ontario
Superior Court adjourned a frivolous lawsuit for unfairly
targeting the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI).  The
plaintiffs, two members of the Six Nations "Men's Fire", were
ordered to pay HDI $3,500.00 in costs.

HDI attended court for the fourth time to answer to the
plaintiffs' Mareva Injunction and their motion to certify the
class action. This is the third request for an adjournment.
Despite being granted the adjournment, the judge expressed serious
concern about how the case was prosecuted and awarded HDI
$3,500.00 in costs.

"This lawsuit is completely baseless and much of it appears
erroneous," said Aaron Detlor, HDI's legal advisor.  "The costs
awarded are a reflection of the judge's concern with the
plaintiffs' case."

The Statement of Claim, which was delivered on August 16, 2016
named Hazel Hill, Brian Doolittle, Aaron Detlor and Elvera Garlow
as the defendants.  Among the absurd allegations that the judge
dismissed were: breach of contract and fiduciary duty, breach of
duties of the HDI, civic conspiracy, conversion, unjust enrichment
and breach of trust.

"This petty, reckless, and punitive behavior is typical of the
plaintiffs and not the first time they've shown the maturity of
schoolyard bullies.  Clearly, this lawsuit was launched with the
intention of smearing my colleagues and I and tarnishing the
reputation of HDI."

The amount that plaintiffs Bill Monture and Wilfred Davie sought
totaled a staggering $100 million, an outrageous amount that
certainly suggests that the plaintiffs have motives other than
justice.

"Without a doubt the plaintiffs are acting in bad faith." added
Mr. Detlor.  "We hope their gossip and innuendo will end
immediately -- enough is enough!"

Those named in the lawsuit and their families have been victims of
escalating abuse, including online harassment, physical assault
and an ongoing smear campaign cheered on by various so-called
"media" outlets.

The Haudenosaunee Confederacy, also known as the People of the
Longhouse, is a participatory democracy that has existed from time
immemorial.  The Confederacy, made up of the Mohawks, Oneidas,
Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas, was intended as a way to unite
the nations and create a peaceful means of decision making.
Through the Confederacy, each of the nations of the Haudenosaunee
are united by a common goal to live in harmony.  For the
Haudenosaunee, law, society and nature are equal partners and each
plays an important role.


HIGHMARK CONSTRUCTION: "Lopez" Action Seeks Recovery of OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Lopez on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Highmark Construction, LLP and Gabriel
Mattice, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01068, (D. Colo., May 1,
2017), seeks compensation for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime,
unpaid minimum wages at the applicable minimum wage rate,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs
and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys'
and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff and those similarly situated were or are employed by
Defendants as laborers in Defendants' construction business based
out of 3605 Golden Spur Loop, Castle Rock, Colorado 80108 with
Gabriel Mattice as owner and manager. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandt Milstein, Esq.
      MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
      595 Canyon Boulevard
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Tel: (303) 440-8780
      Email: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com


IDAHO, USA: Certification of "Brown" Suit as Class Action Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move to certify the lawsuit captioned Keith A.
Brown, et al. v. Keith Yordy, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00160-CWD
(D. Idaho), as a class action for the purpose of injunctive
relief.

Keith Yordy serves as warden of the Idaho State Correctional
Institution, a medium-security, men's prison south of Boise,
Idaho.  The Plaintiffs are inmates at the Institution.

Keith A. Brown, et al., contend that the Court has certified the
case entitled Balla v. Idaho, Case No. cv-81-1165-BLW, as
pertaining to "all persons confined at the Idaho Correctional
Institution . . . "  They assert that this information is relevant
to the Motion because all of the Plaintiffs are also plaintiffs in
the Balla Action, and all of the Plaintiffs' claims (except for
the retaliation claims) are the same as that of the Balla Action.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6kYskgBZ


K.B. SAND: Coate Seeks to Certify Drivers Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RAY COATE, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. K.B. SAND, INC.,
CHANCE MITCHELL, and HALEY MITCHELL, the Defendants, Case No.
5:17-cv-00333-M (W.D. Okla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act:

   1. conditionally certifying the action for purposes of notice
      and discovery on behalf of:

      "all current and former truck drivers who worked for K.B.
      Sand, Inc., Chance Mitchell and/or Haley Mitchell, at any
      time from three years before the date of mailing of this
      notice and were not paid overtime";

   2. directing that judicially-approved notice be sent to all
      Putative Class Members;

   3. approving the form and content of Plaintiffs proposed
      judicial notice and reminder notice;

   4. order Defendants to produce to Plaintiff's counsel the
      contact information (including the names, address,
      telephone number and e-mail address) for each Putative
      Class Member in a usable electronic format;

   5. authorizing a 60-day notice period for putative class
      members to join the case; and

   6. authorizing notice to be sent via First Class mail and e-
      mail to the Putative Class Members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4IElDFAa

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


KAISER FOUNDATION: Denied Treatment for Anorexia, Claims "Moura"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Moura, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-02475 (N.D. Cal., May 1, 2017), seeks payment of
benefits due to Plaintiff under the appropriate health care plan
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and
California Mental Health Parity Act, Unruh Civil Rights Act and
the California Medical Practices Act, an injunction requiring
Kaiser to pay benefits for treatment of anorexia nervosa and
bulimia nervosa covered by California benefit plans when such
treatment is medically necessary notwithstanding any plan language
that purports to exclude such treatment, disgorgement of profits,
Unruh Act payments and/or penalties, payment of pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, all costs and reasonable attorneys' fees
incurred in pursuing this action and such other and further
relief.

Ian Moura suffers anorexia nervosa, an eating disorder where he
tends to eat less than usual. However, eating disorders are
treatable and can be fully and successfully treated to remission.
Kaiser wrongfully denied Plaintiff's claim for treatment for this,
says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lisa S. Kantor, Esq.
      J. David Oswalt, Esq.
      KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
      19839 Nordhoff Street
      Northridge, CA 91324
      Telephone: (818) 886-2525
      Facsimile: (818) 350-6272
      Email: lkantor@kantorlaw.net
             doswalt@kantorlaw.net

             - and -

      Kathryn M. Trepinski, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KATHRYN M. TREPINSKI
      8840 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 333
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 201-0022
      Facsimile: (866) 201-2251
      Email: ktrepinski@trepinskilaw.com


KAISER FOUNDATION: Judge OKs Overtime Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deb Hipp, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that CAA
federal judge has approved a settlement for $500,000 on a
California overtime class action filed by housekeeping employees
of Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and hospital services company
Xanitos.

US District Judge William Orrick III called the settlement a "fair
and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute" in his April 27,
2017 order approving the settlement in the US District Court,
Northern District of California.

Class action lead plaintiff Paula Donald, who filed the overtime
lawsuit in Nov. 2014, claimed that she was initially classified as
an independent contractor when she was hired in 2010 by Xanitos
but the firm later reclassified her as an exempt employee,
according to Courthouse News Service.

"In a 2015 amended complaint, Ms. Donald said she and other
employees often worked 12-hour shifts and more than 40 hours a
week, but weren't paid overtime because they were reclassified,"
according to Courthouse News Service. "According to Donald, Kaiser
and Xanitos also failed to record the number of hours their
employees worked, and refused to allow them meal and rest breaks."

Xanitos signed an agreement with Kaiser Permanente of Southern
California in 2010 for a pilot program to manage environmental
services departments in several hospitals, according to Xanitos'
press release announcing the agreement.

Under the terms of the settlement, Kaiser and Xanitos will pay
$500,000 to independent contractors who provided environmental
services to Kaiser and Xanitos in California and management
employees that Xanitos classified as exempt.

The court awarded $150,000 in attorneys' fees and $9,500 in costs
to class counsel and a $2,500 enhancement award to class
representative Donald, according to court documents.

"The court approves the agreement and finds that it is a
reasonable compromise of the claims of plaintiff and the
settlement classes," Judge Orrick wrote in his ruling.  "It
achieves a definite and certain result for the benefit of the
settlement classes that is preferable to continuing litigation."


LOOMIS ARMORED: Judge Delays OKs of Proposed $2.2MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins at Law360 reports a California judge refused on May
5 to approve Loomis Armored's proposed USD2.2 million settlement
resolving a putative wage and hour class action, saying the cash-
handling servicer needs to first notify 16 workers who were
accidentally excluded from the deal due to an error in the
administration process.

During a hearing on a final settlement approval motion, Santa
Clara Superior Court Judge Brian C. Walsh told attorneys for
Loomis Armored USA LLC and its workers that although the
settlement is a good deal for the current 1,415 class members, he
can't sign off on it until the parties incorporate the 16 workers
who were inadvertently excluded.

"I'm here as a guardian of the class and I just don't know how I
can ignore these 16 people," Walsh said.

If approved, the settlement would resolve an October 2015 putative
class action alleging Loomis violated multiple state labor
statutes by failing to provide its route service employees --
including armoured-car drivers and custodians -- with meal and
rest breaks, failing to pay them on termination, failing to
provide accurate wage statements and failing to cover business
expenses.

Under the deal, class members will receive an average settlement
payment of USD1,011 and as much as USD4,175 in exchange for
releasing their wage and hour claims against their employer. The
settlement also includes a USD15,000 payment to the California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and USD726,000 in
attorneys' fees, according to court documents.

In February, Judge Walsh preliminarily approved the deal, but
after the first round of settlement notices were sent out, Loomis'
attorneys discovered 84 class members with qualifying work shifts
had been inadvertently omitted from the information provided to
the administrator. The parties agreed to mail an amended class
notice with a cover letter explaining the error, which Judge Walsh
approved.

The updated notices and cover letters were mailed on April 11, and
since, there have been no objections to the settlement and only
four workers have opted out of the deal, according to court
documents.

However, on May 3, the workers' counsel filed a supplemental
declaration indicating that there was another error in the
administration process, and a job classification that should have
been included in the class definition had been omitted.

During the hearing on May 5, Loomis' attorney JoAnna L. Brooks of
Littler Mendelson PC explained that her client didn't realize it
had excluded a small branch of the company that employed 16
workers when it searched its records for potential class members
by job codes.

"Unfortunately this job code just didn't appear on our radar," she
said.

Judge Walsh said it was clear to him that the 16 workers should be
included in the deal, but there's a question regarding how Loomis
should include them. If they are included in this settlement,
Loomis would be proposing a "slightly" new deal, which would
require another round of settlement notices to all parties. But
that will delay payments to class members who were expecting them
soon, the judge said.

The judge noted that Loomis could reach a separate agreement with
the 16 workers to resolve any potential claims outside of the
settlement. That would probably be cheaper than sending out
another round of notices to the entire class, the judge said. But
he acknowledged that it could also open a Pandora's Box of
problems for the company if those workers decided to lawyer up and
demand more.

Brooks indicated that Loomis wouldn't be open to separate
negotiations with the 16 workers. But she said at least one of the
16 workers has expressed interest in participating in the
settlement, and Loomis is willing to pay to send out a second
amended notice to the entire class in order to include the omitted
workers. It is a relatively small group of individuals, and it's
not going to significantly shift how much each class member will
receive, she said.

Kevin R. Allen of Velton Zegelman PC, who represents the workers,
said that at this point he would "go with whatever your honor
wants to do," but he said he was frustrated, particularly because
the dispute is so close to being resolved.

"I don't think they're being unreasonable at all, I just think the
delay is frustrating," Allen said.

Judge Walsh said he would continue the hearing on the pending
motion for final settlement approval, and allow the parties to
send out another round of notices to all class members including
the 16 workers. The notice will include a cover letter explaining
the mishap, and inform the members who opted out they don't need
to opt out again.

"I'm sorry it happened," Judge Walsh said at the end of the
hearing. "But it's a good deal."

The workers were represented by Kevin R. Allen --
employment@vzfirm.com -- of Velton Zegelman PC.

Loomis was represented by JoAnna L. Brooks -- jbrooks@littler.com
-- of Littler Mendelson PC.

The case is Reynaga et al. v. Loomis Armored US, case number 2015-
1-CV-287016, in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara. [GN]


LOS ANGELES, CA: Garris et al. Seek Certification of Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BRANDI GARRIS, JOHN SWITZER and JASON
TEAGUE, the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES and LOS ANGELES
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT DEPARTMENT, f/k/a LOS ANGELES
HOUSING DEPARTMENT, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01452-MWF-E
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on June 12, 2017,
at 10:00 a.m., for an order certifying two Classes:

Landlord Class:

   "all landlords who, between October 9, 2014 and class
   certification, owned a residential rental property subject to
   the Los Angeles Housing Code, Section 161.101 to 161.1201, and
   paid a fee pursuant to Section 161.352"; and

Renter Class:

   "all renters who, between October 9, 2014 and class
   certification, rented a residential rental unit subject to the
   Los Angeles Housing Code, Section 161.101 to 161.1201, and
   paid a fee pursuant to Section 161.352".

Plaintiffs seek certification of both Classes for claims arising
under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and under 42
U.S.C. section 1983.

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court that Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
and Sullivan be appointed as class counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TNrEtFx2

Attorneys for Brandi Garris, John Switzer and Jason Teague:

          Dominic Surprenant, Esq.
          Michael Lombardo, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
          Telephone: (213) 443 3000
          Facsimile: (213) 443 3100
          E-mail: dominicsurprenant@quinnemanuel.com
                  mikelombardo@quinnemanuel.com


LUCAS INDUSTRIES: Class Certification Sought in "Johnson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled TIMOTHY JOHNSON, TERRY
PRINCE, and GARNETT KINKADE on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. LUCAS INDUSTRIES LLC and BILLY D. JOHNS,
Case No. 4:16-cv-01411-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), submit to the Court their
motion for conditional class certification and request for
discovery.

The lawsuit is a collective action for unpaid overtime under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiffs allege that, although
they worked significant overtime hours (in excess of 40 hours per
workweek) while employed by the Defendants, the Defendants refused
to pay them time-and-a-half overtime to which they were legally
entitled.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=674I3l1t

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
          Katie R. McGregor, Esq.
          BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
          440 Louisiana St., Suite 2100
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 425-7100
          Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
          E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com
                  kmcgregor@bpblaw.com


MAJOR LEAGUE: Judge Halts Minor League Wage Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Derek Heling at Fansided reports that a California judge has
halted the case's progression to allow MLB to appeal an earlier
ruling that certified the lawsuit as a class action.

For the third time since the inception of the minor league wage
lawsuit alleging that MLB is in violation of federal and state
minimum wage and overtime laws, the question of whether minor
league players can take part in the suit as a collective is up in
the air.

In March, a class of all players who appeared in California League
games since February 7, 2011 along with all players who had
participated in spring training, extended spring training or
instructional leagues and hadn't signed a major league contract
before that same date were certified as a class by federal
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.

It's that ruling that MLB sought an opportunity to appeal, and
that's exactly what MLB got on May 5.

The question of whether or not the common practices of minor
league baseball franchises are lawful or not is currently
irrelevant. Right now, the only matter of importance is whether or
not the group of players that were certified as a class by Spero
can legitimately be defined as a collective.

The March decision was the third time that Spero had ruled on the
matter. In October of 2015, Spero certified a preliminary class of
over 10,000 current and former minor league baseball players. Then
in July of 2016, Spero reversed course and reduced the number of
plaintiffs to the original 32 who filed the suit.

Counsel for the plaintiffs revised their approach and petitioned
the court for a different certification in February, which
prompted Spero's March ruling. Now, the case is seemingly right
back where it started.

There's no hope of this matter being resolved soon, as appeals to
federal circuit courts often take months if not years. It's
possible that many of the players who would currently be part of
the most-recently certified class could be in the majors or out of
baseball by the time the matter is decided.

If the circuit court sides with Spero, the suit can proceed as a
class-action affair. That would give it the potential to
significantly affect change in the landscape of minor league
baseball. Although the class would not be as broad as the original
class of thousands, a ruling in the plaintiffs' favor would set a
legal precedent which other players in other states could use in
court.

If the circuit court rules in MLB's favor, then the status of this
suit reverts to a minor affair between MLB and the 32 original
plaintiffs. It's more likely to result in a settlement out of
court, if anything, at that point. It's possible the plaintiffs
might drop the suit altogether, as its potential to affect
legitimate, widespread changes will have been severely diminished.

How the circuit court will rule remains to be seen. What's certain
is that this case that is already two years old is going to age a
lot more before a resolution is reached. [GN]


MARBLECAST OF MICHIGAN: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Victoria A. Roberts entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned GARNER PROPERTIES & MANAGEMENT, LLC, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. MARBLECAST OF MICHIGAN, INC. and AMERICAN WOODMARK
CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-11439-VAR-MKM (E.D.
Mich.), denying without prejudice Plaintiff's placeholder motion
for class certification.

The Court said, "In [Wilson v. Gordon, 822 F.3d 934, 942 (6th Cir.
2016)], the Sixth Circuit confirmed that district courts could
still apply the "picking off" exception. Id. at 951 ("In sum, we
hold that the district court had an adequate basis on which to
conclude that the 'picking off' exception applies to this case. As
in Blankenship [v. Sec'y of HEW, 587 F.2d 329 (6th Cir.1978)],
absent application of the exception 'the defendants may expedite
processing for . . . plaintiffs named in a suit while continuing
to allow long delays with respect to . . . other applicants. . . .
[R]efusal to consider a class-wide remedy merely because
individual class members no longer need relief would mean that no
remedy could ever be provided for continuing abuses.'" (first
alteration added)).  In light of Wilson, Plaintiff's class action
will not become moot if Defendants "pick off" its individual
claims. A placeholder class certification is, therefore,
unnecessary. See Compressor Eng'g Corp. v. Comfort Control Supply
Co., No. 16-11726, 2016 WL 4502467 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 29, 2016)".

On May 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint alleging
that Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227, by sending unsolicited facsimiles to Plaintiff
and at least 39 others. That same day, Plaintiff filed a motion
for a placeholder class certification "to avoid an attempt by
Defendant(s) to moot Plaintiff's individual claims in this class
action."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=P6L2Vdwd


MARKSMEN LANDSCAPING: Court Conditionally Certifies Laborer Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ANDREW JENNINGS, the Plaintiff, v. MARKSMEN
LANDSCAPING, LLC, ANTHONY MARKS, individually, LINDA MARKS,
individually, SCOTT MARKS, individually, and FRANK MARKS,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00779-RMB-KMW
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Hon. Renee Marie Bumb entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion to authorize notice to
      potential class members; and

   2. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all laborers, however titled, not compensated by all
      overtime hours, employed by Defendants at any time from
      February 15, 2013, to the present".

The Court said, "Within 10 days of the date of this order, the
Defendants shall deliver to Plaintiffs' counsel a list in the form
of Excel spreadsheet containing the full name, date(s) and
location(s) of employment, job title(s), address(es), date of
birth and telephone number(s) for each of the current and former
laborers, however titled, who provided services for one or more
weeks in furtherance of the business of Defendants at any time
from February 15, 2013, to the After Plaintiffs' counsel receives
all such information from Defendants, Plaintiffs' counsel is
authorized to give notice to the individuals in the conditionally
certified class and shall do so within a reasonable time from
delivery".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=52yCT9wc


METRO TECH: Faces "Conn" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Ark. Min. Wage Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER CONN, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated vs. METRO TECH SERVICE CORP., Case No. 4:17-cv-00295-JLH
(E.D. Ark., May 2, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff was only
compensated for time worked beginning one hour after he left his
home for the day and ending one hour before he arrived back at his
home at the end of the workday.  However, Plaintiff was regularly
required to perform compensable work outside of the time period
with which Defendant allowed Plaintiff to be on the clock.  The
actions allegedly violated the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

METRO TECH SERVICE CORP. -- http://www.metrotechhvac.com/--
offers services including installation, replacement, repair and
maintenance of retail store air conditioning and heating units.
Defendant hires individuals including Plaintiff as "HVAC
employees" whose duties are to drive to service locations, install
or replace HVAC units, and repair and service HVAC units.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


METROPOLITAN MUSEUM: Asks Court to Approve Proposed Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Gortan at Law360 reports attorneys for museumgoers and the
Metropolitan Museum of Art asked a New York state judge on May 5
to give final approval to a settlement in a putative class action
that accused the cultural institution of deceptive advertising in
connection with its recommended USD25 entrance fee.

Plaintiffs' attorney Andrew G. Celli Jr. of Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP told New York Supreme Court Judge Shirley
Werner Kornreich that the museum, to its credit, changed the
signage last year as soon as the proposed settlement was agreed,
to reflect clearly its "pay what you wish" admission policy and
that the USD25 entrance fee is merely a suggested admission.

"The amount you pay is up to you," Celli said, quoting from a
display of the revised signage. "There can be no clearer statement
of pay what you wish than 'the amount you pay is up to you.'"

While Judge Kornreich did not rule from the bench -- the late
afternoon hearing ran past the court's normal closing time -- she
made no effort to hide her approval.

"I think there is a vast difference, I will tell you, between the
signs. Counsel did a great job," she said, adding later: "I think
this is a tremendous settlement."

As part of the agreement, which is to run for 78 months, the
museum agreed to bring any proposed changes in signage to Judge
Kornreich for approval.

Met attorney Bruce R. Kelly of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
told the judge that a new admission policy requiring new signage
has already been proposed, with pay what you wish retained only
for residents of New York state.

"We anticipate being before Your Honor again when the new policy
is enacted," Kelly said.

He denied that the museum's past practice had been deceptive,
saying the judge would have heard a "whole different side to the
argument" had a deal not been struck.

Michael S. Hiller of Hiller PC, representing objector Theodore
Grunewald, one of the plaintiffs in another suit against the Met,
urged Judge Kornreich to scuttle the deal, saying an 1893 statute
requires the museum to set aside certain days for free admission,
and that allowing the museum to insist on even a de minimis
entrance fee conflicts with a statute that is still on the books.

Judge Kornreich had earlier dismissed Gruenwald's claims based on
that premise, saying Grunewald did not have standing to bring the
claims, and an appeals court affirmed her decision.

"If there's a problem ... then the government, which does have
standing, can bring an action," she told Hiller on May 5.

After court, Hiller told Law360, "We continue to hold out hope
that the court will not place its judicial stamp of approval upon
a settlement which, on its face, violates a New York state law."

Counsel for the Met declined to comment after court, but
plaintffs' lawyer Celli said, "It's important that this litigation
be completed with fairness and clarity for the public."

The putative class is represented by Andrew G. Celli Jr. --
acelli@ecbalaw.com -- of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP.

The Met is represented by Bruce R. Kelly -- bruce.kelly@apks.com -
- Michael B. Gerrard -- Michael.gerrard@apks.com -- and Ian Jay --
ian.jay@apks.com -- of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.

Grunewald is represented by Michael S. Hiller of Hiller PC.

The cases are Filip Saska et al. v. The Metropolitan Museum of
Art, case number 650775/2013, and Theodore Grunewald et al. v. The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, case number 158002/2012, both in the
New York Supreme Court, County of New York.[GN]


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ex-Players Claim Attys Take Too Much of Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Lopez at WFAA reports that he was a beast on the football
field blocking for Hall of Fame running back Marcus Allen while
with the Oakland Raiders.

At Penn State, Steve Smith was a captain of the 1986 National
Championship team.

But the once strong fullback's body began to fail him.

"He was tripping and falling. He had weakness in his hands that he
noticed," his wife Chie Smith told WFAA.

6 years after retiring from the NFL, Smith was diagnosed with ALS,
a disease that attacks cells in the brain and spinal cord.

He can no longer walk, speak, or move. His wife remembers the
night he could no longer breath on his own.

"He just looked like he was not getting enough air not gasping but
he could barely talk. His face looked like it was melting."

For 11 years now he's spent his life on a ventilator and bedridden
in his home.

"Our lives center around his daily care."

Doctors believe Smith's brain disease is a result of repeated
blows and concussions to his head playing football. It's called
Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy or CTE.

Smith now only communicates through a computer which allows him to
type with his eyes.

"Did you have any idea that concussions and playing football would
lead to ALS?"

Smith typed, "never."

Thousands of ex-pro football players with CTE filed a class action
lawsuit against the NFL.

They settled the case for just over a billion dollars.

Players like Smith are set to receive 5 million dollars each and
that's money Smith's wife needs to help care for him.

"It's depleted our life savings."

But now the families have a new problem...their own attorneys.

Some of the attorneys want 25-40 percent of what the players are
getting.

That's on top of the 112.5 million dollars from the NFL that the
attorneys are splitting.

"We are thinking we are over and done with and now we have a new
battle on our hands."

Chie Smith fired her attorney and is now being represented for
free by lawyer Cat Watters.

Watters says attorneys should not be entitled to both the fees
from the class action lawsuit and individual fees because they did
not do separate work for each person.

"In Steve Smith's case, prior attorney has not shown the court
that they performed individual work for Steve smith in order to
collect fee."

Smith's former attorney is filing for a lien on their award so
they won't be able to collect.

More than a dozen NFL wives including Chie Smith are asking the
judge to intervene and stop the attorneys from taking the money.

Steve Smith now says if he knew playing football would lead to all
of this he would never have played. [GN]


NATIONAL GRID: Faces "Burdier" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Burdier, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Grid USA Service Company, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03217 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2017), alleges
that Defendant knowingly and/or willfully placed automated calls
to Plaintiff's cellular phone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.  It specifically alleges that National
Grid calls old or bad numbers for its customers, resulting in
unwanted autodialed calls being placed to unsuspecting consumers.

National Grid -- https://www.nationalgridus.com/ -- is one of the
largest investor-owned energy companies in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
     LEMBERG LAW, LLC
     43 Danbury Road
     Wilton, CT 06897
     Phone: (203) 653-2250
     Fax: (203) 653-3424


NCAA: Judge Dismisses Players' Wage, OT Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Katie Scott, writing for Employee Benefits, reports that a US
district judge has dismissed a class-action lawsuit that sought to
provide the minimum wage and overtime pay to American football
players for university sports teams in the US.

The case, which was heard at the California Northern District
Court, was brought by Lamar Dawson, a former American football
player for the University of Southern California, against the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the Pac-12
Conference, a collegiate athletics network.

Dawson argued that the NCAA and Pac-12 were joint employers of
student athletes who played in the Division 1 Football Bowl
Subdivision (FBS), on behalf of the US universities that were
members of these associations.

On this basis, Mr. Dawson claimed that he was denied full pay for
hours worked, including overtime pay, and was permitted to work
without receiving the minimum wage.  This, he claimed, was a
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
California Labor Code.

Mr. Dawson contended that American football student athletes play
for the economic benefit of the NCAA, and Division 1 football
players generate income for their respective universities.
However, the judge found that case law does not support the
premise that revenue generation determines employment status.

The case, which was filed in September 2016, was dismissed without
leave to amend by district judge Richard Seeborg on 25 April 2017.
He concluded that there was no legal grounding to classify student
American football players as employees.

In the judgment, Judge Seeborg said: "Leaving aside the policy
question of whether and how Division 1 FBS college football
players should be compensated, there is simply no legal basis for
finding them to be 'employees' under the FLSA.  The guidance from
the Department of Labor weighs against such a finding, as do the
decisions from courts that have considered the issue.  Dawson's
FLSA claim must therefore be dismissed."

Mark Rifkin, partner at law firm Wolf Haldenstein, which
represented Mr. Dawson, said: "We believe the court's decision
dismissing Mr Dawson's wage and hour complaint is inconsistent
with [ninth] circuit precedent. In O'Bannon [v NCAA], the [ninth]
circuit described the exchange of labor for consideration. Given
the NCAA's control over the work performed by the football players
and over their compensation, the relationship is one of employer
and employee."

Donald Remy, chief legal officer at the NCAA, added: "The NCAA is
pleased that the District Court dismissed the Dawson case.  As we
have said in this case and others before it, there is no legal
support for the idea that college athletics participation makes a
student a university employee.  Playing college sports allows
students to get a quality education and build skills to prepare
them for success after college.  It is unfortunate we must
continue to expend resources on cases that copy previously
dismissed lawsuits."

Larry Scott, commissioner at Pac-12, said: "We are pleased with
the ruling as it reaffirms our conviction that college athletes
are students at our universities and not employees.  We remain
committed to meeting the evolving needs of college athletes, and
support the court's decision to uphold amateurism as integral to
college spirits and our universities' academic missions."


NEBRASKA: Court Denied Class Certification in "Johnson" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JAMES D. JOHNSON, the Petitioner, v. SCOTT
R. FRAKES, Nebraska, Department of Correctional Services Director,
the Respondent, Case No. 8:17-cv-00039-RGK-PRSE (D. Neb.), the
Hon. Senior District Judge Richard G. Kopf entered an order on May
9, 2017:

   1. denying Daryl D. Eskridge's motion to intervene, motion to
      certify class and appoint counsel, and motion for leave
      to proceed in forma pauperis; and

   2. denying Scotty R. Glassco's motion to intervene, motion to
      certify class and to appoint counsel, and motion for leave
      to proceed in forma pauperis.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bjgLH6ze


NFL: Scammers Eye Ex-Players Linked to Concussion Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Josh Kosman, writing for New York Post, reports that for some NFL
vets, getting their fair share of a $1 billion concussion
settlement might feel like dodging tackles on the gridiron.

A slew of alleged scammers have been targeting ex-NFL players as
they line up to apply for funds that are expected to range between
$300,000 and $5 million each, as the league prepares to start
paying its settlement of a six-year-old class-action suit charging
that it hid the potential dangers of concussions.

Targets have included former Miami Dolphins cornerback Don McNeal,
who suffers from multiple sclerosis and dementia after an NFL
career that spanned from 1980 to 1989.  In an interview, McNeal
said he has been forced to resist offers for predatory loans as he
scrapes by with an NFL pension that's worth less than $28,000 a
year.

"I didn't do it. I wasn't tempted," McNeal, 59, told The Post,
holding out hopes that he'll be able to keep between 65 and 70
percent of his settlement after lawyers and Medicaid get their
cut.

Other players, anticipating they'll finally see their money late
next year as they scramble to meet an August application deadline,
haven't been so disciplined. About 10 percent of those in the
settlement class, which comprises about 20,000 former NFL players,
have taken out loans against their expected awards, according to
an estimate by one lawyer representing the players.

"It's worrisome but there are these guys [lenders] that have taken
advantage of the former NFL players," said the lawyer, who asked
not to be identified amid the pending litigation. "Most of these
guys [players] have bad credit. I have dissuaded a few of them
from taking loans."

The lawyer said his firm has received permission from its lender
to use some of its $10 million credit line for loans against their
settlements with interest rates of about 7 percent.

Meanwhile, a pitch to former players obtained by The Post from a
firm called Trial Fund Manager LLC was offering loans with rates
of 24 percent -- which it called "low cost capital" -- better, it
said, than competing loans charging 40 percent a year against
potential concussion settlements.

Trial Fund Manager lawyer Anoush Hakimi told The Post his firm
decided after advertising its services not to make concussion
settlement loans.

In Februrary, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman
announced he was suing Cresskill, NJ-based RD Legal Funding for
allegedly making costly advances to former players "by lying about
the terms of the deals." RD has said the claims are "without
merit."

In mid-March, five former NFL players who had registered for the
settlement appeared to be working with a company called NFL Case
Consulting which, despite its name, isn't affiliated with the NFL,
according to court papers recently filed by the league's claims
administrator.

A dozen more players told the administrator, BrownGreen PLC, they
had received letters or calls from NFL Case Consulting.

One former NFL player, who asked to remain anonymous, says NFL
Case Consulting knew his Social Security number when it contacted
him, claiming to be part of the NFL and asking for a 15 percent
contingency fee to get his settlement processed.

"Their literature has NFL all over it appearing to be the NFL,"
the former player said in March when alerting the NFL claims
administrator, according to papers filed in Philadelphia's US
District Court.

A second player told the claims administrator that NFL Consulting
"called me and some of my retired buddies . . . representing
themselves as calling from the NFL's case-management department."

"They're telling us that in order to register for the NFL
concussion money, they will send me documents that need to be
signed.  They told me that they will pay for my doctor diagnosis
and travel up to $10,000 and if I don't sign with them, I won't
get a settlement," according to the player, whose name wasn't
given in court papers.

Christopher Seeger -- who, as co-lead counsel in the class-action
suit, has lately fielded complaints himself over attorneys fees in
the case -- has filed an injunction against NFL Case Consulting to
stop it from improperly communicating with the settlement class.

In a February status conference with US District Judge Anita
Brody, Seeger said some of his clients were being "preyed upon"
with offers of "loans that were 'likely illegal.'"  Mr. Seeger
told the judge that he had likewise warned players to "be aware of
certain predatory lending practices."

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told The Post that the league has
supported Seeger's efforts in "ensuring that retired players will
not be misled into believing that communications from [NFL Case
Consulting] came from the NFL."

Richard Scheff, a lawyer representing NFL Case Consulting, told
The Post in a written statement that the recent allegations that
turned up in court papers "are from anonymous sources which cannot
be tested directly and we dispute the accuracy of what has been
alleged."

Still, Mr. Scheff added that the firm is "working to assuage some
concerns."  Late last month, Mr. Scheff, of law firm Montgomery
McCracken, told the court in a letter that NFL Case Consulting is
changing its name to Case Strategies Group.  From now on,
Mr. Scheff wrote, the firm will use disclaimers stating it is not
a law firm nor is affiliated with or endorsed by the NFL or the
court.


OPEN HEARTS PERSONAL: Faces "Bloodworth" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fannie K. Bloodworth, Tedra Pryor and Julius Watson, Plaintiffs v.
Open Hearts Personal Care Homes, LLC and Dianna A. Clarkson,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01373-LMM (N.D. Ga., April 18, 2017)
seeks payment for unpaid wages, overtime wages, liquidated
damages, actual damages and compensatory damages for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint says Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to
compensate Plaintiffs by failing to fully compensate them for
their straight time wages as well as her overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of forty hours.

Plaintiffs Bloodworth and Watson were employed as Direct Care
Staff of the Defendants.

Plaintiff Pryor was employed by the Company in the position of
Assistant Facility Manager ("AFM").

Open Hearts Personal Care Homes, provides a home environment for
every individual.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Christopher D. Vaughn, Esq.
   Frank DeMelfi, Esq.
   A. Brian Henson, Esq.
   The Vaughn Law Firm, LLC
   Decatur, GA 30030
   Tel: 404-378-1290
   Fax: 404-378-1295


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Role in Ponzi Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
MENAFN reports that PayPal Holdings Inc was accused by victims of
an alleged Ponzi scheme of failing to detect the fraud while
processing more than 100m in investments.

Even after the company had banned the operator of the internet
advertising 'pay-to-click programme from using its services in
2011 over his involvement in a similar scheme, PayPal played 'a
crucial indeed, indispensable -- role in letting him siphon and
steal investor money, according to a May 4 complaint in federal
court in San Jose, California.

The operator, Charles David Scoville, was sued last year for fraud
by the US Securities and Exchange Commission over claims that he
and his business, Traffic Monsoon, took in 207m from more than
162,000 investors worldwide.  The investors bought internet
advertising products from Traff Monsoon.  In exchange, they were
promised visits to their websites and clicks on banners on their
websites.

The agency won an injunction in Utah federal court freezing
Traffic Monsoon's assets.  Traffic Monsoon is appealing the order
and argues that because it was selling advertising rather than
securities, it couldn't have violated securities laws, according
to a court filing.

The investors suing PayPal, who seek class-action status, say the
company served as the payment processor for about 134m in
investments in Traffic Monsoon.  They're seeking at least 5m in
damages.

"We look forward to refuting these claims, PayPal spokeswoman
Ellen Hayes said.  "Beyond that, we do not have any further
comment on this pending litigation.





PESEK INC: Faces "Hagaman" Suit Over Non-Payment of Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Hagaman, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Pesek, Inc., Nickolivia, LLC and George
Pesek, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00289 (N.D. Ind., April 18,
2017) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum
wage pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants' failure to pay minimum wage as required by the FLSA
results from a policy or practice applicable to Hagaman and the
Members of the Class. Application of this policy or practice does
not depend on the personal circumstances of Hagaman or those
joining this lawsuit. Rather, the same policy or practice that
resulted in Defendants' failure to properly pay the earned minimum
wages of Hagaman applied to all Members of the Class, says the
complaint.

Hagaman and other similarly situated employees are current and
former servers at Defendants' restaurants.

Defendants own and operate a restaurant and bar at Corndance
Tavern and Evil Czech Brewery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
   The Law Office of Robert J. Hunt, LLC
   3091 E. 98th Street, Suite 280
   Indianapolis, IN 46280
   Tel: (317) 743-0614
   Fax: (317) 743-0615
   Email: rob@indianawagelaw.com


PETRO INC: Faces "Donnenfeld" Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
M. Norman Donnenfeld, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Petro, Inc. d/b/a Petro Home
Services, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02310-JFB-SIL (E.D. N.Y.,
April 18, 2017) seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief,
restitution and/or disgorgement of profits, statutory damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and all other relief available to the Class
for violation of New York General Business Law.

The complaint asserts that Defendant fraudulently concealed from
and/or intentionally failed to disclose to Plaintiff, the Class,
and the Sub-Class that they were committing to purchase heating
oil from Petro for a year (and for the Sub-Class incurring a
substantial early termination fee) by switching to a ceiling price
plan which offered no benefit over the fixed price plan.

Defendants intentionally concealed and/or failed to disclose the
pattern or policy of not reducing the price per gallon of ceiling
price plan members as oil prices dropped for the purpose of
inducing Plaintiff and the Class to act thereon.

Petro Home Services provides services related to heating and air
conditioning systems.  Petro, Inc. offers heating and air
conditioning equipment installation, plumbing, chimney cleaning,
and home security services; and commercial and small business
services.  Petro Holdings Inc. distributes home heating oil,
gasoline and diesel fuel.  The Company also produces oil and gas
and is based in Stamford, Connecticut.  Petro Holdings operates as
a subsidiary of Star/Petro, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Diane E. Sammons, Esq.
   Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
   Randee M. Matloff, Esq.
   Nagel Rice, LLP
   230 Park Avenue
   New York, NY 10169


PIRON LLC: Ali et al. Seek Conditionally Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SUHAIL ALI, SHALAN ALMANSOOB, QASEM SALEH,
and KASSEM DUBAISHI, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiffs, v.
PIRON, LLC, STEVE HANNAH, CRAIG MONROE, REYNOLDS QUALITY
INSTALLATIONS, LLC, RODERICK REYNOLDS JR., AERO COMMUNICATIONS,
INC, and COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT LLC, a Michigan
for-profit company, and owners of said Michigan for-profit
company, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-11012-LVP-DRG (E.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an Order:

   1. conditionally certifying the action as a collective action;

   2. appointing The Law Offices of Bryan Yaldou, PLLC, as
      counsel for all employees who join this action without
      counsel of their own;

   3. approving an attached form of Notice to be mailed and
      e-mailed to affected employees by a third-party claims
      administrator;

   4. requiring Defendant to identify and produce the names,
      addresses, and e-mail addresses of affected employees in a
      computer-readable format within 30 days; and

   5. allowing 60 days after receipt of the Notice for employees
      to opt in to this case if they so choose.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Tr2NScaV

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
          Omar Badr, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
          23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
          Brownstown, MI 48134
          Telephone: (734) 692 9200
          Facsimile: (734) 692 9201
          E-mail: bryan@yaldoulaw.com


PPG INDUSTRIES: AMOS et al. Seek Certification of Retirees Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned PATRICIA L. AMOS, JAMES S. HUTCHISON,
SALLY JONES, GEORGE OWENS, TERRY TAYLOR, JOHN FOSTER, ALEX OLSZYK,
JOHN W. ZUZIK, ARTHUR RAMOZ, ROBERT RATLEFF, JOHN P. DETTY,
VIRGINIA BAKEMAN, WILLIAM BRISON, MARK BRYAN, SHIRLEY M. BRYAN,
RICHARD FISCHER, LINDSAY T. GRANGER, EDWARD LUCENTE, and RICHARD
ROSS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.; PPG INDUSTRIES OHIO, INC.;
PPG RETIREMENT PLANS; GEORGIA GULF CORPORATION; AXIALL
CORPORATION; and JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 20, the Defendants, Case No.
2:05-cv-00070-MHW-TPK (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs move for
certification of a class of:

   "all collectively bargained past, present, and future retirees
   of PPG (as well as the spouses, surviving spouses, and
   eligible dependents of these retirees) who:

   (1) while employed by PPG, were represented by the USW, the
       UAW, the IAM, the Alkali Workers, or the ICWUC (the
       "Unions")1;

   (2) were eligible for retiree medical coverage pursuant to the
       terms of collectively bargained agreements and provisions
       between any Union and PPG; and

   (3) retired from, or before final judgment in this litigation
       will retire from, the following PPG facilities, on or
       after the dates indicated: Barberton (3/1/90); Circleville
       (10/1/86); Creighton (2/16/84); Crystal City (2/16/84);
       Cumberland (2/16/84); Delaware (2/16/86); Ford City
       (2/16/84); Fresno (5/16/84); Greensburg (3/25/84); Lake
       Charles (5/15/87); Mt. Zion (6/15/84); Natrium (3/1/87);
       and Springdale (11/1/84),

as well as surviving spouses of active employees who have died
before final judgment in this litigation and who at the time of
such employees' death worked at one of the listed facilities (on
or after the dates indicated), were represented by a Union, and
were eligible to retire under the pension plan or with a Social
Security benefit, making their spouse eligible for retiree medical
coverage pursuant to the terms of collectively bargained
agreements and provisions between any Union and PPG.

Specifically excluded from the Class are employees who were hired
after the dates that PPG and the Unions negotiated that persons
hired at those facilities after those dates were not entitled to
retiree health benefits under an ERISA governed plan (plus their
spouses and beneficiaries) if they subsequently retired.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of two claims on behalf of the
Class as to Defendants PPG Industries, Inc., PPG Industries Ohio,
Inc., and PPG Retirement Plans; plus John Does 1 Through 20
(collectively, "PPG"):

Count I: Violation of labor agreements, actionable under Section
301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C.
section 185(a).

Count II: Violation of Class Members' rights under employee
benefit plans, actionable under Sections 502(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3)
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"),
29 U.S.C. sections 1132(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yuEup70I

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy F. Cogan, Esq.
          CASSIDY, COGAN SHAPELL & VOEGELIN, L.C.
          The First State Capitol
          1413 Eoff Street
          Wheeling, WV 26003
          Telephone: (304) 232 8100
          Facsimile: (304) 232 8200
          E-mail: tfc@cmcvlaw.com

               - and -

          Barry A. Macey, Esq.
          MACEY, SWANSON & ALLMAN
          445 N. Pennsylvania St., Ste. 401
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 637 2345
          Facsimile: (317) 637 2369
          E-mail: bmacey@maceylaw.com

               - and -

          Barry A. Macey, Esq.
          MACEY, SWANSON & ALLMAN
          445 N. Pennsylvania St., Ste. 401
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 637 2345
          Facsimile: (317) 637 2369
          E-mail: bmacey@maceylaw.com

               - and -

          William T. Payne, Esq.
          Ellen M. Doyle, Esq.
          Pamina Ewing, Esq.
          Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
          Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC LLC
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281 8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281 1007
          E-mail: wpayne@fdpklaw.com
                  edoyle@fdpklaw.com
                  pewing@fdpklaw.com
                  jhurt@fdpklaw.com
                  rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com


PTT: Indonesia Gov't Sues for $2-Bil. Over Oil Spill
----------------------------------------------------
Agustinus Beo De Costa at Euronews reports that the Indonesian
government is suing Thailand's state-owned PTT and PTT Exploration
and Production for around USD2 billion for alleged damage to the
environment from an oil spill in the Timor Sea eight years ago.
The Montara wellhead operated by subsidiary PTTEP Australasia
caught fire in 2009, leaking hundreds of thousands of litres of
oil off the northern coast of Western Australia, according to
media reports at the time.

The incident was considered one of Australia's worst oil
disasters, and PTTEP was fined AUD510,000 (USD394,000, GBP303,474)
by a Darwin court after pleading guilty in 2011 to charges related
to workplace health and safety and failure to maintain good
oilfield practice.

Indonesia alleges, however, that the oil spill also fouled
seawater and coastal areas in the nation's East Nusa Tenggara
province, and filed a lawsuit on May 3 in a Jakarta court against
PTT, PTTEP and PTTEP Australasia, seeking 27.5 trillion rupiah
(USD2.1 billion) for damages and restoration costs.

PTTEP Australasia "has not shown good intention in resolving the
pollution problem of the Montara oil spill," Indonesia's maritime
coordinating ministry said in a statement on May 5. Besides
polluting seawater, the incident also damaged mangrove forests,
coral reefs and seagrass fields in East Nusa Tenggara province,
the ministry said.

PTTEP said in an emailed statement that it was aware of reports
about Indonesia's lawsuit, but that it "has not been served with
proceedings and has not received any notification of the substance
or extent of the claim." PTTEP has always acted cooperatively and
"in good faith" in its past discussions with the Indonesian
government, and will continue to do so, it said.

PTTEP Australasia maintains its position that "no oil from Montara
reached the shores of Indonesia and that no long-term damage was
done to the environment in the Timor Sea," the company said. In a
separate class action suit, around 15,000 Indonesian seaweed
farmers are seeking more than AUD200 million (USD152 million) from
PTTEP Australasia to cover damages from the spill. The next
hearing in the class action suit is due to take place at the end
of this month, according to their legal team. [GN]


RIVERSIDE, CA: Garcia Moves to Certify Class of Wrong Arrestees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MARIO ALBERTO GARCIA,
individually and as class representative v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE;
RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; LEE BACA, in both his personal and
individual capacity; and DOES 1 through 10, both their personal
and official capacities, Case No. 5:13-cv-00616-JGB-SP (C.D.
Cal.), moves the Court for an order certifying a "Wrongful
Incarceration Class" defined as those:

   (1) Booked into an LASD jail at any time on or after
       November 26, 2010, through the present, based on one
       or more Los Angeles court bench warrants entered in CWS
       [(County Warrant System)]; and

   (2) Was released because it was determined that the person was
       not the subject of the CWS warrant(s); and

   (3) LASD personnel had actual knowledge that the warrant
       subject's CII [(Criminal Investigation and
       Identification)] number did not match to the CII number of
       the person booked on the warrant or LASD personnel had
       actual knowledge that the warrant subject's LA Main number
       did not match to the LA Main number of the person booked
       on the warrant.

The action concerns the refusal of Defendants County of Los
Angeles ("LA County") its Sheriff's Department ("LASD") to utilize
the readily available information and existing identification
systems to accurately identify the subjects of bench warrants
issued by the Los Angeles Superior Court, and to institute simple,
common-sense processes to insure that when a person is arrested on
a warrant, personnel utilize those unique identifiers law
enforcement created years ago to address the problem of different
persons sharing the same and/or similar names, birthdates,
physical descriptors, and the problems of persons using aliases,
stealing others identities, etc.

As a result, persons who like Mr. Garcia are not the subject of
warrants, are arrested on warrants meant for others, the Plaintiff
contends.  Moreover, he asserts, whenever someone is arrested on a
warrant, the warrant is removed from the various data systems law
enforcement uses to check for outstanding warrants.  So, he points
out, if the wrong person is arrested on the warrant, the warrant's
intended subject will no longer face arrest on the warrant.  In
other words, the actual criminal gets a free pass, the Plaintiff
tells the Court.

The Court will commence a hearing on May 22, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vxBCz58A

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald W. Cook, Esq.
          DONALD W. COOK, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 252-9444
          Facsimile: (213) 252-0091
          E-mail: manncook@earthlink.net


SARATOGA DIAGNOSTICS: Dimensions Medical's Class Cert. Bid Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Dimensions Medical Center, Ltd., et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. Saratoga Diagnostics, Inc., et al., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-05608 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. District Judge Ronald
A. Guzman entered an order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of:

   "each person who was sent one or more telephone facsimile
   advertisements by Saratoga Diagnostics Inc. between January
   2015 and December 2016, promoting a cosmetic training course
   or CME approved aesthetics workshop by Saratoga Diagnostics
   Inc. or the Saratoga CME institute".

The Plaintiffs may file an amended motion for class certification
addressing only the Rule 23(b) issues within 21 days.  A status
and default hearing has been set for May 30, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z4irJYro


SEMACONNECT INC: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled E & G, INC., a West Virginia corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. SEMACONNECT INC., a Maryland
corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
02774 (S.D. W.Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
      filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
      messages of material advertising the commercial
      availability or quality of any property, goods, or services
      by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3) from whom Defendants
      did not obtain "prior express invitation or permission" to
      send fax advertisements, or (4) with whom Defendants did
      not have an established business relationship, or (5) where
      the fax advertisements did not include an opt-out notice
      compliant with 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(a)(4)(iii)".

      Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, their employees
      and agents, and members of the Judiciary. Plaintiff
      reserves the right to amend the class definition upon
      completion of class certification discovery.

   2. appointing Plaintiff as the class representative; and

   3. appointing Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart Calwell, Esq.
          D. Christopher Hedges, Esq.
          THE CALWELL PRACTICE, LC
          500 Randolph Street
          Charleston, WV 25302
          Telephone: (304) 343 4323
          Facsimile: (304) 344 3684
          E-mail: scalwell@calwelllaw.com
          chedges@calwelllaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, 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
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com


SENSAY INC: "Damasco" Class Certification Sought in "Meyer" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled DANIEL MEYER, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
SENSAY, INC., a Delaware corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No.
1:17-cv-03046 (N.D. Ill.), submits his motion for class
certification pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d
891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011).

The Damasco ruling (holding plaintiffs "can move to certify the
class at the same time that they file their complaint" and "[t]he
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs") is overruled in part by Chapman v.
First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) (overruling
Damasco "to the extent [it] hold[s] that a defendant's offer of
full compensation moots the litigation or otherwise ends the
Article III case or controversy" but not commenting on effect of a
"placeholder" motion if plaintiff's individual claim becomes moot
for some other reason); Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct.
663, 672 (Jan. 20, 2016) (holding "an unaccepted settlement offer
or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a
would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be
accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is
warranted").

Mr. Meyer proposes this class definition:

     All individuals in the United States who, within the four
     years prior to the filing of the instant Complaint, received
     a non-emergency, unauthorized text message to their cellular
     telephones from Defendant SENSAY, INC. through the use of an
     automatic dialing system and who did not provide prior
     express consent and/or prior express written consent to
     receive such text messages.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint him as the class
representative, and appoint his attorneys as class counsel.  He
also states that the parties need to meet and confer and proposes
a Rule 23 discovery schedule to the Court.  He also requests a
status conference with the Court as soon as practicable.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XySEp1AC

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


SILVERTREE MOHAVE HOA: Lewis, et al. Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled DOMENICA LEWIS et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
SILVERTREE MOHAVE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03581-WHA (N.D. Cal.), Domenica Lewis
and Jerrold Lewis will move the Court on June 22, 2017, at 8:00
a.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in
Courtroom 8, 19th Floor before the Hon. Judge William Alsup of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, for an order;

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "all persons who currently live or have lived at the
      Silvertree-Mohave Condominium Complex in Fremont,
      California, at any time from January 1, 2011, through the
      present, and lived there with children under the age of 14,
      or who were themselves minor children under the age of 14";
      and

   2. appointing themselves as class representatives and
      appointing the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley and Winston
      and Strawn, LLP as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3) of
Plaintiffs' claims under the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act
(First Claim), California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Second
Claim), California Unruh Act (Third Claim), Violation of the
Unfair Competition Act (Fourth Claim), and Breach of Fiduciary
Duty (Seventh Claim).

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EAS0RjJy

Attorneys for Domenica Lewis, Jerrold Lewis, E.L., S.L., and
Project Sentinel:

          Kyra A. Kazantzis, Esq.
          Annette D. Kirkham, Esq.
          Nadia Aziz, Esq.
          Thomas P. Zito, Esq.
          Matthew Warren, Esq.
          LAW FOUNDATION OF SILICON VALLEY
          FAIR HOUSING LAW PROJECT
          152 North Third Street, 3rd Floor
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 280 2411
          Facsimile: (408) 293 0106
          E-mail: Kyrak@Lawfoundation.Org
                  Annettek@Lawfoundation.Org
                  Nadia.Aziz@Lawfoundation.Org
                  Tom.Zito@Lawfoundation.Org
                  Matthew.Warren@Lawfoundation.Org

                - and -

          Constance F. Ramos, Esq.
          Corey D. Attaway, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP
          101 California St., 35th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5840
          Telephone: (415) 591 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 591 1400
          E-mail: cframos@winston.com
                  cattaway@winston.com


SOUTH AFRICA: RTIA May Face Class Action Over Aarto Traffic Fines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Antoinette Slabbert, writing for Moneyweb, reports that the
practice of traffic authorities blocking road users' license
renewals due to outstanding Aarto traffic fines might become the
subject of a class action.

This follows after judge Bill Prinsloo on May 5 confirmed his
February ruling in favour of Audi Centre Johannesburg and its
fines administrator, Fines4U, to have hundreds of fines processed
in non-compliance to the Aarto Act reviewed and set aside.  He
dismissed the application by the Road Traffic Infringement Agency
(RTIA) to appeal against the judgment.

The Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (Aarto)
Act has been implemented in only Johannesburg and Tshwane for
years.  Moneyweb earlier reported that both cities are considering
withdrawal from the system that is considered unaffordable and
ineffective.  Nevertheless national government is proceeding to
prepare a national roll-out of the system, including penalty
points that could see the drivers licenses of repeat offenders
suspended and even cancelled.

Following the May 5 dismissal Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse
(Outa) said in a statement: "Outa is compiling a class action and
other legal avenues, which will compel the RTIA and relevant
metros to withdraw all unlawfully processed traffic fines."

Moneyweb a year ago reported that millions of Aarto fines issued
in Johannesburg and Tshwane might be unenforceable due to the
RTIA's failure to pay its outstanding Post Office bill.  The RTIA
at the time strongly denied this.

The court heard that in adjudicating representations by road users
to the RTIA to have fines cancelled, the agency's representations
officers have been following the prescripts of an internal
operating manual that did not allow procedural challenges.

The agency acknowledged in court that it failed to follow the
correct procedure prescribed in the Aarto Act to process the Audi
Centre fines that were before court and were issued as long ago as
2008.

Millions of fines to other parties are similarly affected, many as
a result of the RTIA's failure to send out Aarto notices within
prescribed timelines as a result of its earlier dispute with the
Post Office.  This affects especially millions of fines issued for
speeding caught on camera.

Judge Prinsloo ruled in February and confirmed on May 5 that the
instruction in the operating manual are ultra vires, meaning the
RTIA has no legal powers to deny procedural challenges.

This leaves the door open to similarly affected road users, who
regularly have to pay large amounts for outstanding fines they
know nothing about and did not have an opportunity to challenge,
just to be allowed to renew their drivers' or vehicle licenses.

Outa chair Wayne Duvenage said in a statement: "It is clear to
Outa that the traffic infringement authorities have not applied
themselves in accordance with the legal processes and regulations
under the Aarto Act, as required by law, from as far back as
2008."  He said that in the light of the judgment, the public now
has every right to challenge authorities refusing to renew vehicle
and drivers licences, where enforcement orders are in place, as a
result of traffic fines illegally issued in Johannesburg and
Tshwane.

Ms. Duvenage emphasises that Outa does not support the idea of
unlawful conduct on the roads.

Howard Dembovsky, national chairman of the Justice Project South
Africa said the RTIA adopted an attitude of 'the end justifies the
means' from the outset of the current experimental implementation
of the Aarto Act in Johannesburg and Tshwane.

Freedom Front Plus MP Anton Alberts, who has been following the
controversy around Aarto closely, said it was clear that Aarto was
a failure and should be scrapped completely.

He said the key issue was that road users were denied the
opportunity to defend themselves due to procedural failures.

He said because of the failure of Aarto, the roads were less safe
as road users transgress with impunity since they cannot be
brought to book properly.

Mr. Alberts said all procedurally-flawed fines should be cancelled
and that would include instances where:

   -- The notification of the fine was not issued within 40 days
of the alleged transgression;
   -- Notices were not sent by registered post or issued to the
alleged transgressor in person;
   -- Fines referred to the RTIA were not processed;
   -- Alleged transgressors elected to be tried in court, but the
cases were not heard speedily;
   -- Alleged transgressors failed to respond to infringement
notices and the RTIA failed to issue a courtesy letter within 64
days;
   -- Alleged transgressors failed to respond to courtesy letters
and the RTIA failed to issue an enforcement order;
   -- The RTIA failed to process representations;
   -- The RTIA was inconsistent in its response to similar
representations relating to similar circumstances.
   -- The RTIA may still petition the Supreme Court of Appeal for
permission to appeal against Judge Prinsloo's judgment.

Owner of Fines4U Cornelia van Niekerk welcomed the ruling.  She
said since the ruling in February the RTIA has stopped processing
any of her submissions.  If this continues, she might have to
approach the court again to compel the agency to fulfill its
legislative mandate, she said.

Judge Prinsloo also found that the RTIA was biased in its
consideration of representations made by Fines4U.


SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL: Class Certified in "Esquivel" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Elizabeth E. Foote granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify the matter entitled SHANNON and KARINA
ESQUIVEL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE COMPANY,
L.L.C., Case No. 5:16-cv-01408-EEF-KLH (W.D. La.), as a collective
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and to authorize
notice to all individuals as defined in the proposed, revised
notice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WDXf1Cfy


STAPLES GROUP: "Worsley" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeanie Worsley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Staples Group, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-02254 (D. Kan., May 1, 2017) seeks to recover unpaid
straight time and overtime compensation for all working hours,
liquidated and/or other damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Staples as an Account Services Manager
for Staples' promotional products distribution business located in
Overland Park, Kansas. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
     OSMAN & SMAY LLP
     8500 W. 110th St., Ste. 330
     Overland Park, KS 66210
     Tel: (913) 667-9243
     Fax: (866) 470-9243
     Email: mosman@workerwagerights.com

            - and -

     Kathryn S. Rickley KS # 23211
     OSMAN & SMAY LLP
     8500 W. 110th St., Ste. 330
     Overland Park, KS 66210
     Tel: (913) 667-9243
     Fax: (866) 470-9243
     Email: krickley@workerwagerights.com


SWISSPORT SA: Faces "Asemy" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fedner Charles Asemy, Jean D. Christian, Christopher Diaz,
Fumilayo C. Fadipe, Dieuverson Fanfan, Jermaine Finley, Timothy
Green, Bergelin Jean Louis, Juany Jean Louis, Fred Joseph, Lesley
Leonard, Jean G. Louis, Jogn Darrel Leeking Madoo, Jules Makenly
Oscar, Francisco Morales, Carlos Neira, Omar Phillips, Marc H.
Pierre, Roberson Pierre, Duperval Rene, Tvaughn Rigby, Evens Sael,
Jovanny F. Sanquintin Checo, Yvener Sido, Jonathan Silva Jr.,
Junior Spencer, Rodrigue Sylvestre, Oscar Landeiro, Hernan
Arguello and Pablo Salgueiro, others similarly-situated,
Plaintiffs v. Swissport SA, LLC f/k/a Servisair LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-21457-KMM
(S.D. Fla., April 18, 2017) seeks to recover money damages for
unpaid overtime wages in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours per week but were not paid
overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs were paid for
some, but not all overtime hours, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendant at the Miami International
Airport, located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, as a non-exempt
hourly aircraft refueler.

Swissport provides ground, cargo and passenger services at the
Miami International Airport where Plaintiffs worked as non-exempt
hourly aircraft re-fuelers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Christopher F. Zacarias, Esq.
   Law Offices Of Christopher F. Zacarias, P.A.
   5757 Blue Lagoon Dr, Suite 230
   Miami, FL 33126
   Tel: 305-403-2000
   Fax: 305-459-3964
   Email: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com


SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: "Robinson" Sues Over Share Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
John Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc., Stephen G.
Waldis, Karen L. Rosenberger, Ronald W. Hovsepian and John
Frederick, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02978, (D. N.J., May 1,
2017), seeks damages with interest thereon, reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and
expert fees and such other and further relief pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Synchronoss provides cloud solutions and software-based activation
for connected devices worldwide. On or about January 19, 2017, the
Company completed its acquisition of Intralinks Holdings, Inc.
Defendants failed to disclose that the Company would not be able
to meet revenue guidance provided to investors. Based on
preliminary financial information, Synchronoss expects total
revenue for the first quarter of 2017 to be $13-14 million less
than the company's previously announced guidance with operating
margins are expected to be 8-10%, less than previously announced
guidance.

On this news, shares of Synchronoss plummeted $11.33 per share or
over 46% from its previous closing price on unusually heavy volume
to close at $13.29 per share on April 27, 2017, damaging
investors, including the Plaintiff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "College" Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID COLLEGE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STEPHEN G.
WALDIS, RONALD HOVSEPIAN, KAREN L. ROSENBERGER, and JOHN
FREDERICK, Case No. 3:17-cv-03005 (D.N.J., May 2, 2017), alleges
that the company issued preliminary first quarter 2017 results
that were materially false and/or misleading in violation of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Act.

The complaint says Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that
the newly-acquired Intralinks was underperforming; (2) that the
Company's integration of other acquisitions was underperforming;
(3) that the Company was facing serious hurdles integrating, and
capitalizing on, its newly acquired companies; (4) that, as such,
the Company's guidance was overstated; and (5) that, as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Synchronoss'
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Synchronoss, purportedly provides mobile solutions for Service
Providers and Enterprise through scalable software solutions and
platforms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James E. Cecchi Esq.
     Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
     CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI
     OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
     5 Becker Farm Road
     Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
     Tel.: (973) 994-1700
     Fax: (973) 994-1744
     E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
             decklund@carellabyrne.com

        - and -

     Howard G. Smith., Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
     3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
     Bensalem, PA 19020
     Phone: (215) 638-4847
     Fax: (215) 638-4867

        - and -

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: (310) 201-9150
     Fax: (310) 201-9160
     E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com


TERREBONNE ARC: "Robinson" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CANDY ROBINSON, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TARC aka
Terrebonne ARC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00041-CJB-JCW (E.D.
La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "all persons in the State of Louisiana who worked for
   Defendant in more than one capacity since January 2014, who
   were paid by the hour at different rates of pay for each
   capacity that they worked for Defendant, but who were only
   paid overtime at a rate based upon their lower rate of pay,
   without regard for whether they only worked overtime in the
   lower rate of pay position, in direct violation of the Fair
   Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has asserted claims on behalf of a collective class
for overtime wages wrongfully not paid to them by Defendant.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UMDFRS5f

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TESLA: Rolled Out New Autopilot Update Amidst Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Tesla Rati reports Tesla has begun to roll out an updated version
of Autopilot which brings incremental improvements to its
Autopilot 2.0 driving-assist feature on Model S and Model X
vehicles equipped with self-driving hardware.

According to firmware Release Notes for v8.1 (17.17.4) posted to
Imgur, Model S and Model X owners to vehicles produced after
October 2016 now have the ability to use Autosteer and Traffic-
Aware Cruise Control at speeds up to 90 mph - a 10 mph increase
from the previous firmware version.

The release notes also indicate that the speed limit for off-
highway use of Autosteer has been removed. Instead, use of
Autosteer on local roads will be functional at any speed up to 5
mph above the detected speed limit.

Along with Autosteer and TACC updates, release notes for v8.1
(17.17.4) also confirms a wide roll out of Automatic Emergency
braking -- a previously missing feature on new "hardware 2 cars"
that Consumer Reports faulted Tesla on -- Side Collision Warning
enhancements and the Auto High Beam feature.

This latest release further validates Tesla's plan to roll out
driving-assist and safety features on an incremental basis, and as
they become validated over time. The Silicon-Valley electric
carmaker came under heat in recent weeks after a class-action
lawsuit alleged that Tesla had "'inoperative standard safety
features' on Autopilot 2.0 cars". Tesla fired back with a
statement saying that the company has always been transparent
about its incremental software updates.

"This lawsuit is a disingenuous attempt to secure attorney's fees
posing as a legitimate legal action, which is evidenced by the
fact that the suit misrepresents many facts. Many of the features
this suit claims are "unavailable" are in fact available, with
more updates coming every month. We have always been transparent
about the fact that Enhanced Autopilot software is a product that
would roll out incrementally over time, and that features would
continue to be introduced as validation is completed, subject to
regulatory approval."

Following May 5's software update, Tesla Autopilot 2.0 vehicles
will almost be at feature parity with Model S and Model X vehicles
equipped with first generation Autopilot.

Redditor tepaa notes, "What's left on the feature parity checklist
still?"

Automatic wipers
Sensing/display of cars in adjacent lanes
Perpendicular parking [GN]


TEP EVENTS: "Tracey" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Reimbursements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Tracey, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TEP Events International, Inc. and Duuzra,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03178, (S.D. N.Y., May 1, 2017),
seeks unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and statutory penalties,
and attorneys' fees and costs as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Defendants jointly employed Tracey as warehouse manager. He
routinely worked 60-70 hours a week but was paid a fixed salary.
He did not receive accurate wage statements. TEP induced Tracey to
purchase a vehicle for work and agreed to pay him $250 a month for
it. TEP stopped making those payments in April 2015.

TEP provides interactive event technology solutions at corporate
events, meetings, seminars, and training sessions.

Duuzra provides cloud-based content management systems for
designing creating and updating interactive presentations, [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Braunstein, Esq.
      THE BRAUNSTEIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
      3 Eberling Drive
      New City, NY 10956
      Tel: (845) 499-2198
      Email: MBraunstein@BraunsteinFirm.com


THOMPSON & SONS: Faces "Hubbard" Suit Under FLSA, Fla. Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM HUBBARD, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THOMPSON & SONS MOVING AND STORAGE, INC.,
a Florida Corporation, SHAWN THOMPSON, individually, and
MAREN MORRIS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-80546-RLR
(S.D. Fla., May 2, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff worked in excess
of 40 hours per week for Defendants but was not paid time and one-
half wages for all of his actual overtime hours worked for
Defendants; but instead paid based upon a regular rate of
$12.00/hour without paying time and one-half wages for all of
Plaintiff's hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The suit was filed under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and Florida law, as well as for Tax Fraud.

Defendants have at all times material to this Complaint provided
packing, moving, and related services for customers.  Plaintiff's
primary duties for Defendants consisted of the following non-
exempt tasks: loading and driving box trucks for
moves/deliveries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


THQ INC: Reaches $2.6MM Settlement on UDraw Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Cara Salvatore, writing for Bankruptcy Law360, reports that THQ
Inc. and two executives, CEO Brian Farrell and Chief Financial
Officer Paul Pucino, have agreed to pay $2.6 million to settle
class allegations that they misled investors before a failed plan
to expand a Nintendo Wii accessory, the UDraw platform, to other
gaming platforms.

The uDraw GameTablet is a gaming graphics tablet released by THQ
for the Wii in 2010, and for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 in
2011.

The settlement is still up for court approval.

The suit was dismissed at the trial level, but a Ninth Circuit
panel revived it in January, Law360 relates.

The investors are represented by Adam Apton and Nicholas Porritt
of Levi & Korsinsky LLP and Avraham Wagner of The Wagner Firm.

Farrell and Pucino are represented by Ryan Blair, Koji Fukumura
and Blake Zollar of Cooley LLP.

The case is Zaghian v. Farrell et al., case number 15-55335, in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

                         About THQ Inc.

THQ Inc. (NASDAQ: THQI) -- http://www.thq.com/-- was a worldwide
developer and publisher of interactive entertainment software.
The Company developed its products for all popular game systems,
personal computers, wireless devices and the Internet.
Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, THQ sold product through
its network of offices located throughout North America and
Europe.

THQ Inc. and its affiliates sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr.
D. Del. Lead Case No. 12-13398) on Dec. 19, 2012.  Michael R.
Nestor, M. Blake Cleary and Jaime Luton Chapman at Young Conaway
Stargatt & Taylor, LLP; and Oscar Garza at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
LLP represent the Debtors.  FTI Consulting and Centerview Partners
LLC are the financial advisors.  Kurtzman Carson Consultants is
the claims and notice agent.

Before the bankruptcy, Clearlake signed a contract to buy Agoura
THQ for a price said to be worth $60 million.  After a 22-hour
auction with 10 bidders, the top offers brought a combined $72
million from several buyers who will split up the company. Judge
Walrath approved the sales in January.  Some of the assets didn't
sell, including properties the company said could be worth about
$29 million.

Roberta A. DeAngelis, U.S. Trustee for Region 3, appointed five
persons to serve in the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.
The Committee tapped Houlihan Lokey Capital as its financial
advisor and investment banker, Landis Rath & Cobb as co-counsel
and Andrews Kurth as counsel.

THQ Inc. and its debtor affiliates notified the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware that on Aug. 2, 2013, their
Second Amended Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation became effective.


TRADER JOE'S: Faces "Brumfield" Lawsuit Alleging Misbranding
------------------------------------------------------------
TYOKA BRUMFIELD and CYNTHIA TOROCSIK, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRADER JOE'S
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03239 (S.D.N.Y., May 2,
2017), accuses Defendant of false, misleading, and deceptive
misbranding of its Trader Joe's Black Truffle Flavored Extra
Virgin Olive Oil (the "Product" or "Trader Joe's Truffle Oil")
sold to consumers.

Trader Joe's markets its truffle oil as being flavored by actual
"Black Truffle[s]." But Trader Joe's Truffle Oil is nothing of the
sort; instead of flavoring its oil with actual "Black Truffle[s],"
Defendant's Product is flavored by an industrially produced,
chemically-derived perfume known as "2,4-dithiapentane," says the
complaint.

TRADER JOE'S COMPANY -- http://www.traderjoes.com/-- is a
neighborhood grocery store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
     Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (212) 989-9113
     Fax: (212) 989-9163
     Email: jarisohn@bursor.com
            ndeckant@bursor.com


TSG STAFFING: "Jones" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TSG Staffing, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-11388, (E.D. Mich., May 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation including reasonable attorneys' fees and
experts' fees and other costs and disbursements and such other
relief under the under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant owns and operates Jimmy John's franchised locations
where Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an assistant store manager
from approximately 2015 through February 2016, at their Warren, MI
store. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Abraham Rynbrandt, Esq.
      RYNBRANDT & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      1000 Front Avenue, N.W.
      Grand Rapids, MI 49504
      Tel: (616) 915-9266

            - and -

      Kathleen Currie Chavez, Esq.
      FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
      10 West State St., Suite #200
      Geneva, IL 60134
      Tel: (630) 232-7450

            - and -

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Alan Quiles, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 S. Federal Highway
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831

            - and -

      Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
      Michael N. Litrownik, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000

             - and -

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      Facsimile: (312) 419-1025

             - and -

      Drew Legando, Esq.
      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
      1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 522-9000
      Facsimile: (216) 522-9007

             - and -

      Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
      MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 372-2100
      Facsimile: (312) 853-0279

            - and -

      Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
      Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
      Jason Conway, Esq.
      Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      Two International Drive, Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone: (914) 934-9200
      Facsimile: (914) 934-9220


UNITED STATES: "Vapne" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------
in the lawsuit styled Genrikh Vapne, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sonny Perdue
Ben Carson, Thomas E. Price, Nancy Berryhill, Howard Zucker, and
Samuel Roberts, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02838-AMD-RLM
(E.D.N.Y.), Mr. Vapne asks the Court to issue an order about
certification of this case as class action.

According to the complaint, Respondent S. Perdue is accused as
U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary in violation of
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) allotment
calculation rules by ignoring that COLA is not income. Respondent
B. Carson is accused as Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Secretary in violation of rent calculation rules for HUD residents
of subsidized buildings by ignoring that COLA is not income.
Respondent Price is accused as Health and Human Services (HHS)
Secretary in manipulation by Medicaid and Medicare data to reduce
growth of admission of poor people to such benefits in compare
with growth of their income. Respondent N. Berryhill is accused as
Social Security Administration (SSA) Acted Commissioner in factual
supporting the wrong doing of other Respondents. Respondent S.
Roberts is accused as New York State Office of Temporary and
Disability Assistance (NYS OTDA) Commissioner in violation of NYS
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients' right to be paid
COLA money in compare with same rights provided by Federal Social
Security Act to SSI recipients of all other USA states. Respondent
H. Zucker is accused as NYS Department of Health Commissioner in
manipulation by Medicaid and Medicare data to reduce growth of
admission of poor people to such benefits in compare with growth
of their income. In consideration such motion EDNY Judge should
take in account that by statistic of January, 2017 in USA 42715121
and in NYS 2994348 SNAP recipients, in NYS 708857 SSI recipients,
in USA 2217000 Housing Choice Vouchers, 1020000 public housing,
1175000 Section 8 project-based, 154000 Elderly and disabled under
HUD authorization, 265000 under USDA authorization, in USA
74506919 and in NYS 6 424 725 Medicaid and CHIP recipients.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nr0LeC35

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


VINMAN CORP: "Unqurait" Files FLSA Suit in Tenn.
------------------------------------------------
Josh Ungurait, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Vinman Corp. (d/b/a 3rd & Lindsley) and
Ron Brice, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00780, (M.D. Tenn., May 1,
2017), seeks compensatory damages for embarrassment and
humiliation, punitive damages, compensatory and liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive or
equitable relief, costs and disbursements of the action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and such other and
further relief resulting from unjust enrichment and pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and Tennessee labor laws.

Vinman operates as 3rd & Lindsley, a restaurant, bar and music
venue in Nashville, Davidson County where Plaintiff was employed
primarily as a server. Plaintiff filed a civil warrant in the
Davidson County General Sessions Courts alleging violations of
federal and Tennessee employment law. Because of this Defendants
reduced the number of tables assigned to Plaintiff, reducing his
workload and the amount of tips he could generate per shift. He
was eventually terminated on February 3, 2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Randall W. Burton, Esq.
      144 Second Avenue, North, Suite 212
      Nashville, TN37201
      Tel: (615) 620-5838

            - and -

      Stephen W. Grace, Esq.
      Delain Deatherage, Esq.
      1019 16th Avenue South
      Nashville, TN 37212
      Tel: (615) 255-5225


VIXXO CORP: Faces "Guanzon" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wags
----------------------------------------------------------
Vickie Guanzon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Vixxo Corporation, a Maryland Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01157-DMF (D. Ariz., April 18, 2017)
seeks to recover overtime wages and liquidated damages for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant has improperly labeled persons employed in the position
of "Team Leader" across the country as being exempt from overtime
pay requirements under the state and federal law, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Team Leader.

Defendant provides facility maintenance and management to retail,
restaurant, convenience and grocery stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mark D. Samson, Esq.
   Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
   3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
   Phoenix, AZ 85012
   Tel: (602) 248-0088
   Fax: (602) 248-2822
   Email: msamson@kellerrohrback.com

        - and -

   T. David Copley, Esq.
   Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
   1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
   Seattle, WA 98101
   Tel: (206) 623-1900
   Fax: (206) 623-3384
   Email: dcopley@kellerrohrback.com

        - and -

   Harris L. Pogust, Esq.
   Andrew J. Sociolla, Esq.
   Pogust Braslow & Millrood, LLC
   Eight Tower Bridge, Suite
   Conshohocken, PA 19428
   Tel: (610) 941-4204
   Fax: (610) 941-4245
   Email: hpogust@pbmattorneys.com
          asciolla@pbmattorneys.com


VOLVO CARS: Neale, et al. Seek Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOANNE NEALE, KERI HAY, KELLY MCGARY,
SVEIN A. BERG, GREGORY P. BURNS, DAVID TAFT, JEFFREY KRUGER and
KAREN COLLOPY individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA,
LLC, and VOLVO CAR CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:10-cv-
04407-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs will move the Hon. Jose L.
Linares at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building and
Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey 07101, for the
entry of an Order granting Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Stephanie E. Saunders, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041

               - and -

          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          555 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312

               - and -

          Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq.
          MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068

               - and -

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102

               - and -

          Richard Norman, Esq.
          R. Martin Weber, Jr.
          CROWLEY NORMAN LLP
          3 Riverway, Suite 1775
          Houston, TX 77056

               - and -

          Thomas K. Brown, Esq.
          Justin Presnal
          FISHER, BOYD, BROWN, & HUGUENARD
          2777 Allen Parkway, 14th Floor
          Houston, TX 77019

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH
          475 White Horse Pike
          Collingswood, NJ 08107-1909

               - and -

          Michael A. Caddell
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          1331 Lamar, No. 1070
          Houston, TX 77010


WASHINGTON: McNeil Changing Treatment to Avoid Warehousing
----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Camden at Spokesman reports that more than two dozen residents
with severe mental disabilities at Washington's Special Commitment
Center on McNeil Island will stop being "warehoused" and start
getting treatment that could help them.

A settlement in a case against the center and the Department of
Social and Health Services is expected to clear the way to develop
new treatment programs for 27 current and any future residents who
are sexual predators with mental disabilities that keep them
participating in standard programs designed to treat the behavior
that resulted in their commitment.

The problems range from low IQ and learning disabilities to brain
injuries, according to the lawsuit filed by Disability Rights
Washington in February. The center has a five-step system that
sexual predators may complete to qualify for less restrictive
confinement or release, but the mental disabilities of the 27
residents in question keep them from taking part. The center has
no alternative system.

As a result, the residents are essentially stuck in place. "It
runs the gamut," said Rachael Seevers, staff attorney for
Disability Rights Washington. "A lot of them had been there for a
very long time, essentially warehoused."

Those residents are routinely punished for behavior such as
failing to follow orders, feeding wildlife, self harm, suicide
attempts and assault -- behaviors stemming from their mental
disabilities, according to the lawsuit. As a result, they are
placed in seclusion for days or weeks at a time.

One resident with a traumatic brain injury and dementia has spent
more than two decades at the center, and spent 276 of 413 days in
a solitary confinement unit, the lawsuit says, adding that outside
evaluators have described such actions as punishment, not
treatment.

A special panel of three outside experts will oversee program
changes that will have a series of benchmarks and are expected to
take about four years, Seevers said.

The group filed the lawsuit in February as a class action that
identified three residents by their initials. But it had
investigated reports for more than a year before that, and
discussed the problems and possible solutions with officials from
the center and the department that oversees it.

Previous lawsuits resulted in changes in treatment for patients at
Eastern and Western State Hospitals, which will become the basis
for some individualized treatment at the McNeil Island center.

In a press release, Bill Van Hook, the chief executive officer of
the center, said those residents will also get more individualized
medical, psychological and rehabilitative care based on their
mental illness or disability.

Many of the changes in the settlement have been implemented, and
the center will work with the rights group to put others in place
"while at the same time maintaining our obligation to keep the
community safe," he said.[GN]


WELLS FARGO: CEO Vows to Fix Broken System Amid Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Madeline Patrick, writing for Normangee Star, reports that along
with reelecting the board members, Wells Fargo shareholders
approved bank advisory resolution on executive compensation and
ratified the reappointment of KPMG as the company's accounting
firm.

"We're focused on fixing what was broken, making sure that we're
making things right by our customers", Wells Fargo CEO
Tim Sloan told CNN.

The three directors who received 99 per cent approval from voting
shareholders were recent additions: Sloan, who was named CEO in
October after the scandal erupted, as well as Ronald Sargent and
Karen Peetz, who were newly elected to the board this year.

Wells Fargo said it expects the settlement in the Northern
District of California to resolve claims in 11 other pending class
action lawsuits.

Leaders of the largest US state pension system, known as CalPERS,
said in an email it is voting about 13.9 million shares against
the bank nominees, including its chairman, Stephen Sanger, ahead
of the bank's April 25 meeting in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida.

When the meeting resumed, Sanger said Marks was taken away because
"he made a physical approach to our board members.".

Minutes after the break, decorum was broken again by another angry
shareholder who screamed at the board out of turn. Wells Fargo &
Co's WFC.N directors face an unusual and hard task after
shareholders rebuffed a lot of them: reformulating the board in a
way that satisfies investors without causing more chaos.  The
shareholder said the bank and board's response was "not good
enough", and he wanted more details from each director.  That's in
a world where it's common for a current director at a major
corporation to receive north of 90 percent of shareholders' votes.

Mr. Sanger said on CNBC's "Power Lunch", however, that
shareholders weren't sending a message to any particular director.

Mr. Sanger said the other board members weren't speaking because
he was speaking for the entire board.

Wells Fargo has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars during
the past decade for discriminatory and predatory lending practices
that disadvantaged homeowners, members of the armed services and
student loan borrowers.

But despite some fireworks at the meeting, all 12 received between
53 percent and 81 percent of votes in favor of reelection.

Nevertheless, after the meeting was reconvened, yet another
shareholder stood up to hijack it.

Mr. Sanger repeatedly declined to make individual directors
available during the meeting to explain when they first learned of
the fake accounts, explaining that he is speaking on behalf of the
board. "I think that speaks for all of the board", he said at one
point.

Former Chairman and CEO of Wells Fargo John Stumpf faced
congressional investigation, which ultimately led Wells' board to
force the executive to cough up $41 million in assets and earnings
he accrued from his decades-long tenure.

The scandal-rocked bank agreed to the larger settlement after an
internal report released showed that bank officials knew about
unethical sales practices -- including the creation of debit cards
without customers' authorization -- as early as 2002.

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren sent a letter on May 2 saying
KPMG "failed to prevent or even publicly disclose the fraud that
affected hundreds of thousands of customers".

Many large shareholders thought the board was slow to react to the
sales-practices problem but in the last six months has taken
appropriate action, some of these people said.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Class Certification Denied in "Kljajic" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Beth Kljajic, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
Whirlpool Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-05980 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Amy J. St. Eve granted Whirlpool's motion to
exclude the testimony of Albert de Richemond and denying
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on May 9, 2017,
the Court also denied as moot Plaintiffs' motions to exclude the
testimony of Whirlpool's experts and Whirlpool's motion to exclude
Plaintiffs' remaining expert.

A copy of the Docket Entry available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fl6DHC9L


* Pepper Hamilton Discusses Employee Misclassification Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard J. Reibstein, Esq. -- reibsteinr@pepperlaw.com -- of
Pepper Hamilton LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that April
was a red-hot month for independent contractor misclassification
cases.  Pepper Hamilton LLP reports below on 11 cases in the
courts and two before administrative agencies involving:

   -- seven-figure proposed class action settlements with couriers
providing services to three on-demand delivery companies
(PostMates, DoorDash, and InstaCart);

   -- court approvals of a nine-figure settlement between drivers
in 19 states and one of the largest overnight courier companies
(FedEx) and a seven-figure settlement between a group of San
Francisco adult entertainment clubs and their exotic dancers;

   -- a jury verdict finding thousands of insurance agents to have
been misclassified as independent contractors;

   -- court decisions that black car drivers in New York City and
freight haulers in Illinois are valid independent contractors;

   -- a court decision in Texas that litigation support workers
may proceed with their class action alleging IC misclassification;

   -- a decision striking down an IC misclassification claim
against UberEats for insufficient pleading;

   -- a new class action lawsuit filed against an on-demand food
delivery service in Florida;

   -- an NLRB decision that distributors for a baking company are
valid independent contractors; and

   -- a decision by the California Labor Commissioner that four
drivers for a cartage company operating in the ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach are each collectively entitled to over
$200,000 as a result of being misclassified as independent
contractors.

These cases cut both for and against companies classifying
individuals as independent contractors, demonstrating that when
done right, certain workers can legitimately be classified as ICs,
but when done wrong, the costs can be rather dramatic: $227
million in settlements by one company using independent
contractors in 19 states, and a jury verdict which, if adopted by
the court, may impose IC misclassification liability against an
insurance carrier in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  While
most companies do not face this type of extraordinary exposure in
the event of IC misclassification, seven- and eight-figure
exposure is becoming commonplace for large and medium-size
businesses.  For this reason, companies that wish to continue to
use ICs can and should take certain prescribed steps in a state-
of-the-art manner to avoid or minimize misclassification exposure,
as fully discussed in our White Paper.

In the Courts (11 cases)

POSTMATES REACHES AGREEMENT WITH ITS COURIERS TO SETTLE IC
MISCLASSIFICATION CASE FOR $8.75 MILLION. Couriers who deliver
food, merchandise, and other consumer goods for Postmates, an on-
demand delivery service based in metropolitan areas within 28
states, have reached a proposed $8.75 million settlement with the
company in their nationwide IC misclassification class action. The
lawsuit alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
as well as wage and hour laws for those couriers who made
deliveries in New York, California, and Massachusetts. The
proposed settlement includes an allocation of $100,000 for claims
under the California Private Attorneys General Act (75% of which
will be paid to the state) and attorneys' fees of up to 25% of the
settlement fund.  In addition to the monetary terms, Postmates
agreed to the following non-monetary provisions: the couriers' IC
agreements can only be terminated for specified material breaches,
those terminated will have a right to appeal their terminations to
an arbitrator, the company will arrange for third-party
occupational accident insurance for bicycle couriers at the
courier's expense, and Postmates will accept and consider feedback
received through a dedicated email address. Singer v. PostMates,
Inc., No. 15-cv-01284-JSW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2017).

FED EX'S $227 MILLION DOLLAR IC MISCLASSIFICATION SETTLEMENT WITH
THOUSANDS OF GROUND DIVISION DRIVERS IS APPROVED BY COURT.  As
reported in Pepper Hamilton LLP's blog post of June 16, 2016,
FedEx Ground reached a proposed settlement agreement with its
Ground Division drivers in 19 states to resolve their independent
contractor misclassification claims, and on April 28 and May 1,
2017, U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Miller approved the
settlements. Several dozen lawsuits had been consolidated in a
multidistrict proceeding assigned to Judge Miller in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. In December
2010, Judge Miller granted summary judgment in favor of FedEx
Ground in 42 IC misclassification lawsuits brought by drivers
across the country.  His decision, however, was overturned in two
appeals heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
and the Seventh Circuit, as reported in this blog.  Following the
Ninth Circuit decision, FedEx entered into a settlement agreement
for $228 million with drivers in California and following the
Seventh Circuit decision, FedEx entered into a settlement
initially reported at $240 million for 20 states.  That is the
group of cases that Judge Miller just approved the settlement
covering 19 states for $227 million.  FedEx reached a separate
settlement with drivers from Oregon for $15 million.  These
settlements are in addition to separate settlements that FedEx
reached with several Attorneys General including those in Maine,
New York, Montana, and Massachusetts.  The agreed upon settlements
covered drivers in Alabama ($3.2 million), Arizona ($4.95
million), Georgia ($4.94 million), Indiana ($33.95 million),
Kansas ($20 million), Louisiana ($5.25 million), Maryland ($9.4
million), Minnesota ($8.3 million), New Jersey ($25.5 million),
New York ($42.9 million), Ohio ($8.35 million), Pennsylvania ($23
million), Rhode Island ($1.6 million), South Carolina ($3.1
million), Tennessee ($12.25 million), Texas ($8.9 million), Utah
($2.4 million), West Virginia ($3.575 million), and Wisconsin
($5.55 million).  Attorneys' fees and legal expenses of $67.4
million are included in the above amounts. FedEx Ground Package
System, Inc. Employment Practices Litigation, No. 05-MD-527-RM
(N.D. Ind. Apr. 28 and May 1, 2017).

FedEx now uses a different business model based on Independent
Service Providers (ISPs).  The company has refined that stratagem
since we first reported on the ISP program, where Ground Division
drivers must become incorporated under state law instead of being
organized as sole proprietorships, partnerships, or other
unincorporated entities, deliver packages on their own and with
their own employees on several different routes, and treat their
personnel including themselves as employees.  Both the Ninth and
Seventh Circuit applied their decisions, however, to single and
multi-route drivers, and a requirement that drivers become
incorporated in order to avoid independent contractor laws has not
met with universal acceptance by the courts.

COURT APPROVES $5 MILLION SETTLEMENT IN IC MISCLASSIFICATION CLASS
ACTION BY EXOTIC DANCERS. A $5 million settlement in an IC
misclassification case was preliminarily approved by a California
federal court in a class and collective action alleging IC
misclassification by class of approximately 4,700 exotic dancers
against nine San Francisco nightclubs.  Under the terms of the $5
million settlement agreement, dancers may elect to receive cash
payments ranging from $350 and $800 depending upon their length of
service.  The remainder will be allocated as attorneys' fees and
expenses, payments under the California Private Attorneys General
Act, and enhancement payments for named plaintiffs.  The
nightclubs also agreed to make changes to their business practices
that will result in a direct financial benefit in excess of $1
million to class members.  Although objectors to the proposed
settlement argued, among other things, that the recovery is
inadequate in comparison to settlements reached in similar cases
and that the non-monetary relief of changing the clubs' business
practices was "inconsequential," the court disagreed and found
that the recoveries were adequate to justify preliminary approval
given other comparable settlements and the "litigation risk in
wage-and-hour cases."  The court further stated that "the changed
business practices -- which locally are almost industry-wide (this
settlement covers 10 out of the apparently 12 such nightclubs in
San Francisco) -- will allow an alternative business model for the
industry, providing employees with a guaranteed hourly rate,
commissions, and benefits, among other changed practices. And
preliminarily, there is an economic value that attaches to this
portion of the settlement." Roe v. SFBSC Management, LLC, No. 14-
cv-03616 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2017).

"LEGAL GOBBLEDYGOOK" CAUSES COURT TO REJECT DOOR DASH'S $5 MILLION
SETTLEMENT OF IC MISCLASSIFICATION CLASS ACTION. A California
judge has refused to grant preliminary approval to a $5 million
proposed settlement reached between DoorDash, an on-demand food
delivery service, and almost 40,000 delivery drivers known as
"dashers" in a class action lawsuit alleging violations of state
wage and hour laws as well as the California Private Attorneys
General Act.  In reviewing the terms of the proposed settlement,
the judge reportedly stated, "This looks like legal gobbledygook
that no rational DoorDash [courier] could understand." Under the
proposed settlement, the class members would share $3.5 million
plus an additional $1.5 million in four years or when DoorDash
goes public, is profitable for a full year, or is bought by
another company at double its current valuation.  The judge
reportedly stated that the language of the proposed release
evidently included 25 labor law statutes and the agreement did not
contain detailed explanations as to how certain calculations were
made.  He also advised the parties that he needed more information
regarding how this settlement would impact pending litigations
against DoorDash in other jurisdictions. Marciano v. DoorDash
Inc., No. CGC15548101 (Super. Court, County of San Francisco Apr.
10, 2017).

INSTACART'S $4.6 MILLION SETTLEMENT OF IC MISCLASSIFICATION CLASS
ACTION BY DRIVERS IS DELAYED BY COURT. A California judge has
delayed its preliminary approval of a proposed $4.6 million
settlement of an IC misclassification class action brought against
on-demand grocery delivery company, Instacart, by class of 31,000
"shoppers" who shop, purchase, and deliver groceries from grocery
stores to customers at their homes and businesses through
Instacart's mobile phone app.  As discussed in Pepper Hamilton
LLP's April 3, 2017 blog post, the shoppers alleged that because
of their misclassification as independent contractors, they were
denied minimum wage and overtime compensation, were not reimbursed
for work-related expenses, did not receive proper meal and rest
breaks, and did not receive all of the tips left them by
customers, as required by federal law and the laws of Colorado,
New York, and California.  The settlement seeks to cover shoppers
who have performed work for Instacart in California, New York,
Pennsylvania, Colorado, Illinois, Washington, Indiana, Texas,
Georgia, Oregon, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Florida, North
Carolina, Virginia, Maryland and New Jersey.  At the preliminary
approval hearing on April 19, 2017, the court reportedly advised
the parties that it needed additional clarifying information,
including the estimated average settlement payout.  The court
reportedly also required Instacart to inform those individuals
seeking to become "shoppers" that they will be required to obtain
commercial automobile insurance and directed the parties to
"remove language stating [Private Attorneys General Act] claims
will be released even by class members who opt out." Camp v.
MapleBear, Inc., d/b/a Instacart, No. BC652216 (Super. Ct. Los
Angeles County Apr. 19, 2017).

OHIO JURY FINDS INSURANCE AGENTS WERE MISCLASSIFIED AS IC'S IN
ERISA CLASS ACTION. Nearly 7,000 insurance agents were
misclassified as independent contractors according to an Ohio
jury, which rendered an advisory verdict against Wisconsin-based
American Family Insurance Company in a class action seeking
employee retirement benefits under ERISA.  Judge Donald Nugent,
who presided over the advisory jury trial, has yet to adopt the
jury's decision and issue a formal ruling.  If the judge accepts
the jury's finding in a follow-up decision that is expected in 2-3
months, American Family could be required to fund retirement
packages in compliance with ERISA for 6,978 current and former
agents nationwide.  A lawyer representing the class reportedly
stated that the cost to American Family Insurance could approach
$1 billion.  Companies can typically avoid this type of ERISA
exposure for pension benefits when steps that have been approved
by the courts are taken by a business in advance of a lawsuit
under ERISA. Jammal v. American Family Insurance Co., No. 13-cv-
00437 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 18, 2017).

ILLINOIS FREIGHT HAULERS HELD TO BE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, NOT
EMPLOYEES. An Illinois federal district court has dismissed a
proposed class action by freight haulers seeking damages for
allegedly being misclassified as ICs by Risinger Bros. Transfer,
Inc., a trucking company.  The amended complaint alleged, among
other things, that Risinger failed to pay the statutorily-required
minimum wages and made unlawful deductions and withholdings from
their wages, in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
The freight haulers also alleged violations of the Truth in
Leasing Act and the Internal Revenue Code by purposefully
misclassifying Plaintiffs as independent contractors and willfully
filing fraudulent information returns.  In concluding that the
freight haulers were not misclassified as ICs, the court found the
balance of factors weighed in favor of IC status, including (1)
the contracts and leases between the parties afforded the haulers
vast control over the ways in which they performed their work,
such as the right to hire their own drivers and not engage in the
work themselves, the ability to select, purchase, lease, or
finance their own equipment, and the right to use their equipment
to haul freight for other carriers; (2) the haulers had the
opportunity for profit or loss depending on their skill; (3) the
haulers made an investment in equipment, materials, and/or
employees of their own; (4) they possessed business acumen,
diligence, and managerial skills, as well as the special skill of
driving commercial trucks; (5) there were fixed termination dates
for the leases of the trucks to operate; and (6) the haulers were
not economically dependent on Risinger as they could provide
services to other carriers.  The court stated that "[t]hey were
responsible for their own profitability in a way that suggested
that they were entrepreneurs, not simply truck drivers." Derolf v.
Risinger Bros. Transfer, Inc., No. 16-cv-1298 (C.D. Ill. Apr. 21,
2017).

BLACK CAR DRIVERS FOR NEW YORK CAR SERVICE COMPANY ARE FOUND TO BE
VALID INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit has held that black car drivers who drive customers
for a New York City car service firm are independent contractors
and not employees under federal and state wage and hour laws.  As
discussed more fully in our blog post dated April 13, 2017, the
Second Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of Corporate Transportation Group ("CTG"), the
owner of a black car company and its related affiliates, where the
drivers claimed they had been misclassified as ICs and were due
unpaid overtime and other damages.  On appeal, the Second Circuit
addressed the "economic reality" of the drivers' relationship with
CTG.  The Second Circuit noted that some of the drivers elected to
purchase a franchise, either directly from CTG or on the secondary
market, while others opted to rent a franchise; there were wide
variations in the price of franchises and associated fees; the
terms of the franchise agreements were for substantial durations,
some even indefinite duration, subject to termination only for
breach of the terms of the agreement; the drivers were free to
drive and, in many circumstances, drove for competitors or for
personal clients, and in some cases chose not to drive at all or
permitted other individuals to drive for them; the drivers
"invested heavily" in their driving businesses; the drivers could
choose how much to work and when, where, and how often to work (if
at all); CTG did not require drivers to notify it when they
intended to not work; the drivers were free to accept or reject
"job offers" when they registered with the CTG dispatcher and they
reached the front of the queue; and the drivers' fees from income
from fares reflected wide disparities due to the frequency that
they provided services and duration they chose to work each day.

The drivers argued that CTG negotiated rates with clients and
charged a per-ride fee to drivers; that CTG maintained a roll of
corporate clients seeking transportation services; and that CTG
exerted influence over the drivers by enforcing the CTG Rulebook
(which CTG was required to do by virtue of the rules of the NYC
Taxi and Limousine Commission).  The court concluded: "In short,
the economic reality was that Plaintiffs, with the assistance of
CTG and as a 'subscriber to [its] services,' operated like small
businesses; they decided to affiliate with [CTG] based on their
perceived economic interests, and not those of CTG." Saleem v.
Corporate Transportation Group, Ltd., No. 15-88 (2d Cir. April 12,
2017).

ON DEMAND FOOD DELIVERY SERVICE SUED BY DRIVERS IN IC
MISCLASSIFICATION CLASS ACTION. Doorstep Delivery, an on-demand
food delivery service conducting business in 117 cities
nationwide, has been sued in a proposed IC misclassification class
and collective action in a Florida federal district court on
behalf of drivers alleging minimum wage and overtime violations
under federal and state laws. According to the company's website,
"With Doorstep Delivery, you can now order food from your favorite
restaurant with a few swipes of your finger on our app or mobile
website, a few clicks on your computer, or a quick call to our
professionally trained call center."  The drivers then fulfill
these food delivery orders.  The complaint alleges that Doorstep
directs the delivery drivers' work in detail, instructing drivers
where to report for their shifts and how to dress; imposes
requirements regarding handling of food and timeliness of
deliveries; retains the right to terminate the drivers at will;
does not allow the drivers the opportunity to reject jobs;
requires drivers to bear the expense of renting equipment
including insulated bags, a Doorstep car topper to display on
their cars, a pizza bag, and soda trays; deducts fees from drivers
for occupational accident insurance, administrative fees, and
Doorstep delivery marketing fees; and does not reimburse the
drivers for the costs of fuel, owning or leasing a car,
maintenance of the vehicle, and cellular data costs.  The lawsuit
alleges that, as a result of the costs incurred by the drivers and
the deductions made by Doorstep, the drivers' weekly compensation
falls below the federal minimum wage.  Additionally, drivers
allegedly have regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, yet
did not receive overtime compensation. Roberson v. Restaurant
Delivery Developers, LLC, No. 17-cv-00769 (M.D. Fla.).

UBER EATS IC MISCLASSIFICATION LAWSUIT NOT PLEADED SUFFICIENTLY BY
DRIVER SEEKING CLASS ACTION STATUS. A Florida federal judge has
struck down a second amended complaint filed against UberEATS, an
on-demand food delivery service, by a driver seeking to represent
1,000 drivers in a proposed IC misclassification class action
lawsuit under the FLSA.  The judge found that plaintiff's
allegations were "not obviously connected to any particular cause
of action" and characterized the amended complaint as a "shotgun
pleading."  Accordingly, the judge ordered that the plaintiff file
a third amended complaint that identifies which allegations
support which claims for relief by April 24th or his case will be
dismissed. Crespo v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 17-cv-00187 (M.D.
Fla. Apr. 10, 2017).

LITIGATION SUPPORT WORKERS CERTIFIED AS CLASS IN TEXAS IC
MISCLASSIFICATION CASE. A Texas federal district court
conditionally certified a class of litigation support workers who
were classified as ICs by The Document Group, Inc. (TDG) and
allegedly denied overtime compensation for hours worked over forty
in a workweek in violation of the FLSA. The workers provide
copying, scanning, organizing, and storing of records for law firm
clients of TDG.  The class members not only claim that TDG
determines where, when, and how the workers perform their work,
they also allege that they rely on TDG for their work, are not
permitted to hire other workers to help them, have no opportunity
for profit or risk of loss, do not provide any material portion of
their required equipment or any of the necessary products to
perform their work, do not incur operating expenses for rent,
payroll, marketing, or insurance, work exclusively for TDG because
they work up to 14 hours per day for the company, and do not
maintain independent places of business. Vaughn v. Document Grp.
Inc., No. 16-CV-3578 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017).

Regulatory and Administrative (2 cases)

NLRB FINDS DISTRIBUTORS FOR BAKING COMPANY TO BE IC'S AND
THEREFORE MAY NOT BE UNIONIZED. The Regional Director for the
Boston Region of the National Labor Relations Board has denied the
petition of a Teamsters local union seeking to represent a unit of
48 distributors/drivers who contract with Bimbo Foods Bakeries
Distribution, LLC to distribute bakery products out of a depot in
Massachusetts.  In denying the petition, the Regional Director
concluded that the distributors are independent contractors and
not employees under the National Labor Relations Act.  In the
decision, the Regional Director noted that under Bimbo's
contractual relationships with the distributors, Bimbo provides
them with the distribution rights to sell Bimbo products in a
specific designated area; and the distributors operate their own
businesses in which they purchase bakery products from Bimbo and
distribute those products to customers within the surrounding
area.  The Regional Director also noted that the following factors
supported IC status: Bimbo does not exert sufficient control over
the distributors given that the distributors themselves determine
how much product to order, how often to order it, how much to sell
and deliver to customers, what days and hours to work, whether to
hire helpers, and whether to attend meetings or orientations.  The
Regional Director further noted that the distributors are
prohibited from identifying themselves with Bimbo or its products,
except as provided in an advertising agreement; the distributors
are engaged in their own separate businesses; there is no
supervisory or disciplinary system for distributors; there are no
mandatory trainings, personnel policies, handbooks, sales quotas,
or requirements for sales reports; the distributors provide their
own vehicles and are responsible for all related costs such as
maintenance, fuel and insurance; they are compensated based on the
success or failure of their efforts and the value of their routes;
they intended the relationship with Bimbo Foods to be that of an
independent contractor; and they have significant entrepreneurial
opportunity with regard to the operation of their business
including the right and ability to work for other entities, have a
proprietary interest in the work, and exert control over important
business decisions involving their independent businesses.
According to the Regional Director, these factors outweighed those
that the union asserted were indicative of employee status: there
is no special skill required to be a distributor; the contracts
were for ten-year or indefinite terms; the distributors' work is
part of the regular business of Bimbo Foods; and the distributors
and Bimbo Foods are in the same business. Bimbo Foods Bakeries
Distribution, LLC and Teamsters Local Union No. 633 of New
Hampshire, No. 01-RC-193669 (NLRB Region 1 Mar. 31, 2017).

FOUR PORT AND RAIL DRIVERS TO RECEIVE $855,000 FOR IC
MISCLASSIFICATION BY XPO. The California Labor Commissioner issued
on April 14, 2017 a monetary award of $855,000 to four port and
rail drivers working for XPO Logistics, a subsidiary of XPO
Cartage, for their misclassification as ICs.  XPO specializes in
moving goods to and from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
The Labor Commissioner concluded that each of the four drivers was
an employee and not an IC because XPO retained pervasive control
over the drayage operation as a whole. For example, XPO obtained
clients, clients paid XPO directly, XPO determined rates to be
paid to the workers with no rights for negotiation, XPO controlled
work assignments and workers' schedules, GPS was used by XPO to
monitor the workers' locations, workers were required to follow
XPO guidelines and rules, and workers could not use their trucks
to perform services for other companies.  The Labor Commissioner
also noted that the workers did not hold themselves out as having
a separate and distinct business or have their own customers; XPO
supplied the trucks by arranging for the truck leases; the workers
made no investment in the equipment or materials needed to
transport goods; the workers had no opportunity for profit or
loss; and permanency of the relationship existed. The awards
included, reportedly for the first time, compensation for "non-
productive time," such as time spent inspecting the truck, waiting
for dispatch and scanning in paperwork at days' end.  They also
received compensation for unpaid hours, liquidated damages,
expenses, deductions, and meal and rest breaks.  Since 2011, port
truckers have filed over 800 claims with the California Division
of Labor Standards Enforcement, with about 300 resulting in
determinations by the Labor Commissioner that the drivers were
employees and not ICs. Approximately 200 are still awaiting
hearings and 300 were either settled or transferred to the courts.
To date, approximately $36 million has been awarded as a result of
employee misclassification. Gaitan v. XPO Cartage, Inc., Nos. 05-
66467 KR, 05-66468 KR, 05-66595 KR, 05-66694 KR (Cal. Labor Comm'r
Apr. 14, 2017).


* Reason Comments on the Disappearing Sixth Amendment
-----------------------------------------------------
C.J. Ciaramella at Reason wrote that you have the right to an
attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided
to you.

So goes the Miranda rights spiel heard on 1,000 cop shows. But in
many parts of the U.S., it's not quite true. Those who cannot
afford a lawyer are left waiting for months to meet with public
defenders already buried under other cases.

After Shondel Church was arrested for felony theft in 2016, the
Missouri public defender service told him his case was winnable,
but he would have to sit in jail six months before an attorney
could prepare it. After waiting three months without a job and
away from his family, Church took a plea deal. He's now the lead
plaintiff in a federal class action lawsuit filed in March by the
American Civil Liberties Union. The group is arguing that
Missouri's woefully inadequate roster of public defenders violates
poor residents' constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court ruled in the landmark 1963 case Gideon v.
Wainwright that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to
effective legal counsel. "Reason and reflection," the justices
wrote, "require us to recognize that, in our adversary system of
criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to
hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is
provided to him."

But states have undercut the Gideon guarantee by chronically
underfunding public defender services. The 370 attorneys doing the
work in Colorado have a load of more than 80,000 cases a year. A
2014 study by the American Bar Association (ABA) found that in 97
percent of cases, Missouri public defenders failed to meet the
ABA's recommended minimum hours to effectively represent their
clients.

And last year in Louisiana, where about 85 percent of criminal
defendants qualify for a court-appointed attorney, 33 of the
state's 42 public defender offices started turning away cases they
said they no longer had the resources to handle. Their reasoning?
What little legal assistance they could provide would be so
ineffective as to violate defendants' constitutional rights
anyway.

When public defender offices don't have time to investigate cases,
file motions for discovery, or do any of the rudimentary legwork
involved in preparing for trial, it leaves defendants at an
enormous disadvantage. It's not a coincidence that Louisiana also
has the highest incarceration level in the country and the second-
highest wrongful conviction rate, according to the National
Registry on Exonerations.

For the hundreds of thousands of poor defendants who churn through
the criminal justice system every year, choosing between a plea
deal or months in jail waiting on an attorney who will barely know
the details of their case is a lose-lose proposition. [GN]


                         *********


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 Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *