CAR_Public/170522.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Monday, May 22, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 101



                            Headlines

145 TULIP: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Law
ACE AMERICAN: Wins OK of "Boise" Accord; Final Hearing on Oct. 4
ADMIN RECOVERY: Faces "Koulouris" Suit in E.D. New York
ADVENTIST MIDWEST: Smith Revises Bid to Certify IMWL/FLSA Classes
AETNA: Judge Certifies TMS Insurance Class Action

ALIBABA GROUP: Investors Seek to Revive Securities Class Action
AMERICAN CORADIUS: Faces "Nedd" Suit in E.D. New York
AMERICAN HOMEPATIENT: Geismann Moves for Certification of Class
AMERICAN HONDA: Katz's Class Certification Bid Under Submission
AMERICAN PRO: Golden's Bid to Certify Class Under Submission

AMERIGAS PROPANE: Jarrell Asks Court to Approve $800K Settlement
AMICI 519: "Uraga" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation Under FLSA
AMSTERDAM HOSPITALITY: Faces "Anderson" Suit in E.D. New York
ANJEDEV ENTERPRISES: Seeks Review of Decision in "Romero" Suit
BERKELEY FORGE: Luna Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under Labor Code

BLUESTONE COAL: Treadway Seeks to Certify Full-Time Workers Class
BURG SIMPSON: MDL Lead Counsel Sued Over Dismissed Yaz Suits
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: "Krafczek" Suit Moved to E.D. New York
CADILLAC AUTOMOBILE: Faces "Gaines" Suit in S.D. California
CELADON GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

COLUMBUS, GA: "Harrison" Suit Deal OK'd; Final Hearing on Oct. 11
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Cooley Seeks Certification of Class Suit
COX SECURITY: Faces "Wodzinski" Wage-and-Hour Suit
CREDIT CORP: Faces "Nedd" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
D&A SERVICES: Faces "Galper" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Alston Appeals Ruling in "Davis" Class Suit
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Class Action Over Obsolete Motor Oil
EASTERN ACCOUNT: Certification of Class Sought in "Lakkard" Suit
FYRE MEDIA: Unjust Enrichment Claims Included in Lawsuit
FBCS INC: Faces "Vittor" Suit in Eastern District of New York

FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Nedd" Suit in E.D. New York
FMS INC: Faces "Eberhardt" Suit in Eastern District of New York
GEICO GENERAL: Appeals Ruling in "McGraw" Suit to Ninth Circuit
GRANA Y MONTERO: Faces "Goldberg" Suit Over Securities Act Breach
HARRY'S ITALIAN: Faces "Aragon" Suit in S.D. New York

HC AUTOMOTIVE: "Darcuiel" Suit Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations
HIGHER ONE: Faces Class Action Over Student Card Practices
HOFFMAN COMMERICAL: "Barrows" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
ILLINOIS, USA: Court Certifies Prisoners Class in "Lippert" Suit
IND GLATT: Faces "Saldarriaga" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York

JIM FISCHER: Laughlin Moves to Certify Class of Jobsite Workers
KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces "Lawson" Wage-and-Hour Suit
KANSAS CITY, MO: Zimmerli, et al. Seek Overtime Pay Under FLSA
KEY HEALTH: Wins Prelim. Approval of "Thompkins" Suit Settlement
KOHL'S CORPORATION: Faces "Tran" Suit Over Credit Transactions

LEVOIT ADVANCED: Gray-Knox Seeks Unpaid Wage Under Labor Code
LEXINGTON TECH: Levy Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under Labor Code
LIBERTY LIFE: "Yalley" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
LOS ANGELES, CA: Underpays EEG Technicians, "Macion" Suit Says
LOUISIANA: Class Action Status Sought in Indigent Defense Case

MBF INSPECTION: Ganci Moves for Certification of Inspectors Class
MEDICREDIT INC: Seeks Prelim. OK of "Hartman" Suit Settlement
MICHAEL'S STORES: McGuireWoods Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
MICHAEL'S STORES: Hunton & Williams Discusses Class Action Ruling
MICHIGAN: Faces Class Action Over Traffic Fine Laws

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Lugo" Suit in Eastern District of New York
MURPHY & LOMON: Faces "Levinson" Suit in E.D. New York
NCC BUSINESS: Faces "Nedd" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
NELLSON NUTRACEUTICAL: "Anderson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Premium Wages
NORTH AMERICAN: Fritz Moves for Certification of Customers Class

NORTHLAND GROUP: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Kislin" Class Suit
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Koulouris" Suit in E.D. New York
NUMERO UNO: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
PACE OPPORTUNITY: Ellison Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
PACIFIC BELL: "Meza" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to E.D. Cal.

PAPA JOHN'S: Certification of Class Sought in "Hatmaker" Suit
PUERTO RICO, USA: Carlo Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Class Action in California
RAMELLI GROUP: Escobar Moves for Certification of Suit Under FLSA
ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: "Baron" Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois

SABATINO TRUFFLES: Faces Class Action Over Truffle Oil
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Anderson" Suit in Minn. Federal Court
SANABI INVESTMENTS: Seeks Review of Decision in "Carrero" Suit
SEARS HOLDINGS: Faces "Badger" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
SENIOR CARE: Fails to Pay Nurses for OT Work, "Ward" Suit Claims

SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Faces "Texeira" Suit in S.D. New York
SOUTHWEST MEDICAL: "Horton" Suit Moved to N.D. Oklahoma
SPACEX: Settles Class Action Over Shift Patterns
SPEEDWAY LLC: Must Face ADA Compliance Class Action
SPRINT SOLUTIONS: Class Certification Sought in Gorss Motels Suit

STATE FARM: Pipkins Seeks Certification of Class Under Rule 23
TECH MAHINDRA: Kumar Moves for Certification of Action Under FLSA
TUFTS ASSOCIATED: Chambers Files Suit for Breach of Contract
UNITED PARCEL: "Backus" Suit Moved to District of Oregon
USCB CORPORATION: Faces "Navas" Suit in E.D. New York

WELLS FARGO: Faces "McCoy" Suit in S.D. Mississippi
WELLS FARGO: Nguyen Moves for Certification of Class & Sub-Class
WILSON SPORTING: Oda Seeks to Certify Nationwide Class & Subclass

* Democrats Oppose Bill to Avert Lawsuits
* Employers Face Increased Risk of FMLA Class Actions
* Foley & Lardner Attorneys Discuss How Arbitration Works
* JBA President Responds to Dormant Account Fees Class Action
* Securities Class Action Filings Surge in First Quarter 2017






                            *********


145 TULIP: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE GARCIA and FREDIS MALDONADO, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. JOHN DUGGAN,
KATHLEEN DUGGAN, JACK DUGGAN'S LOUGHREA, INC., and 145 TULIP
AVE. OWNERS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 601537/2017 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., May 11, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages for overtime
work performed, unpaid spread of hours wages, liquidated damages
for failure to pay overtime premium and spread of hours pay,
liquidated damages for failure to furnish Plaintiffs a notice and
acknowledgment at the time of hiring, attorneys' fees, and all
costs and disbursements associated with this action, under the New
York Labor Law (NYLL).

According to the complaint, Mr. Garcia was paid $8-$9.00 per hour.
Mr. Garcia worked generally from 11:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. to
11:30 p.m., Tuesday through Sunday.  Mr. Garcia did not supervise
any other employee and had no supervisory authority whatsoever
over any other person. While Plaintiffs, and the Class plaintiffs,
worked in excess of 40 hours a week, Defendants willfully failed
to pay them minimum wage, and overtime compensation for the
overtime hours worked.

145 Tulip is a local bar and restaurant in Floral Park, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
         MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
         91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
         Hempstead, NY 11550
         Telephone: (516) 280 4600
         Facsimile: (516) 280 4530
         E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com


ACE AMERICAN: Wins OK of "Boise" Accord; Final Hearing on Oct. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Marcia G. Cooke granted preliminary approval of the
Plaintiff's stipulation and agreement of settlement, conditional
class certification, notice to settlement class members and entry
of scheduling order in the lawsuit styled JUSTIN MARK BOISE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACE
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, and ACE USA, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-
21264-MGC (S.D. Fla.).

Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and for the purposes of settlement only, the Settlement Class is
preliminarily certified, consisting of:

     All individuals in the United States who are or were
     customers of Nationstar Mortgage or BB&T Bank, on or after
     October 16, 2013 who: (1) received more than one telephone
     call made by or on behalf of Defendant within a 12-month
     period; (2) to a telephone number that had been registered
     with the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days.

     The following are excluded from the Settlement Class: (1)
     any judge that may preside over this case; (2) Defendant, as
     well as any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or control person
     of Defendant, and the officers, directors, agents, servants
     or employees of Defendant; (3) any of the Released Parties;
     (4) the immediate family of any such person(s); (5) any
     Settlement Class Member who has timely submitted a Request
     for Exclusion by the Opt-Out Deadline; (6) any person or
     entity who has previously given a valid release of the
     claims asserted in the Action; and (7) Plaintiff's Counsel
     and their employees.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, ACE will deposit a total of
$9,760,000 into the Settlement Fund when the Settlement becomes
Final, which Settlement Fund will be maintained by the Settlement
Administrator for the benefit of the Settlement Class and Class
Counsel.

Plaintiff Justin Mark Boise is appointed as Class Representative,
and W. Craft Hughes, Esq., and Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq., of Hughes
Ellzey, LLP, are appointed as Class Counsel.  Kurtzman Carson
Consultants is appointed as the Settlement Administrator.

A Final Approval Hearing is scheduled to be held before the Court
on October 4, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.  The Court also set these
deadlines:

   * Class Notice Mailed and Published: 60 days after entry of
     Preliminary Approval Order;

   * Objection/Exclusion Deadline: 120 days after entry of
     Preliminary Approval Order; and

   * Final Approval Submissions: September 20, 2017.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AH3ZlJJ7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1120
          Galleria Tower I
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (888) 834-9925
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
                  jarrett@hughesellzey.com


ADMIN RECOVERY: Faces "Koulouris" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Admin Recovery, LLC.
The case is styled as Stacey Koulouris, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Admin
Recovery, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02880 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 11, 2017).

Admin Recovery provides of receivable management services offering
third party collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ADVENTIST MIDWEST: Smith Revises Bid to Certify IMWL/FLSA Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled 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.), revised his motion for class certification
of his Illinois Minimum Wage Law claims and certification of his
Fair Labor Standards Act claims.

The proposed classes are:

   * IMWL overtime claim class:

     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.

   * FLSA overtime claim class:

     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.

Mr. Smith also asks the Court to appoint him as Class
Representative and to appoint Stephan Zouras, LLP as class
counsel.

A copy of the Revised Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8wUYBTcs

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


AETNA: Judge Certifies TMS Insurance Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Robert Storace, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that a U.S. District Court judge in Connecticut has certified a
class action against Aetna for systematically denying insurance
coverage for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to treat
severe depression.

In her May 4 decision, Judge Janet Hall granted class
certification for anyone whose TMS claims were rejected by Aetna
as experimental or investigational treatment between Sept. 3,
2009, and July 29, 2016.  In the same order, Hall rejected a
request to issue an injunction against Aetna and class
certification for anyone whose claims may be denied in the future.

The class will consist of at least 458 people who received TMS
treatment and whose claims were denied by Aetna based on an
exclusion for experimental or investigational treatment.  The
class will also include 646 people whose requests for pre-
authorization for TMS services were denied.

Hall also appointed plaintiff Christopher Meidl as class
representative and appointed Zuckerman Spaeder and Psych-Appeal
Inc. as co-lead counsel.  Mr. Meidl's request for coverage and
subsequent appeals were denied by Aetna, according to the
underlying lawsuit, which also targets MCMC LLC.

In its lawsuit, Mr. Meidl claims Aetna's TMS policy violated its
fiduciary obligations under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, Aetna violated the terms of the class members'
health plans, and the insurance provider unjustly enriched itself.

"The underlying merits, we believe, is that Aetna was applying an
improper standard for determining whether a procedure was
experimental or investigational," said plaintiff's attorney D.
Brian Hufford -- dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- of Zuckerman Spaeder
in New York City.  "In our view, there is clear evidence that TMS
is an effective and well-established procedure and should be
covered."

Most insurance companies have covered costs associated with TMS,
which left only Aetna and Cigna as the major providers not
covering it, Mr. Hufford said.  Aetna changed its policy to cover
TMS treatment after the suit was filed.  The amended complaint was
filed in January 2016.

TMS is a noninvasive procedure that uses an electromagnet to
generate repeated pulsed magnetic fields that stimulate nerve
cells in the region of the brain associated with mood control,
thus improving symptoms of depression.

If the plaintiffs prevail in their class action, an estimated
1,100 people denied treatment by Aetna would have to reprocess
their claims.  Aetna would then have to pay the claim, which could
be between $10,000 to $20,000, or have another reason to reject
it, Mr. Hufford said.

The courts "are clearly saying that insurers can be held
accountable, on a class-wide basis, for their systematic denial of
mental health and substance abuse-related coverage," Mr. Hufford
added.

Aetna was represented by attorneys Geoffrey Sigler --
gsigler@gibsondunn.com -- and Heather Richardson --
hrichardson@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.  Neither
was available for comment on May 10.

Mr. Hufford was assisted by Andrew N. Goldfard --
agoldfarb@zuckerman.com -- and Jason S. Cowart --
jcowart@zuckerman.com -- of Zuckerman Spaeder; Elizabeth K. Acee -
- elizabeth.acee@leclairryan.com -- and Daniel P. Ellison of
LeClairRyan in New Haven; and Meiram Bendat of Psych-Appeal, which
is based in California. [GN]


ALIBABA GROUP: Investors Seek to Revive Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Gorta, writing for Law360, reports that a group of
investors asked the Second Circuit to resuscitate their proposed
securities class action against Alibaba, arguing the district
court should not have disregarded reports the e-commerce giant was
secretly threatened by Chinese regulators with huge fines just
before its initial public offering.

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in June tossed the
consolidated suit, which alleged Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. failed
to disclose an "unprecedented" July 2014 meeting with China's
State Administration for Industry and Commerce, in which
regulators threatened massive fines unless Alibaba reined in
third-party sales of counterfeit goods through its website.

The investors alleged the meeting, which was revealed in a white
paper that briefly appeared on the SAIC website in January 2016,
required disclosure in the company's registration statement in
advance of its initial public offering.  After the white paper was
taken down from the site, its contents appeared in several news
reports, which Judge McMahon chose to discount, according to the
plaintiffs' attorney, Robert K. Kry of MoloLamken LLP.

"The district court refused to credit the critical news reports of
the massive financial fines that regulators threatened because
those reports quoted anonymous sources," Mr. Kry told the three
judge panel.  "She read the news reports and basically ruled, 'I
don't believe them, I think the person quoted is speculating,'
that's just not the function of a district court at this stage of
the litigation.

Mr. Kry said Alibaba asked regulators to "keep this meeting secret
for the precise purpose of concealing it from investors in its
IPO."

"This was not a routine back and forth regulatory meeting,"
Mr. Kry said.  "This was a high-level meeting between senior
Chinese government officials and senior Alibaba officials at which
very specific accusations were made about widespread legal
violations and that was concealed from investors."

James Kreissman -- jkreissman@stblaw.com -- of Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP, arguing for Alibaba, told the judges that the
meeting was no more than "administrative guidance" and the white
paper was "utterly silent on fines or any action by the SAIC."

"The white paper states that Alibaba accepts the guidance it was
given and the SAIC concludes in the white paper that the meeting
served its purpose," Mr. Kreissman said.  "In other words, Alibaba
says, 'OK, we hear you, we're going to work with you."

He said Alibaba didn't need to disclose the meeting, telling the
judges that in the Southern District have found that a company
doesn't have to disclose a Wells notice from the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, much less an "informal meeting."

Judge McMahon said in her decision to toss the complaint that
Alibaba had issued an "unusually comprehensive" registration
statement that made clear the regulatory and litigation risks the
Chinese company faced over unlicensed vendors and the sale of
counterfeit goods on the site.

Circuit Judges Rosemary S. Pooler, Pierre N. Leval and Peter W.
Hall sat on the panel for the Second Circuit.

Counsel for the parties declined to comment outside court.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robert K. Kry and Sarah J.
Newman of MoloLamken LLP and Laurence Rosen of The Rosen Law Firm
PA.

Alibaba and the director defendants are represented by James
Kreissman, Jonathan Youngwood, Simona Strauss --
sstrauss@stblaw.com -- Stephen Blake -- sblake@stblaw.com -- Bryan
Jin -- bryan.jin@stblaw.com -- Elizabeth White --
elizabeth.white@stblaw.com -- and Randy Moonan --
randy.moonan@stblaw.com -- of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

The case is Christine Asia Co. Ltd., et al., v. Jack Yun Ma, et
al., case number 16-2519, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit. [GN]


AMERICAN CORADIUS: Faces "Nedd" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Coradius
International LLC. The case is captioned as Wynette Nedd, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. American Coradius International LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-02907 (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2017).

American Coradius operates as full service contact center
operation.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


AMERICAN HOMEPATIENT: Geismann Moves for Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled RADHA GEISMANN, MD, P.C.,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. AMERICAN HOMEPATIENT, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-
10, Case No. 4:14-cv-01538-RLW (E.D. Mo.), seeks an order
certifying this class:

     All persons or entities who were sent the Fax, on or about
     June 22, 2013, providing "American HomePatient, Your
     Medicare Patients have 1 week to find a new provider."

The case arises out of a fax-advertising campaign wherein
facsimile advertisements were sent to the Plaintiff and the
proposed class on or about June 22, 2013.  The Plaintiff, a
professional corporation with its principal place of business in
St. Louis County, Missouri, received this fax on June 22, 2013,
and brought the lawsuit alleging that the Fax violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 and the regulations
implementing the Act.

The Fax advertised the availability and quality of Defendant
American HomePatient, Inc.'s respiratory products and services,
specifically, oxygen therapy, CPAP, and sleep studies.

The Plaintiff also seeks its appointment as class representative
and the appointment of The Margulis Group and Anderson + Wanca as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iRIZf2VN

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          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
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Max G. Margulis, Esq.
          MARGULIS LAW GROUP
          28 Old Belle Monte Road
          Chesterfield, MO 63017
          Telephone: (636) 536-7022
          E-mail: MaxMargulis@MargulisLaw.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Katz's Class Certification Bid Under Submission
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall has taken under submission the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled
SAMUEL KATZ v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-
04410-CBM-RAO (C.D. Cal.).

According to the Court's civil minutes, the case is called and
counsel state their appearance.  The Court and counsel confer.
Following discussions with the parties, the Court tentatively
denied the Defendant's joint motion for summary judgment and took
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under submission.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Kq9HvcmJ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          Paul T. Geske, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
          E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com
                  pgeske@mcgpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael L. Mallow, Esq.
          Rachel A. Straus, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West Fifth Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
          E-mail: mmallow@sidley.com
                  rstraus@sidley.com

               - and -

          Justin M. Penn, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          222 N Lasalle, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 704-3000
          Facsimile: (312) 704-3001
          E-mail: jpenn@hinshawlaw.com


AMERICAN PRO: Golden's Bid to Certify Class Under Submission
------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald has taken off the calendar and
under submission the Plaintiff's amended motion and amended
unopposed motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled
Lori Golden v. American Pro Energy, Case No. 5:16-cv-00891-MWF-DTB
(C.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds that the matter is appropriate
for submission on the papers without oral argument.  Accordingly,
the hearing set on the Motion is vacated and taken off calendar.
The Courtroom Deputy, Rita Sanchez, will be contacting counsel to
arrange a telephonic status conference later in the week.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wLLA0lsT


AMERIGAS PROPANE: Jarrell Asks Court to Approve $800K Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JIMMIE JARRELL, an individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMERIGAS
PROPANE, Inc.; a Pennsylvania corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-01481-JST (N.D. Cal.), moves for an
order to:

   1. grant preliminary approval of the terms of the parties'
      stipulation as fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule
      23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including
      the amount of the settlement; the amount of distributions
      to class members; the procedure for giving notice to class
      members; the procedure for opting out of the settlement;
      and the amounts allocated to the enhancement payments and
      attorney's fees and costs;

   2. preliminarily certify for settlement purposes the
      Settlement Class described in the Stipulation as:

      all Persons who were employed by AmeriGas as a Service
      Technician (a non-exempt or hourly position) in California
      from February 16, 2012, through the date of preliminary
      approval;

   3. appoint Plaintiff as representative for the Settlement
      Class;

   4. appoint Setareh Law Group as counsel for the Settlement
      Class;

   5. approve Rust Consulting, Inc. as the settlement
      administrator;

   6. direct that notice issue to members of the Settlement Class
      as provided in the Stipulation; and,

   7. schedule a final approval and fairness hearing on a date
      approximately 140 days after preliminary approval (Nov. 2,
      2017 is proposed) to consider whether the Stipulation
      should be finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate
      under Rule 23(e) and to rule on the motion for attorney's
      fees, costs and enhancement award submitted by the
      Plaintiff.

The full terms of the settlement are set forth in the Stipulation.
The primary material terms are:

   -- Defendant agrees that $800,000 represents the maximum
      amount that it will pay out under the Stipulation;

   -- Class Counsel will not seek an amount greater than $266,640
      for attorneys' fees;

   -- Class Counsel will not seek an amount greater than $35,000
      for litigation costs;

   -- The Class Representative enhancement award will be $10,000;
      and

   -- If a Class Member has not cashed his or her check within 60
      days of issuance, the Claims Administrator shall send the
      Class Member in question a postcard reminder about the
      deadline for cashing the check and information on how to
      request a replacement check.  The funds associated with any
      checks that are not properly or timely negotiated within 90
      days from the date of mailing shall be deposited by the
      Claims Administrator into the State of California
      Department of Industrial Relations Unclaimed Wages Fund
      with the identity of the Participating Claimants to whom
      the funds belong.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 22, 2017, at 2:00 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com


AMICI 519: "Uraga" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO URAGA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
the Class, the Plaintiff, v. AMICI 519 LLC d/b/a ESSEN, BNP NY
FOODS, INC. d/b/a ESSEN, TEN WESTSIDE CORP. d/b/a ESSEN,
100 BROAD STREET LLC d/b/a ESSEN, ESSEN22 LLC d/b/a ESSEN,
JOHN DOE CORP. d/b/a ESSEN, JOHN BYUN and CHONG WON BYUN, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03547 (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2017), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid wages due to time
shaving, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs,
economic damages, compensatory damages, and punitive damages,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York
Labor Law (NYLL), the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York Executive Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action
pursuant to FLSA, on behalf of all non-exempt employees (including
cooks, line cooks, food preparers, cashiers, counter persons,
dishwashers, porters, cleaning persons and delivery persons)
employed by Defendants on or after the date that is six years
before the filing of the complaint.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had
substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are
and have been subjected to Defendants' decisions, policies, plans,
programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules,
all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay them (i)
proper overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times
the regular rate and (ii) wages for all hours worked due to a
policy of time shaving.

The Defendants operate six restaurants under the common trade name
"Essen".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         C.K. Lee, Esq.
         Anne Seelig, Esq.
         LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
         30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 465 1188
         Facsimile: (212) 465 1181


AMSTERDAM HOSPITALITY: Faces "Anderson" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amsterdam
Hospitality Group, LLC.  The case is styled as Derrick Anderson,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Amsterdam Hospitality Group, LLC and Amsterdam
Hospitality, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02923 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 12, 2017).

Amsterdam Hospitality owns and operates hotels in New York, New
Jersey, and North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANJEDEV ENTERPRISES: Seeks Review of Decision in "Romero" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Anjedev Enterprises, DBA Amma, Anju Sharma and Devendra
Sharma filed an appeal from a District Court judgment dated March
30, 2017, and a District Court supplemental judgment dated April
11, 2017, in the lawsuit styled Romero v. Anjedev Enterprises,
Case No. 14-cv-457, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of
40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for the hours
over 40 per week that they worked, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The Plaintiffs were primarily employed as delivery
workers, but they were required to spend a considerable part of
their work day performing Non-tipped, Non-delivery Duties,
including various restaurant duties like preparing food, peeling
shrimp, cutting vegetables, sweeping and mopping.

The Defendants own, operate, or control an Indian restaurant
located in New York under the name Amma.  The Individual
Defendants are owners, officers or agents of the Company.

The appellate case is captioned as Romero v. Anjedev Enterprises,
Case No. 17-1274, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Carmelo Romero, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and Juan Romero, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Joshua S. Androphy, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: jandrophy@faillacelaw.com

Defendants-Appellants Anjedev Enterprises, DBA Amma, Anju Sharma
and Devendra Sharma are represented by:

          Vincent Avery, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          666 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10103
          Telephone: (212) 880-3800
          Facsimile: (212) 880-8965
          E-mail: vincent.avery@akerman.com


BERKELEY FORGE: Luna Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ISIDRO ACEVES LUNA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BERKELEY FORGE & TOOL INC.,
a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. RG17859881 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 11, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime and minimum wages, premium wages for
missed meal and rest periods, penalties, injunctive and other
equitable relief and reasonable attorney's fees and costs,
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, for at least four years prior to the
filing of this action and through to the present, the Defendants
have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages, including
overtime wages; failing to provide 30 minute uninterrupted meal
period for days on which the employees worked more than five hours
in a workday and a second 30 minute uninterrupted meal periods for
days on which the employees worked in excess of 10 hours in a work
day, and failing to provide compensation for such unprovided meal
periods; failing to provide rest periods of at least 10 minutes
per four hours worked or major fraction and failing to pay such
employees one hour of pay at the employees' regular rate of
compensation for each workday that the rest period was not
provided; improperly deducting the cost of uniforms and/or uniform
maintenance; and failing to pay full amount of wages upon
termination and/or resignation.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees, pursuant to California Business and
Professions Code also seeks all monies owed but withheld and
retained by Defendants to which Plaintiff and members of the Class
are entitled.

Berkeley Forge engages in the design, engineering, manufacture,
and marketing of mining and commercial forging products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Michael Nourmand, Esq.
         Janies A. De Sario, Esq.
         THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
         8822 West Olympic Boulevard
         Beverly Hills, CA 90211
         Telephone: (310) 553 3600
         Facsimile: (310) 553 3603


BLUESTONE COAL: Treadway Seeks to Certify Full-Time Workers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court to certify the proceeding titled
FRANK G. TREADWAY, JOEY CLARK HATFIELD, and CHARLES W. HENSLEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BLUESTONE COAL CORP., BLUESTONE INDUSTRIES, INC., and MECHEL
BLUESTONE, INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-12149 (S.D.W. Va.), as a class
action against the Defendants.  The Plaintiffs move the Court to
certify a class consisting of:

     all full-time employees of Mechel Bluestone, or its
     affiliates or subsidiaries, who were terminated,
     and/or subject to a reduction in force, at the Burke
     Mountain Strip Mine by the Bluestone Coal Corporation,
     Bluestone Industries, Inc., or Mechel Bluestone, Inc. from
     December 27, 2011 through March 26, 2012.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to allow 60 days for class
discovery, and to order notice to proposed Class Members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rvc5dxEX

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel B. Petsonk, Esq.
          Bren J. Pomponio, Esq.
          MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC.
          1031 Quarrier Street, Suite 200
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 344-3144
          Facsimile: (304) 344-3145
          E-mail: sam@msjlaw.org
                  bren@msjlaw.org


BURG SIMPSON: MDL Lead Counsel Sued Over Dismissed Yaz Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Novak Jones and Matt Fair, writing for Law360, report that a
group of women involved in multidistrict litigation over a Bayer
birth control product filed a putative class action in Illinois
state court against their attorneys in that case on
May 8, saying their suits were dismissed when the attorneys failed
to respond to a motion.

Three women who say they suffered from dangerous blood clots after
taking a version of Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. birth
control product Yaz filed a class action against lead counsel in
the MDL, Michael Burg of Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine PC,
Michael London of Douglas & London PC and Mark Niemeyer of
Niemeyer Grebel & Kruse LLC.

The suit, filed in St. Clair County, Illinois, accuses the
attorneys of malpractice.  It also names Roger Denton of
Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP, who was the court's designated
liaison counsel in the MDL, each of the named plaintiffs'
attorneys in the MDL and the attorneys' firms.

The attorneys failed to respond to a motion to dismiss filed by
Bayer in the ongoing MDL, the women say, which cost them their
chance to sue the pharma giant.

"Plaintiffs and the putative class lost any recovery and/or any
chance of recovery they may have had which would include
compensation for any personal injury damages, lost wages and
future damages that they suffered as a consequence of their
consumption and ingestion of Yaz resulting in its deleterious
effects on them," the suit claims.

A call to Mr. Burg was answered by David Hersh, named partner of
Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine PC, who said the firm had
not received the suit and would not comment.  Efforts to reach the
other defendants were not successful on May 10.

Jessica Casey, Melody Edwards and Debbie Foster say they were
proposed class representatives in the multidistrict litigation,
once one of the country's largest, which accused Bayer of
marketing Yaz and similar products while knowing it contained an
active ingredient tied to arterial blood clots.

The MDL, which was consolidated in Illinois in 2009, contained
12,000 suits at its apex.  Bayer agreed to pay $57 million in
August 2015 to settle suits in the MDL as well as others filed in
Pennsylvania, New Jersey and California state courts.

That same month, an Illinois federal judge issued a case
management order that was designed to resolve any remaining cases,
the women said in the May 8 suit.  The judge ordered any remaining
plaintiffs to respond to a motion to dismiss within two weeks.

Despite their obligations as counsel, lead plaintiffs counsel and
the women's attorneys did not respond, and their cases were
dismissed in January 2016.

The putative class action seeks to cover a class of the women's
fellow Bayer plaintiffs whose suits were dismissed as a result of
the attorneys' actions. It seeks damages and restitution.

The putative class is represented by Kevin Rogers of the Law
Offices of Kevin Rogers.

Counsel information for the attorneys was not immediately
available.

The case is Jessica Casey, et al. v. Roger C. Denton, et al., case
number 2017-L-000250 in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County.
[GN]


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: "Krafczek" Suit Moved to E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Christopher Krafczek, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Cablevision Systems Corp. and Neptune Holdings US Corp., doing
business as Altice USA, Case No. 602715/2017, was removed on May
12, 2017 from the Nassau County Supreme Court, to the U.S.
District Court for Eastern District of New York (Central Islip).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02915 to the
proceeding.

Cablevision Systems is a telecommunications and media company,
which includes a full suite of advanced digital television, voice
and high-speed.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marisa Kendra Glassman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N Franklin St, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 318 5174
          Facsimile: (813) 222 2413
          E-mail: mglassman@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew D. Ingber, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 506 2500
          Facsimile: (212) 506 2721
          E-mail: mingber@mayerbrown.com


CADILLAC AUTOMOBILE: Faces "Gaines" Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cadillac Automobile
Company. The case is entitled as Kelley Gaines, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Cadillac Automobile Company, a Division of General Motors, LLC, a
Delaware Corporation and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00989-LAB-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 12,
2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Larry Alan Burns.

General Motors Company, commonly known as GM, is an American
multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, that
designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and
vehicle parts, and sells financial services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A Waller, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT A. WALLER, JR.
          539 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 107
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Telephone: (760) 753 3118
          Facsimile: (760) 753 3206
          E-mail: robert@robertwallerlaw.com


CELADON GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 10
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Celadon Group, Inc. securities (NYSE: CGI) from
September 13, 2016 through May 1, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Celadon
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Celadon class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1113.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Celadon's equity contribution to its joint venture with
Element Financial Corp. was $68.2 million, rather than the $100
million contribution as reported in its public filings; (2)
Celadon is being actively investigated by the SEC; (3) Celadon's
financial statement for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 could
not be relied upon; (4) Celadon's financial statement for quarter
ended September 30, 2016 could not be relied upon; (5) Celadon's
financial statement for quarter ended December 31, 2016 could not
be relied upon; and (6) as a result, defendants' statements about
Celadon's business, operations and prospects were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable bases at all relevant
times.  When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
June 19, 2017.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1113.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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


COLUMBUS, GA: "Harrison" Suit Deal OK'd; Final Hearing on Oct. 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Court Judge Clay D. Land granted preliminary
approval to the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement in the lawsuit titled
CLEOPATRA HARRISON v. CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT OF COLUMBUS,
GEORGIA, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00329-CDL (M.D. Ga.).

Under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
for purposes of settlement only, a "Settlement Class" is
preliminarily certified, consisting of:

     All persons who, at any time from October 5, 2014, through
     the date of the Settlement Agreement, were assessed or paid
     a "victim assessment fee" related to a proceeding in the
     Columbus Recorder's Court or any similar fee for dismissal
     or non-prosecution of a criminal action in the Columbus
     Recorder's Court, including but not limited to, any fees
     assessed or paid by any persons pursuant to former section
     2-15.2(1) of the Columbus Code of Ordinances.

For settlement purposes only, Plaintiff Cleopatra Harrison is
appointed Class Representative and the Plaintiff's counsel is
appointed as Class Counsel.

A final hearing will be held on October 11, 2017, beginning at
10:00 a.m.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarah Geraghty, Esq.
          Ryan Primerano, Esq.
          SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
          83 Poplar Street NW
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 688-1202
          E-mail: sgeraghty@schr.org
                  rprimerano@schr.org

               - and -

          Mark C. Post, Esq.
          HARP, POYDASHEFF, POST & SOWERS, LLC
          P.O. Box 1172
          Columbus, GA 31902
          Telephone: (706) 323-2761


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Cooley Seeks Certification of Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Cooley asks the Court to enter an order determining that the
action captioned ANGEL COOLEY, on behalf of herself and the class
members defined herein v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., and
JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-03121 (N.D.
Ill.), may proceed as a class action pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act against the Defendants.

The Plaintiff defines the class as: (a) all individuals with
Illinois addresses (b) to whom Convergent (c) sent a letter
offering a settlement of a debt in the form represented by Exhibit
A (d) which debt was a credit card debt on which the last payment
had occurred more than five years prior to the letter, (e) which
letter was sent on or after a date one year prior to the filing of
this action and on or before a date 21 days after the filing of
this action.

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

The Plaintiff contends that she is filing a class motion with the
complaint to avoid any "other defenses" as described by the
Seventh Circuit in Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th
Cir. 2015).  While the Chapman court overruled the mootness issue
expressed in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir.
2011), the court specifically cautioned that: Rejecting a fully
compensatory offer may have consequences other than mootness,
however.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=C63drSNp

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  fgreene@edcombs.com


COX SECURITY: Faces "Wodzinski" Wage-and-Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------------
JOHN WODZINSKI, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. COX SECURITY GROUP, INC. and MARSHALL
COX, JR., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00404-JLG-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio, May 11, 2017), seeks to recover all available relief,
including compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA),
the Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA), and the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act (OPPA).

Mr. John Wodzinski brings this action individually and on behalf
of all current and former employees who worked for Cox Security
Group, Inc. and Marshall Cox, Jr. and were paid a day rate and no
overtime during the past three years and through the final
disposition of this matter.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
         Robert E. 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: rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com
                rderose@barkanmeizlish.com

              - and -

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


CREDIT CORP: Faces "Nedd" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Corp
Solutions Inc. The case is captioned as Wynette Nedd, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. Credit Corp Solutions Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
02914 (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2017).

Credit Corp is a receivables management company that purchases and
collects consumer debt including unpaid retail finance and sales
finance credit cards and personal loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


D&A SERVICES: Faces "Galper" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D&A services, LLC of
IL. The case is styled as Yelena Galper, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. D&A services, LLC
of IL, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02919 (E.D.N.Y., May 12,
2017).

D&A Services provides customer service and compliant collection
remedies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          JOSEPH H. MIZRAHI LAW, P.C.
          337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
          Brooklyn, NY 11223
          Telephone: (917) 299 6612
          Facsimile: (347) 665 1545
          E-mail: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Alston Appeals Ruling in "Davis" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Sephanie R. Alston, Mable Larraine Boler, Kimberly
Brown, James E. Byrd, Gwendolyn Carthens, Sakithia Latrena Davis,
Cynthia Dudley, Clarence Evans, Gale Austin Fields, Omar Francis,
Karone Gray, Vickie Maria Guion, David L. Hailes, Ernest Hunter,
Carla C. Johnson, John Roland Jordan, Stephany M. Kagha, Lorraine
Kelly, Mary Ruth King, Luz A. Lagares, Donna Yvetta Lee, Shirley
Mims, Celciel W. Moore, Darius Morris, Stacy Dave Murry, Nicky
Odaka, Moses Ogokeh, Edward L. Randolph, Trina Marcell Robinson,
Laura Smart, Darryl Stanfield, Angela Goolshan Khan Thomas,
Chanelle Tibbs, Germaine Elanda Walker, Janice Smith Washington,
Rodney E. Williams and Wanda Marie Williams filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Ronda Davis, et al. v. DC, Case
No. 1:10-cv-01564-RC, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 1,
2017, the Hon. Rudolph Contreras entered an order:

   1. granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and

   2. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6PqX8nKN

The appellate case is captioned as Ronda Davis, et al. v. DC, Case
No. 17-7071, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- APPELLANT docketing statement is due on May 31, 2017;
   -- APPELLANT certificate as to parties is due on May 31, 2017;
   -- APPELLANT statement of issues is due on May 31, 2017;
   -- APPELLANT underlying decision is due on May 31, 2017;
   -- APPELLANT deferred appendix statement is due on May 31,
      2017;
   -- APPELLANT notice of appearance is due on May 31, 2017;
   -- APPELLANT transcript status report is due on May 31, 2017;
   -- APPELLANT procedural motions are due on May 31, 2017;
   -- APPELLANT dispositive motions are due on June 15, 2017;
   -- APPELLEE certificate as to parties is due on May 31, 2017;
   -- APPELLEE entry of appearance is due on May 31, 2017;
   -- APPELLEE procedural motions are due on May 31, 2017; and
   -- APPELLEE dispositive motions are due on June 15, 2017.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Ronda L. Davis, Ms. Elaine Farrar and Mrs.
Verjena Jones are represented by:

          David L. Rose, Esq.
          ROSE LEGAL ADVOCATES
          1726 M Street, NW, Suite 203
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 331-8555
          Facsimile: (202) 331-0996
          E-mail: daver@roselawyers.com

Plaintiffs-Appellants Sephanie R. Alston, Kimberly Brown, Stephany
M. Kagha, Donna Yvetta Lee, Celciel W. Moore, Darius Morris,
Janice Smith Washington, and others Similarly Situated, Mable
Larraine Boler, James E. Byrd, Gwendolyn Carthens, Sakithia
Latrena Davis, Clarence Evans, Gale Austin Fields, Omar Francis,
Vickie Maria Guion, Ernest Hunter, Carla C. Johnson, John Roland
Jordan, Mary Ruth King, Luz A. Lagares, Shirley Mims, Stacy Dave
Murry, Nicky Odaka, Moses Ogokeh, Edward L. Randolph, Trina
Marcell Robinson, Laura Smart, Darryl Stanfield, Angela Goolshan
Khan Thomas, Chanelle Tibbs, Germaine Elanda Walker, Rodney E.
Williams, Wanda Marie Williams, Cynthia Dudley, Karone Gray, David
L. Hailes, and Lorraine Kelly are represented by:

          Karla Mari McKanders, Esq.
          HOWARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
          2900 Van Ness Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20008
          Telephone: (202) 806-8065
          E-mail: karla.mckanders@law.howard.edu

Plaintiffs-Appellants Cynthia Dudley, Karone Gray, David L.
Hailes, and Lorraine Kelly are represented by:

          Donald M. Temple, Esq.
          TEMPLE LAW OFFICE
          1310 L Street, NW, Suite 750
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 628-1101
          Facsimile: (202) 628-1149
          E-mail: dtemplelaw@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellee District of Columbia is represented by:

          Loren L. AliKhan, Esq.
          DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
          441 4th Street, NW
          One Judiciary Square, Sixth Floor
          Washington, DC 20001-2714
          Telephone: (202) 727-3400
          E-mail: loren.alikhan@dc.gov


DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Class Action Over Obsolete Motor Oil
----------------------------------------------------------
James Hood, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that a class
action lawsuit charges that Dollar General is knowingly selling
store-brand motor oil that's not safe to use in cars built after
1988.  No one denies this.  In fact, the discount chain admits in
the fine print on the oil's label that it is not suitable for
modern cars.

The label on the back of DG Auto SAE 10W-30 and 10W-40 oils states
that the products are "not suitable for use in most gasoline
powered automotive engines built after 1988" and "may not provide
adequate protection against build-up of engine sludge."

Aggrieved consumers say no one sees the warning, which is in small
print.

In fact, a Houston man named Michael Deck sued Dollar General in
2015, saying that although the product has a disclaimer on its
label, it "further disguises the obsolete and harmful nature" of
its motor oils by placing them on shelves next to various other
motor oils, such as PEAK, Pennzoil and Castrol, that are suitable
for modern vehicles.

The latest lawsuit was filed on behalf of Wisconsin consumers in
Green Bay federal court. It charges that the "entire line of DG
Auto Obsolete Motor Oil Products is unsuitable for the modern-day
vehicles driven by its customers, except that it is successfully
deceiving a sufficient number of customers to make this fraudulent
practice profitable and therefore worthwhile," Courthouse News
Service reported.

Previous complaints

While this may seem surprising, it's not really anything new.
Dollar General began selling its line of company-branded motor oil
in 2010, according to the complaint, and there have been frequent
complaints, not to mention lawsuits, ever since. In June 2016,
several lawsuits were transferred to a court in Missouri

The Wisconsin class is represented by John Blythin --
jblythin@ademilaw.com -- of Ademi & O'Reilly in Cudahy, Wis. [GN]


EASTERN ACCOUNT: Certification of Class Sought in "Lakkard" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Lakkard moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit entitled BARBARA LAKKARD,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
EASTERN ACCOUNT SYSTEM OF CONNECTICUT, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-
00614 (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the
motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.  More than one defendant has already attempted the
scheme contemplated in Campbell-Ewald.  See Severns v. Eastern
Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).  Judge Randa
denied the defendant's request to deposit funds on grounds that a
class certification motion was pending.

As the 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
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FYRE MEDIA: Unjust Enrichment Claims Included in Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Chris Cooke, writing for CMU, reports that you know what it's
like, you sit down to write your lawsuit against Ja Rule and his
best bud Billy McFarland over the whole Fyre Festival debacle, all
ready to talk "breach of contract" and "negligent
misrepresentation", and then -- with that disastrous luxury
island party on your mind -- you suddenly have a yearning for a
mediocre cheese sandwich.  But when you return from the kitchen,
six other people have got their litigation already filed. How the
hell do you make your lawsuit stand out? What've you got that's in
anyway original? I know, "unjust enrichment".  Boom, sorted! Yes,
Fyre Festival lawsuit number seven has been filed.

The litigation has been mounting ever since the Ja Rule-backed
luxury festival in the Bahamas collapsed into chaos just as it was
about to kick off. The latest class action against the event's
organisers, published by Pitchfork, has been filed in the New York
courts and, in addition to the breach of contract and misrep
allegations made in the other lawsuits, also lists alleged
violations of New York State's business laws.  Oh yes, and the
"unjust enrichment".

A stand-out allegation in the new lawsuit, filed on behalf of
ticketholders Sean Daly and Edward Ivey, is that the Fyre Festival
continued to encourage its rich kid punters to upgrade to VIP
packages and to put more money onto their Fyre Bands, a cashless
payment system, even after it had become clear to management that
the event wasn't going to go ahead.  The new legal filing also
reckons that artists and certain key employees were told the event
was being cancelled before thousands of uninformed festival-goers
set off for the island of Great Exuma.

The new legal filing also lists five promises that it says Fyre
Festival communications made that were, it argues, untrue.  This
includes that the event would take place on a private island; that
the island was previously owned by infamous drug lord Pablo
Escobar; that food and beverages would be provided, including VIP
food packages and upgrades; that the living quarters would be
fully furnished permanent structures; and that the event would be
attended by celebrities and that top-level musical talent would be
performing.  It's not clear if, on that last point, the lawyers
are pointing out that no artists showed up, or whether they are
questioning whether or not the acts that had been booked to play
were "top-level".

A number of the lawsuits already filed in relation to the Fyre
Festival have been class actions open to any ticketholders to
join.  Which means yet more stress for all those Fyre punters:
which class action to join? A colleague of celebrity lawyer
Mark Geragos who filed the first lawsuit has said 300
ticketholders have now signed up to join that class, though that
might actually mean even more people as there were multi-person
tickets on sale.  The Daly/Ivey-led class action is late to the
party but, hey, it's got "unjust enrichment" on its list of
claims. Good times. [GN]


FBCS INC: Faces "Vittor" Suit in Eastern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FBCS, Inc.  The case
is styled as David Vittor, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FBCS, Inc., Case No.
2:17-cv-02881 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2017).

FBCS is a third-party collection agency that specializes in the
recovery of charged off debt.BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Nedd" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FirstSource
Advantage LLC. The case is captioned as Wynette Nedd, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. FirstSource Advantage LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
02929 (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2017).

Firstsource Advantage provides innovative debt collections
services to the leading credit card issuers, financial
institutions, and healthcare providers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Igor B Litvak, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (646) 796 4905
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com


FMS INC: Faces "Eberhardt" Suit in Eastern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FMS Inc. The case is
captioned as Marisol L. Eberhardt, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FMS Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02872 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2017).

FMS Inc. operates as a receivables management company. The company
provides first and third party collections, recovery, and
receivables management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GEICO GENERAL: Appeals Ruling in "McGraw" Suit to Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Yolanda McGraw v. GEICO
General Insurance Company, Case No. 3:16-cv-05876-BHS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma.

The appellate case is captioned as Yolanda McGraw v. GEICO General
Insurance Company, Case No. 17-80076, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, GEICO has previously
filed an appeal from a ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case
is captioned as Yolanda McGraw v. GEICO General Insurance Co.,
Case No. 17-80036.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent YOLANDA MCGRAW, individually and as the
representative of all persons similarly situated, is represented
by:

          Stephen M. Hansen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN, P.S.
          1821 Dock Street, Suite 103
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (253) 302-5955
          E-mail: steve@stephenmhansenlaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:

          Stephanie L. Bloomfield, Esq.
          GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
          1201 Pacific Avenue
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (253) 620-6500
          E-mail: sbloomfield@gth-law.com

               - and -

          Kimberly Anne Demarchi, Esq.
          Dan W. Goldfine, Esq.
          Joshua Grabel, Esq.
          LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
          201 E. Washington Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2595
          Telephone: (602) 262-5728
          Facsimile: (602) 262-5747
          E-mail: kdemarchi@lrrc.com
                  dgoldfine@lrrc.com
                  jgrabel@lrrc.com


GRANA Y MONTERO: Faces "Goldberg" Suit Over Securities Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case captioned Marcia Goldberg, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Grana
Y Montero S.A.A., Mario Alvarado Pflucker and Monica Miloslavich
Hart, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01643 (E.D. N.Y., March 23,
2017) has filed a motion for refund of fees paid electronically,
according to a docket entry dated April 27, 2017.
The complaint relates that throughout the Class Period, Grana y
Montero concealed the illegal source of its revenues and, as a
result, its American Depositary Shares (ADSs) traded at
artificially inflated prices, reaching a Class Period high of more
than $22 per ADS by September 19, 2013.

Beginning on December 21, 2016, the price of Grana y Montero ADSs
began to decline precipitously following news of a bribery scandal
between Odebrecht S.A. and government officials around the world.
Grana y Montero had been one of Odebrecht's most important
Peruvian partners.   By February 24, 2017, the price of Grana y
Montero closed at $3.32 per ADS, on unusually high trading volume
of more than 1.9 million shares traded.

The Plaintiff seeks an award of compensatory damages for itself
and the other Class members against all Defendants, jointly and
severally, for all damages sustained as a result of Defendants'
wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including
interest; and award of reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; and
equitable/injunctive or other relief as may be deemed appropriate
by the Court.

Grana y Montero is a Peruvian corporation that provides
engineering and construction, infrastructure, real estate and
technical services in Latin America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
   Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
   Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
   58 South Service Road, Suite 200
   Melville, NY 11747
   Tel: 631-367-7100
   Fax: 631-367-1173
   Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
          mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

        - and -

   Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
   Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP
   16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor
   New York, NY 10036
   Tel: 212-490-9550
   Fax: 212-986-0158


HARRY'S ITALIAN: Faces "Aragon" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harry's Italian
Pizza. The case is titled as Evaristo Espinoza Aragon,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Paul Lamas, Peter Poulakakos, doing business as
Harry's Italian Pizza, and Hip at Murray Street, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03542 (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2017).

Opened in 2009 as a partnership between restaurateurs Peter and
Harry Poulakakos and the renowned team from Nick's Pizza, Harry's
Italian offers single and family style Italian cuisine as well as
round and old fashioned square pies.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


HC AUTOMOTIVE: "Darcuiel" Suit Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KARIM DARCUIEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HC AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a corporation; H
K AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a corporation; H.T.L. AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a
corporation; HOOMAN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a corporation; NBA
AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a corporation; R & H
AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., a corporation; HNL AUTOMOTIVE INC., a
corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, the inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC661214 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 11, 2017), seeks to
recover monetary relief including unpaid wages and benefits,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and penalties
pursuant to the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff is alleging that Defendants have engaged in a
systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the
California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage
Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair
competition.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
have increased their profits by violating state wage and hour laws
by failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages and overtime
wages); failing to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu;
failing to authorize or permit rest breaks or provide compensation
in lieu; failing to pay all wages due upon separation of
employment; and failing to issue accurate itemized wage
statements.

The Defendants operate new and used car dealerships in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Kashif Haque, Esq.
         Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
         Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
         Ali S. Carlsen, Esq.
         AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
         9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
         Irvine, CA 92618
         Telephone: (949) 379 6250
         Facsimile: (949) 379 6251


HIGHER ONE: Faces Class Action Over Student Card Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Paybefore reports that a former student at a community college has
filed a proposed class action lawsuit against student card
provider Higher One Holdings Inc. as well as WEX Bank and
Customers Bancorp alleging that the companies placed student
financial aid disbursements into accounts that were subject to
high fees, deceptive practices and that did not maintain adequate
numbers of fee-free ATMs to allow students to access their funds.

The suit, filed on April 13, seeks certification for a national
class of former Higher One account holders.  Among other things,
the complaint alleges that High One failed to disclose applicable
fees associated with the card account and engaged in the
"deceptive" practice of sending students an account access device
co-branded with their university, which, according to the
complaint, gave the impression that the student's receipt of
financial aid would be delayed if they chose to receive it via
another bank.  Notably, the complaint also highlights previous
enforcement actions taken against Higher One in relation to its
student cards by the FDIC, underscoring the additional risks to
companies that enforcement proceedings conducted by their federal
regulators can lead to class action lawsuits.

Student cards have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years
with charges that providers were taking advantage of students who
had little to no experience with financial services products.  In
response to these complaints, the Department of Education, in
2015, issued final rules imposing new requirements on universities
seeking to partner with financial services providers to offer
student cards for financial aid disbursement.  The DOE is
currently accepting comments related to disclosures on such
accounts through June 9, 2017. [GN]


HOFFMAN COMMERICAL: "Barrows" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lisa Barrows, on her own behalf
and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Hoffman
Commercial Group, Inc., doing business as Hoffman's Chocolates and
BBX Sweet Holdings, LLC, doing business as Hoffman Chocolates, the
Defendants, Case No. 50-02017-CA-4030, was removed on May 12, 2017
from the 15th Judicial Circuit of Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:17-cv-80614-WPD to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William P.
Dimitrouleas.

Hoffman Commercial owns candy, nut, and confectionery stores and
has been in business for 10 or more years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lisa Michelle Kohring, Esq.
          Steven Leo Schwarzberg, Esq.
          SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES, PL
          222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 210
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 659 3300
          E-mail: lkohring@schwarzberglaw.com
                  steve@schwarzberglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kara S. Nickel, Esq.
          STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON
          Museum Tower
          150 W Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 789 3226
          Facsimile: (305) 789 2645
          E-mail: knickel@stearnsweaver.com


ILLINOIS, USA: Court Certifies Prisoners Class in "Lippert" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jorge L. Alonso entered a memorandum opinion and order in
the lawsuit styled DON LIPPERT, et al. v. JOHN BALDWIN, et al.,
Case No. 1:10-cv-04603 (N.D. Ill.), granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The Court certifies a class of all prisoners in the custody of the
Illinois Department of Corrections with serious medical or dental
needs.

The action alleges that the health care provided to incarcerated
individuals in the Illinois Department of Corrections violates
constitutional standards.  The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief
barring unconstitutional practices and requiring the Defendants to
submit and implement a plan to address violations.

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


IND GLATT: Faces "Saldarriaga" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IND Glatt, Inc. The
case is captioned as Alberto Saldarriaga, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. IND Glatt,
Inc., doing business as: I & D Glatt, David Yizhaky, John Doe 1,
and John Doe 2, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02904 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 12, 2017).

Founded in 1995, Ind Glatt is a small organization in the meat and
fish markets industry located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


JIM FISCHER: Laughlin Moves to Certify Class of Jobsite Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned Joshua Laughlin and Greg
Scotto Junior, On behalf of Themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Jim Fischer Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01342-WCG (E.D.
Wisc.), move the Court to conditionally certify a class of all
persons, who are or were employed by the Defendant as hourly
jobsite employees during the time period on or after October 6,
2013.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to authorize the sending of
class notices and consent forms, and to require the Defendants to
provide to the Plaintiffs an electronic list of names and
addresses of class members.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
          310 W Wisconsin Ave, Suite 100 MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: (414) 271-4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
          E-mail: yh@previant.com


KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces "Lawson" Wage-and-Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------
ANGELA LAWSON, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KAISER FOUNDATION
HEALTH PLAN, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1100,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG17859978 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 11, 2017), seeks relief including all wages due as a result of
Defendant's employment policies, practices and procedures, which
violate the California Labor Code, the orders and standards
promulgated by the California Department of Industrial Relations,
the Industrial Welfare Commission, and Division of Labor
Standards.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide
Plaintiff and members of the putative class with timely meal and
rest breaks, all final wages in a timely fashion, proper wage
statements, and maintain accurate records of work performed.

Kaiser Foundation operates as a nonprofit health care
organization.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
         Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
         Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
         BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP
         2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
         Westlake Village, CA 91361
         Telephone: (805) 212 5124
         Facsimile: (805) 270 7589
         E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                 kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com


KANSAS CITY, MO: Zimmerli, et al. Seek Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ZIMMERLI And MATTHEW DIETRICK, On behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00370-FJG
(Mo. Cir. Ct., May 11, 2017), seeks to recover damages in the
amount of all respective unpaid straight time and overtime
compensation at a rate of one-and-one half times the regular rate
of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a work week,
plus liquidated damages, recovery of all attorneys' fees, costs,
and expenses incurred in this action, to be paid as provided by
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and such other legal and
equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper.

In 2011, Marissa Hermsen initiated a lawsuit on behalf of herself
and other similarly situated EMTs and Paramedics for the recovery
of unpaid overtime compensation. The plaintiff alleged that the
City of Kansas City, more specifically the Kansas City Fire
Department, had unlawfully classified certain EMTs and Paramedics
as exempt firefighters when in actuality they had no
responsibility to engage in fire suppression.

The case was styled Marissa Hermsen, et al. v. The City of Kansas
City, Case No. 4:11-cv-753. Over the course of three years of
litigation, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri ultimately determined, as a matter of law,
that static KCFD EMTs and Paramedics were not exempt from the
right to receive overtime compensation. Since then, despite the
Federal Court's mandate, static EMTs and Paramedics have not seen
an increase in pay when working their regularly scheduled overtime
shifts.

Despite this Court's ruling, and since that time, Plaintiff
Zimmerli and other similarly-situated plaintiffs have not received
overtime compensation on an ongoing basis. Rather, after the
District Court's ruling, the City of Kansas City unlawfully re-
calculated Plaintiff Zimmerli and the other static single-Job EMTs
and paramedics' monthly pay rates to circumvent the Court's order
requiring KCFD to pay overtime.

Kansas City sits on Missouri's western edge, straddling the border
with Kansas. It's known for its barbecue, jazz heritage and
fountains.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Michael Hodgson, Esq.
         THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
         3699 SW PRYOR ROAD
         Lee's Summit, MO 64082
         Telephone: (816) 600 0117
         Facsimile: (816) 600 0137
         E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com
                 www.thehodgsonlawfirm.com

              - and -

         Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
         WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
         1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
         Kansas City, Missouri 64105
         Telephone: (816) 876 2600
         Facsimile: (816) 221 8763
         E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com


KEY HEALTH: Wins Prelim. Approval of "Thompkins" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable William L. Osteen, Jr., grants preliminary approval
of a class action settlement in the lawsuit titled LISA GAIL
THOMPKINS and HARVEY SANFORD BOONE III, individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated v. KEY HEALTH MEDICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.,
a California corporation, Case No. 1:12-cv-00613-WO-JEP
(M.D.N.C.).

Lisa Gail Thompkins and Harvey Sanford Boone III, on behalf of
themselves and the Settlement Class, and Defendant Key Health
Medical Solutions, Inc., executed a Settlement Agreement on
November 4, 2016.  The Agreement settles all claims of the
Plaintiffs and the Final Settlement Class Members relating to
KHMS's alleged conduct, omissions, or duties relating to, based
upon, resulting from, or arising directly or indirectly out of the
allegations in the Action.  The Agreement provides for a class-
wide settlement of the Released Claims.  As a part of the
Agreement, KHMS has conditionally withdrawn its objections to the
certification of the Settlement Class.

The Court conditionally certifies the Settlement Class for
settlement purposes only:

     All North Carolina residents who either personally or
     through their personal injury attorneys were invoiced by
     KHMS, or who paid KHMS either directly or from the proceeds
     of personal injury settlements or otherwise, on or after
     May 16, 2008 for diagnostic medical imaging services (MRIs,
     CT Scans, or X-Rays), and who were not (a) members of the
     settlement class in Karen Washington v. Key Health Medical
     Solutions, Inc., Case No. BC 473716 (C.D. Cal.) or (b)
     signatories to agreements with KHMS containing mandatory
     arbitration agreements (the "Settlement Class").

The Court appoints the Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives of
the Settlement Class.  The Court also appoints Frederick L. Berry,
Esq., of the law firm Barron & Berry, LLP and John F. Bloss, Esq.,
of the law firm Higgins Benjamin, PLLC, as lead class counsel for
the Settlement Class.  The Court further appoints David H. Idol,
Esq., as class counsel for the Settlement Class.  The Court also
appoints Class-Settlement.com of Hicksville, New York, as the
Settlement Administrator.

Pursuant to the Order, the schedule for dissemination of Notice,
requesting exclusion from or objecting to the proposed Settlement,
briefing, and the Fairness Hearing, is as follows:

   * Deadline for mailing Notice -- June 12, 2017;

   * Deadline for filing Class Counsel's Fee Brief -- August 7,
     2017;

   * Deadline for Settlement Class Members to opt out -- July 27,
     2017;

   * Deadline for objections to proposed Settlement -- August 21,
     2017;

   * Deadline for filing Brief in Support of Final Approval --
     August 16, 2017;

   * Deadline for filing responses to objections to proposed
     Settlement -- September 8, 2017; and

   * Fairness Hearing -- September 15, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John F. Bloss, Esq.
          HIGGINS BENJAMIN PLLC
          301 North Elm St., Suite 800
          Greensboro, NC 27401
          Telephone: (336) 273-1600
          Facsimile: (336) 274-4650
          E-mail: jbloss@greensborolaw.com

               - and -

          Frederick L. Berry, Esq.
          BARRON & BERRY, LLP
          PO Box 2370
          Greensboro, NC 27402
          Telephone: (336) 274-4782
          Facsimile: (336) 379-8592
          E-mail: fred.berry@barronberry.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew P. McGuire, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          4721 Emperor Blvd., Suite 400
          Durham, NC 27703-8580
          Telephone: (919) 862-2279
          Facsimile: (919) 862-2579
          E-mail: matt.mcguire@alston.com


KOHL'S CORPORATION: Faces "Tran" Suit Over Credit Transactions
--------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY TRAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. KOHL'S CORPORATION (d/b/a Kohl's);
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. (d/b/a Kohl's); and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC661136 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 11, 2017), seeks to recover statutory damages, punitive
damages, costs and attorney fees, all of which are expressly made
available by statute, as a result of Defendants' unlawful practice
of violating Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act's (FACTA)
provisions intended to safeguard against identity theft and credit
and debit card fraud.

The Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated brings against Defendants based on Defendants' violations
of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). By
printing the expiration date of the card combined with other
information such as the last four digits of the card number, the
brand of the card (e.g. Visa, etc.), the cardholder's name, the
cardholder's address, and other information on the receipts
provided to Plaintiff and other credit card and/or debit card
cardholders transacting business with Defendants, Defendants have
harmed Plaintiff and the Class by exposing them to at least an
increased risk of identity theft and credit and or debit card
fraud.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have violated FACTA,
and have thereby placed the security of Plaintiff and similarly
situated Class members at risk.

Kohl's Corp. owns and operates family-oriented department stores.
It offers exclusive brand apparel, shoes, accessories and home and
beauty products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LEVOIT ADVANCED: Gray-Knox Seeks Unpaid Wage Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRA GRAY-KNOX, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LEVOIT ADVANCED PROTECTIVE
SERVICE, (L.A.P.S.) INC., LEVOIT ADVANCED PROTECTIVE SERVICES,
INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No
RG17859943 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 11, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid compensation for meal and/or rest period violations,
interest, reimbursement of business expenses, liquidated damages
and other penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a consistent
policy of unlawfully denying Plaintiff and Class Members
statutorily-mandated meal and rest periods, willfully failing to
provide Plaintiff and Class Members with accurate semimonthly
itemized wage statements reflecting the total number of hours each
worked, the applicable deductions, and the applicable hourly rates
in effect during the pay period, willfully failing to reimburse
Plaintiff and Class Members for business expenses related to the
operations of Defendant, and willfully failing to pay compensation
in a prompt and timely manner to Plaintiff and those Class Members
whose employment with Defendants have terminated.

Levoit Advanced offers security services and is located in Tracy,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
         Teresa D. Allen, Esq.
         SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
         1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (510) 891 9800
         Facsimile: (510) 891 7030
         Web: www.scalaw.com
         E-mail: scole@scalaw.com
                 tallen@scalaw.com


LEXINGTON TECH: Levy Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Levy, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lexington Technologies Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 706381/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 11, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, maximum liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New York Labor Law
(NYLL) and New York Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendant as a manual worker performing a variety of functions
throughout his workday such as performing hourly chemical level
checks, wiping and cleaning pipes etc. The Defendant paid
Plaintiff a regular rate of $14 an hour. The Plaintiff and the
putative class members were not paid for all overtime hours worked
(hours over 40 in a week) for each and all weeks during their
employment - Defendant had a policy and practice of deducting from
the daily hours of Plaintiff and the putative class, 30 minutes
for lunch breaks even though at all times
relevant herein, Plaintiff and the putative class members did not
take such 30 minute lunch breaks within the meaning of the NYLL
because of the demands of the job. As a result, Plaintiff and the
putative class members are owed overtime wages.

Founded in 2001, Lexington Technologies Inc. is doing business in
the engineering services industry located in Farmingdale, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue,
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740 1000
          Facsimile: (718) 740 2000
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


LIBERTY LIFE: "Yalley" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Renee Yalley and Chris Anezinos,
individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of
Boston; Regents of the University of California, a government
entity; and Horsemen, Inc., a corporation, the Defendants, Case
No. RG17856061, was removed on May 11, 2017 from the Alameda
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
California Northern District (San Francisco). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-02734-SK to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim.

Liberty Life provides non-credit life insurance products,
annuities, and structured settlement annuities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert J Rosati, Esq.
          ROBERT J. ROSATI, DBA
            ERISA LAW CENTER
          6485 North Palm Avenue, Suite 105
          Fresno, CA 93704
          Telephone: (559) 478 4119
          Facsimile: (559) 478 5939
          E-mail: Robert@ERISAlg.com

Attorney for Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston:

          Frank Falzetta, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: (213) 617 4194
          Facsimile: (213) 620 1398
          E-mail: ffalzetta@sheppardmullin.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Underpays EEG Technicians, "Macion" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMIAH JAMES MACION, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a
public entity; and DOES 1 through 25, the Defendant, Case No.
BC661059 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 11, 2017), seeks to recover
monetary and equitable relief under California Labor Code and
applicable IWC Wage Order(s).

The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as an
Electroencephalographic Technician (EEG Tech) in Los Angeles
County from November 1, 2013 to the present.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff and
the rest of the Class as hourly employees. The Plaintiff and the
Class were placed on call by Defendant and were paid less than
minimum wage for their standby time. Such uniform policies,
practices and procedures violated California's labor laws which
apply to employees of the County of Los Angeles pursuant to
Industrial Welfare Commission Order.

Los Angeles County, officially the County of Los Angeles, is the
most populous county in the United States. Its population is
larger than that of 42 individual U.S. states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq.
          Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq.
          GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP
          15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (213) 542 2100
          Facsimile: (213) 542 2101

               - and -

          Marshall A. Caskey, Esq.
          Daniel M. Holzman, Esq.
          CASKEY & HOLZMAN
          24025 Park Sorrento, Ste. 400
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 657 1070
          Facsimile: (818) 297 1775


LOUISIANA: Class Action Status Sought in Indigent Defense Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sara E. Teller, writing for Legal Reader, reports that a class
action status was sought on May 4th in a lawsuit filed in February
against Governor John Bel Edwards and the state's Public Defender
Board by civil rights advocates hoping to force a rebuild of
Louisiana's indigent defense system.  The underlying lawsuit was
filed February 6th by attorneys from the Southern Poverty Law
Center (SPLC), the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,
and lawyers from the law firms Jones Walker of New Orleans and
Davis, Polk & Wardell.  The subsequent motion was filed in the
Judicial District in East Baton Rouge.

The motion for class certification in the case argues that
Louisiana has allowed the system to fail due to inadequate
staffing, overworked employees and funding systems that simply
don't work.  Supporters said if the class action request is
certified, the ruling would affect approximately 20,000 indigent
defendants in the state, making it the largest defense case of its
kind thus far.

The motion argues that Louisiana is unable to provide a
constitutionally sound defense for most clients under the current
system.  "The report we filed documents what indigent defendants
across the state have long known: Louisiana's public defender
system is broken," Lisa Graybill, deputy legal director of the
SPLC, stated.  "This failure has created a two-tiered justice
system in Louisiana -- one for those with the money for meaningful
representation in court and another for the poor, that simply
churns them through the system without providing them the
meaningful defense required by the Constitution.  Louisiana's
public defense system is underfunded, unmonitored, and wholly
inadequate. The failure of the system is a statewide problem, and
it calls for a statewide remedy."

"The local district defenders are limited in what they can do
because of their necessary reliance on inconsistent and erratic
sources of funding," said Seattle University law professor
Robert Boruchowitz.  "These structural barriers make it nearly
impossible for most defenders to provide effective representation
to most of their clients.  The situation in Louisiana has grown to
be so serious that the defenders and judges have come to accept
routinely and openly a pattern of practice regarding indigent
accused persons that falls well below what the Louisiana Rules of
Professional Conduct require and effectively disregards the
ethical responsibilities of both lawyers and judges."

The plaintiffs claim current shortcomings in the state's public
defense system that require immediate attention include staffing
public defenders who do not provide timely and confidential
communications with their clients and often do not investigate the
facts, making it impossible for them to make an informed decision
in a client's case.  The defenders almost never have the funds or
ability to summon expert witnesses, and very few of the state's
public defense districts use social workers.

"We simply don't have the time" to provide clients with the
defense they deserve, said Orleans Public Defender's Office staff
attorney Brandi McNeil.  The lawsuit asks a state court to declare
Louisiana's public defenders system 'significantly compromised'
and appoint a monitor to ensure the necessary changes are made.
[GN]


MBF INSPECTION: Ganci Moves for Certification of Inspectors Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Thomas Ganci, on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated individuals nationwide and
the Rule 23 Class v. MBF Inspection Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-
cv-02959-GCS-TPK (S.D. Ohio), asks the Court to certify this class
under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act claims:

     All inspection personnel, other than chief inspectors and
     lead inspectors, who were paid a day rate and who worked for
     Defendant under a Spectra contract at any time since three
     years prior to filing of this Complaint.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          Alexander M. Baggio, Esq.
          Brittany B. Skemp, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          E-mail: lukas@nka.com
                  abaggio@nka.com
                  bbachmanskemp@nka.com

               - and -

          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
          235 Montgomery St., Suite 810
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 227-7235
          E-mail: helland@nka.com

               - and -

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH
          250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com


MEDICREDIT INC: Seeks Prelim. OK of "Hartman" Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit styled MELISSA HARTMAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEDICREDIT,
INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-01596-MRH-MPK (W.D. Pa.), jointly ask the
Court for an order conditionally certifying a class and granting
preliminary approval of their class settlement agreement.

The settlement class is defined as:

     All Pennsylvania consumers who were sent collection letters
     and/or notices from Defendant, during the period of
     December 07, 2014 to present, attempting to collect a
     consumer debt owed to or allegedly owed to UPP University of
     Pittsburgh Physicians, which displayed the debtor's consumer
     account number through the glassine window of the enclosing
     envelope.

The Plaintiff filed the class action lawsuit pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, which alleges MCI violated the
FDCPA by sending consumers written collection communications that
contained an account number, which was visible on the envelope it
was mailed in.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=t2JrJ4k3

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scott J. Dickenson, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE, LLP
          1 N. Brentwood Blvd, Suite 1000
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863-7733
          Facsimile: (314) 862-4656
          E-mail: sdickenson@spencerfane.com


MICHAEL'S STORES: McGuireWoods Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
R. Locke Beatty, Esq. -- lbeatty@mcguirewoods.com -- of
McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that those
who tuned in to McGuireWoods' data breach class action webinar
last month know that attacking the plaintiff's standing can be an
effective defense strategy in these cases.  Here's the law firm's
analysis of the most recent appellate decision on that issue.

On May 2, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
district court's dismissal of a putative class action filed
against a merchant in connection with a data breach of customer
information, holding that the cardholder failed to allege
sufficient injury to establish standing.

The decision adds yet another data point for practitioners feeling
out the boundaries for when the exposure of personal information
creates a legal right to sue.

In Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., the plaintiff alleged that
shortly after she made in-store purchases with her credit card,
her card information was used in Ecuador in attempted purchases of
a gym membership and concert tickets. She cancelled her card upon
learning of those attempts, and did not allege those charges were
ever approved.

In rejecting the plaintiff's arguments in favor of standing, the
Second Circuit emphasized that she failed to allege that she
actually incurred or paid those charges, and also discounted her
assertion that she faced risk of future identity fraud--noting
that she had already cancelled her card, and failed to allege that
her name, birth date, or social security number were among the
information stolen.

Notably, the court considered her allegation that she suffered
damages "based on the opportunity cost and value of time" that she
spent monitoring her account also insufficient to establish
injury.  In so holding, the court interpreted the "particularized"
component of Article III's "concrete and particularized injury"
requirement to require the plaintiff to plead specifics about the
time and effort expended.

The Second Circuit expressly distinguished prior decisions from
the Seventh Circuit holding the victims of a data breach alleged
sufficient injury to invoke Article III standing.  On a closer
review, however, it is not always easy to draw a clean line
between the injuries alleged in Whalen and some of those deemed
sufficient by the Seventh Circuit.

For example, in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, the Seventh
Circuit held the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged injury based
on an increased risk of future fraudulent charges and identity
theft, notwithstanding that the data breach in that case also only
involved the theft of card information and not personal
information such as social security numbers or birth dates.

Similarly the court in Remijas deemed sufficient allegations that
the plaintiffs lost time and money protecting themselves against
future identify theft-allegations not dissimilar from those
rejected in Whalen.

Although we are yet to arrive at a unified theory of standing in
data breach cases, Whalen does provide a helpful piece of line-
drawing, illustrating that a plaintiff who does not incur
fraudulent charges-and cancels her card before any fraudulent
charges are incurred-may have trouble convincing a court that she
has suffered sufficient injury from a data breach to confer
standing. [GN]


MICHAEL'S STORES: Hunton & Williams Discusses Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hunton & Williams LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that on
May 2, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued a summary order affirming dismissal of a putative
data breach class action against Michaels Stores, Inc.
("Michaels"). The plaintiff's injury theories were as follows: (1)
the plaintiff's credit card information was stolen and twice used
to attempt fraudulent purchases; (2) the risk of future identity
fraud and (3) lost time and money resolving the attempted
fraudulent charges and monitoring credit. The plaintiff, however,
quickly cancelled her card after learning of the unauthorized
charges and did not allege that she was held responsible for any
of those charges.

The Second Circuit agreed with the trial court that these injuries
were not sufficient to establish Article III standing. The
appellate court noted that because the plaintiff was not asked to
pay (or did not pay) any fraudulent charges, this alleged injury
was neither concrete nor particularized.  The Second Circuit also
found that the allegation of future identify fraud was not
plausible because the plaintiff had cancelled the exposed credit
card and no other information needed for identity fraud was stolen
in the breach.  Finally, the Second Circuit held that the
plaintiff's vague allegations that she and the putative class were
injured due to the considerable time and expense of monitoring
their financial accounts -- with no further facts -- lacked the
substance and specificity to establish injury for Article III
purposes. [GN]


MICHIGAN: Faces Class Action Over Traffic Fine Laws
---------------------------------------------------
Julie Mack, writing for MLive, reports that Adrian Fowler's
problems with unpaid traffic tickets is one of the biggest
barriers trapping her in poverty, her lawyers say.

While living in Georgia years ago, Fowler got several traffic
tickets and didn't pay the fines because she didn't have the
money, the lawyer say. When she moved to Detroit in 2012, those
unpaid fines kept her from renewing her driver's license.

In 2013, when her 3-year-old was spiking a high fever, Mr. Fowler
was driving the girl to the emergency room when she was stopped
for speeding in Ferndale. That resulted in two more tickets --
speeding and driving on a suspended license -- at a cost of $600.

Mr. Fowler, who earns about $700 a month at a part-time minimum
wage job, couldn't pay those fine either -- and with penalties,
it's now above $2,100.

But the 31-year-old stuck is in a true conundrum, her lawyers say:
She can't pay the fines without a better job, but she can't get a
better job without a driver's license.

Now Mr. Fowler is one of the named plaintiffs is a class-action
lawsuit filed by Equal Justice Under Law, a Washington, D.C.,
nonprofit, against Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson.

The lawsuit says that Michigan traffic fines are a "wealth-based
scheme" that "trap our most vulnerable citizens in a vicious cycle
of poverty."

It specifically targets the policy of indefinitely suspending a
driver's license for unpaid fines, which a Equal Justice Under Law
press release says "is an extraordinary punishment that goes far
beyond a fine."

The other named plaintiff is Kitia Harris, a 25-year-old Detroit
resident on disability for interstitial cystitis.  She was
ticketed in October for "impeding traffic" in Ferndale and had her
license suspended when she couldn't pay the fine within the
required 42 days.

The lack of a license means she can't get to her medical
appointments, the lawsuit says.

Both Mr. Fowler and Ms. Harris "were stopped for routine traffic
violations, but when they could not afford to pay the fines --
because they live well below the poverty line -- the state
suspended their driver's licenses," said a press release from
Equal Justice Under Law.

"If Kitia and Adrian had enough money to pay their fines, the
state never would have suspended their licenses," the press
release said.  "They only lost their ability to drive because they
are poor."

Equal Justice Under Law also says it is a counterproductive
strategy.

"Unable to drive, people often lose their jobs or have a hard time
finding employment, making it even more unlikely that they will be
able to pay their debts to the state," the press release said.
"Furthermore, residents with suspended licenses cannot fulfill
daily responsibilities: taking their children to school, caring
for elderly family members, or going to the doctor's office."

The organization says the lawsuit "is the beginning of the process
to end the state's unjust system and restore driving rights to
tens of thousands of residents."

The lawsuit, which was filed May 4 in U.S. District Court in
Detroit, says the practice of suspending licenses for unpaid fines
"violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
the Due Process guarantee of fundamental fairness, Plaintiffs'
right to intrastate travel, and longstanding Supreme Court
precedent."

Under Michigan law, a driver's license is suspended for an unpaid
fine "until the matter is resolved" and the driver must pay an
additional $45 before the suspension is lifted.  If they are
caught driving on a suspended license, they must pay an additional
$125 to lift the suspension, in addition to fees and penalties for
the moving violation.

In addition, people guilty of driving on a suspended license owes
an additional annual $500 fine for two years.

"Over the last three years, Michigan has assessed approximately
$40 million in Driver Responsibility fees, and over 100,000 people
have lost their driver's licenses simply because they are too poor
to pay court costs and fines," the lawsuit states.

Fred Woodhams, spokesman for the Michigan Secretary of State
office, said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.

"However, the department does suspend a person's driver's license
as required by state law after a court notifies it that a traffic
ticket was not paid or the person did not appear in court. Traffic
tickets are paid to the local court district,"
Mr. Woodhams said. [GN]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Lugo" Suit in Eastern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is titled as Brendalin Iesha Lugo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-02877 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2017).

MCM helps consumers resolve past-due debt obligations.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MURPHY & LOMON: Faces "Levinson" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Murphy, Lomon &
Associates, Inc. The case is entitled as Stacey Levinson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Murphy, Lomon & Associates, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02879 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2017).

Murphy and Lomon is a debt collection agency located in Des
Plaines, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NCC BUSINESS: Faces "Nedd" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NCC Business
Services Inc. The case is entitled as Wynette Nedd, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. NCC Business Services Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
02932 (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2017).

NCC Business is a third party collection agency with offices
across the country assisting creditors with recovering past due
accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Igor B Litvak, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (646) 796 4905
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com


NELLSON NUTRACEUTICAL: "Anderson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Premium Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NELLSON NUTRACEUTICAL LLC; and DOES 1
to 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC661067 (Cal. Super.
Ct., May 11, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid premium wages and
interest due to Defendants' policy, practice,, and/or procedure of
failure to authorize or permit second meal periods; failure to
authorize or permit third rest periods; statutory penalties for
failure to provide accurate wage statements; waiting time
penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely
pay employees ail wages due upon separation of employment;
injunctive relief and other equitable relief; reasonable
attorney's fees, pursuant to California Labor Code

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees would work on workdays in shifts long enough to entitle
them, to both first and second meal periods under California law.
Despite the fact that California law requires employers to
authorize or permit a second off duty unpaid 30-minute meal period
for when they worked shifts over 10 hours in length. The
Defendants routinely failed to authorize or permit second meal
periods when employees worked shifts of more, than 10 hours.

Nellson is a full-service bar and powder nutrition provider and
co-manufacturer in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Cranberry, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001


NORTH AMERICAN: Fritz Moves for Certification of Customers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DAVID FRITZ, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. NORTH AMERICAN POWER
& GAS, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00634-WWE (D. Conn.), asks the Court
for an order:

   (1) certifying a class of New Jersey North American Power &
       Gas, LLC ("NAPG") current and former customers who paid
       NAPG's variable rate for electricity and/or natural gas;
       and

   (2) appointing the Plaintiff and his counsel as Class
       Representative and Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Jh12F9ti

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREIPEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          555 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 200-0581
          E-mail: MDS@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq.
          MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 228-9898
          E-mail: mmendelsohn@mskf.net


NORTHLAND GROUP: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Kislin" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Henry Kislin filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Henry Kislin v. Northland Group Inc., Case No. 3-
16-cv-04533, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Henry Kislin v. Northland Group
Inc., Case No. 17-1908, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant HENRY KISLIN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Glen H. Chulsky, Esq.
          375 Passaic Avenue
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 252-9000
          Facsimile: (973) 252-9100
          E-mail: g.chulsky@att.net

               - and -

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
                  bwolf@legaljones.com

Defendant-Appellee NORTHLAND GROUP INC. is represented by:

          Aaron R. Easley, Esq.
          SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL
          3 Cross Creek Drive
          Flemington, NJ 08822
          Telephone: (908) 237-1660
          Facsimile: (908) 237-1663
          E-mail: aeasley@sessions.legal


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Koulouris" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NorthStar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Stacey Koulouris,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. NorthStar Location Services, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02883 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2017).

Northstar Location provides receivables debt collection services
to customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NUMERO UNO: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NUMERO UNO ACQUISITIONS LLC; and
16 DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC661061
(Cal. Super. Ct., May 11, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
interest for unpaid wages for all hours worked at minimum wage and
overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay due to
Defendants' policy, practice, and/or procedure of rounding down or
shaving down employees' daily hours worked to the nearest quarter
of an hour; failure to authorize or permit second meal periods;
failure to authorize or permit second or third rest periods;
statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements; waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment; injunctive relief and other equitable
relief; and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other
members of the general public similarly-situated. The named
Plaintiff and the class of persons on whose behalf this action is
filed are current, former and/or future employees of Defendants
who work as hourly non-exempt employees.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees worked more minutes per shift than Defendants credited
them with having worked. Defendants "rounded" down or "shaved"
Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees' total daily hours
worked at the time of their clock-in and clock-out to the nearest
quarter of an hour, to the benefit of Defendants. Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees were not paid for this time.

Numero Uno is a bonded freight shipping and trucking company
running freight hauling business from Los Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Vanessa Kamau, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 20
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001


PACE OPPORTUNITY: Ellison Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled Angela Ellison, on Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Pace Opportunity
Centers, Inc., Case No. 6:16-cv-01263-RWS (E.D. Tex.), seeks to
certify, and Defendant is unopposed to certification of, a class
defined as:

     All current and/or former employees of Pace who, at any time
     during the time period of [three years preceding the date of
     the Court's Order granting conditional certification] to the
     end of the Notice Period [60 days], were paid a salary, and
     were employed by Pace as Case Managers or QIDP workers.

Ms. Ellison filed her original complaint alleging violations of
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-
Portal Act, requesting collective action treatment on November 3,
2016.

Ms. Ellison also asks that notice be issued to the putative
collective action members using her Proposed Notice and Proposed
Consent to Join.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qjibEu4B

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          Farsheed Fozouni, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605
          Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
          E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com
                  marbuckl@baronbudd.com
                  ffozouni@baronbudd.com


PACIFIC BELL: "Meza" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to E.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled David Meza, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company, a California
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. BCV15101572, was removed on
May 12, 2017 from the Kern County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California - (Fresno).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00665-LJO-JLT
to the proceeding.  The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge
Lawrence J. O'Neill.

Pacific Bell is a wired and wireless telecommunication network
operator, and provides broadband and 4G network services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Holmes, Esq.
          3311 East Pico Blvd
          Los Angeles, CA 90023
          Tel: (310) 396-9045
          E-mail: JeffHolmesJH@gmail.com

               - and -

          Lonnie C. Blanchard, III
          BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
          3311 East Pico Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90023
          Telephone: (213) 599 8255
          Facsimile: (213) 402 3949
          E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com

               - and -

          Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
          PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 900
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 883 4900
          Facsimile: (818) 883 4902
          E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael Thomas Campbell, Esq.
          Paul Berkowitz, Esq.
          Thomas R. Kaufman, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 228 3726
          Facsimile: (310) 228 3701
          E-mail: mcampbell@sheppardmullin.com
                  pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com
                  tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com


PAPA JOHN'S: Certification of Class Sought in "Hatmaker" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order conditionally
certifying the action entitled Tammy Hatmaker, Stephen Hatmaker,
and Kendall Peyton, On behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated v. Papa John's Ohio, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00146-
TMR (S.D. Ohio), as a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and designating the Plaintiffs as representatives of
this collective:

     All non-owner, non-employer delivery drivers who worked for
     Defendants at any Papa John's Pizza location from April 28,
     2014 to present, and who, in one or more workweeks, were
     paid less than the full non-tipped minimum wage that was
     applicable at the time of their employment.

In connection with this conditional certification, the Plaintiffs
also move the Court for an Order authorizing them to send notices
of the lawsuit to putative Collective members that will inform
similarly situated individuals of their rights and provide them
with an opportunity to join the action consistent with the
Proposed Notice of Collective Action.

The Plaintiffs filed the action to recover alleged unpaid minimum
wages and unpaid overtime wages for delivery drivers, who worked
at any of the approximately 73 Papa John's Pizza restaurants owned
and controlled by Defendants.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Eric Kmetz, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
          119 East Court Street, Suite 530
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
                  ekmetz@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com


PUERTO RICO, USA: Carlo Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move for conditional certification of the lawsuit
styled FRANCES CARLO, JOEL LOPEZ, and their conjugal partnership,
EMILY RAMOS SANCHEZ, RICARDO BONILLA, EDNA PACHECO MUNIZ, and
their conjugal partnerships, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COLONEL JOSE L. CALDERO, VILMA
FERNANDEZ, HECTOR PESQUERA, JANE DOES, and their respective
conjugal partnerships, THE PUERTO RICO POLICE DEPARTMENT, and the
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, Case No. 3:16-cv-02867-PAD (D.P.R.),
to proceed as a collective action and to facilitate notice.

The Plaintiffs seek to notify:

     All individuals who were employed or are currently employed
     by the Defendants in Puerto Rico, as hourly paid, non-exempt
     Police Officers or other similarly titled positions from
     January 1, 2004 to the present time.

The Plaintiffs and proposed Collective members are former and
current non-exempt, hourly Officers of the Puerto Rico Police
Department.  The lawsuit concerns the Defendants' alleged
violation of federal and Puerto Rico labor laws as well as the
United States Constitution.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants flouted their Obligations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act by not paying the Plaintiffs and proposed Collective
members proper wages for all time worked, including minimum wage
and overtime.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NrzdoF4e

A copy of the Memorandum filed in support of the Motion is
available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BEd2ZGeh

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
          Michael C. McKay, Esq.
          Nicole N. Coon, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell St., Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  mmckay@schneiderwallace.com
                  ncoon@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Jane Becker Whitaker, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JANE BECKER WHITAKER
          P.O. Box 9023914
          San Juan, PR 00902-3914
          Telephone: (787) 754-9191
          Facsimile: (787) 764-3101
          E-mail: janebeckerwhitaker@yahoo.com

               - and -

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          Andrew B. Howie, Esq.
          Brandon M. Bohlman, Esq.
          SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265-5749
          Telephone: (515) 223-4567
          Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
          E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
                  howie@sagwlaw.com
                  bohlman@sagwlaw.com


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on May 10 disclosed
that a class action complaint was filed against Puma
Biotechnology, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.  The complaint is brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Puma securities between February 29,
2016 and May 4, 2017, for alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by Puma's officers and directors.  Puma, a
biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and
commercialization of products to improve cancer care.  Puma
acquired the rights to license a drug known as drug PB272
("neratinib") in 2011.

"Based on pre-clinical studies and clinical trials to date, we
believe that neratinib may offer an advantage over existing
treatments that are used in the treatment of patients with HER2-
positive metastatic breast cancer."

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/puma-biotechnology-
inc-may-17

Puma Accused of Overstating Approval Prospects for Its Drug

According to the complaint, on February 29, 2016, Puma filed its
2015 Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
stating, "Based on pre-clinical studies and clinical trials to
date, we believe that neratinib may offer an advantage over
existing treatments that are used in the treatment of patients
with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer."  However, the
complaint alleges that Puma failed to disclose that it did not
expect the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") to approve
neratinib for the treatment of breast cancer and, as such, Puma
had overstated the drug's approval prospects and commercial
viability.  On May 4, 2017, Puma announced the resignation of Dr.
Robert Charnas, the company's Senior Vice President, Regulatory
Affairs, effective as of May 15, 2017, nine days before the FDA's
scheduled review of neratinib.  On May 5, 2017, Fox Business
published an article stating that a large number of patients
taking neratinib suffered from severe side effects, posing a
safety risk for the drug.  On this news, Puma's stock price fell
$5.85 per share, or approximately 16%, to close at $30.70 per
share on May 5, 2017.

Puma Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov
at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which
they have invested. [GN]


RAMELLI GROUP: Escobar Moves for Certification of Suit Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court to conditionally certify the case
captioned DARWIN ESCOBAR, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RAMELLI GROUP, L.L.C., et al.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-15848-JTM-JCW (E.D. La.), as a collective action
pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In their Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims on
behalf of a collective class for overtime wages that the
Defendants wrongfully failed to pay.  The Plaintiffs now ask that
the Court enter an order conditionally certifying this class of
similarly situated individuals (the "FLSA Collective Class"):

     All individuals who were employed by Ramelli Group, L.L.C.,
     Ramelli Janitorial, Inc., Robert C. Ramelli, K.C. Staffing
     LLC and/or K.C. Staffing Solutions, L.L.C. as landscape
     laborers and paid by the hour during any workweek from
     October 26, 2013 through the time notice of this action is
     provided.

The Plaintiffs also ask that the Court: (1) order the Defendants
to provide the Plaintiffs' counsel the necessary information of
each potential collective action plaintiff; (2) approve the
proposed notice and consent form the Plaintiffs submit herewith;
and (3) authorize notice of the collective action to potential
members of the FLSA Collective Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AhB9QH4x

          Daniel B. Davis, Esq.
          Randall E. Estes, Esq.
          ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC
          850 North Boulevard
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 336-3394
          Facsimile: (225) 384-5419
          E-mail: dan@estesdavislaw.com
                  randy@estesdavislaw.com

               - and -

          Gabriel O. Mondino, Esq.
          BURGOS & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.
          3535 Canal Street
          New Orleans, LA 70119-6135
          Telephone: (504) 488-3722
          Facsimile: (504) 482-8525
          E-mail: gmondino@burgoslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew T. Lofaso, Esq.
          LOFASO LAW FIRM, LLC
          11404 N. Lake Sherwood Ave., Suite A
          Baton Rouge, LA 70816
          Telephone: (225) 293-6330
          Facsimile: (225) 293-6332
          E-mail: matt@lofasolawfirm.com


ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: "Baron" Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Norman Baron, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Roundy's Supermarkets, Inc. and Roundy's Illinois, LLC, doing
business as Mariano's, the Defendants, Case No. 2017CH03281, was
removed on May 11, 2017 from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Chicago). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:17-cv-03588 to the proceeding.

Roundy's Supermarkets is a retail grocery company headquartered in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SABATINO TRUFFLES: Faces Class Action Over Truffle Oil
------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that three
consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against a truffles oil
manufacturer, alleging negligent misrepresentation.

Patrick Quiroz, Dominique Mirza and Louise Crespo filed a
complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, May 3 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against Sabatino Truffles New York, LLC and Sabatino
North America LLC, alleging false claims regarding the contents of
their product.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs suffered financial
damages from being misled into purchasing a falsely advertised
product of black truffle oil and white truffle oil. The plaintiffs
allege the defendants intentionally labeled the packaging of their
product as White Truffle and Black Truffle despite not having
actual truffles.

The plaintiffs request trial by jury, compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages, enjoin the defendant, interest, restitution, all
other monetary relief and all other just relief.  They are
represented by attorneys L. Timothy Fisher and Joel D. Smith of
Bursor & Fisher PA in Walnut Creek, California, and by Scott A.
Bursor of Bursor & Fisher in New York.[GN]

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 8:17-cv-00783-DOC-KES


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Anderson" Suit in Minn. Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samsung Electronics
America, Inc. The case is captioned as Chad Anderson, on Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd;
Home Depot, Inc.; Lowe's Home Centers, LLC; Best Buy Co., Inc.;
and Sears Holding Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-
01569 (D. Minn., May 11, 2017).

Headquartered in Ridgefield Park, NJ, Samsung Electronics America,
Inc. (SEA), is doing business in consumer electronics design and
technology. A wholly owned subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd., SEA delivers a broad range of digital consumer electronics,
mobile products and wearables, wireless infrastructure, IT and
home appliance products. Samsung is the market leader for HDTVs in
the U.S and one of America's fastest growing home appliance
brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Erspamer, Esq.
          Gregg M Corwin, Esq.
          GREGG M. CORWIN AND ASSOCIATE, P.C.
          1660 South Hwy 100, Suite 500
          St. Louis Park, MN 55416
          Telephone: (952) 641 1508
          Facsimile: (952) 544 7774
          E-mail: jerspamer@gcorwin.com
                  gcorwin@gcorwin.com


SANABI INVESTMENTS: Seeks Review of Decision in "Carrero" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Sanabi Investments LLC filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Arwin Nicolas Zapata Carrero v.
Sanabi Investments LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-20608-JAL, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Arwin Nicolas
Zapata Carrero seeks double damages and reasonable attorney's fees
from the Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing along with
court costs, interest and any other relief.

Sanabi Investments LLC operates as Oscar's Moving and Storage
where Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as mover from June 1996
through February 10, 2017.

The appellate case is captioned as Arwin Nicolas Zapata Carrero v.
Sanabi Investments LLC, Case No. 17-11924, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee ARWIN NICOLAS ZAPATA CARRERO, and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), is represented by:

          Rivkah F. Jaff, Esq.
          Joshua Howard Sheskin, Esq.
          Neil Tobak, Esq.
          Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: Rivkah.Jaff@gmail.com
                  jsheskin.jhzidellpa@gmail.com
                  zabogado@aol.com


SEARS HOLDINGS: Faces "Badger" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against sears holdings
corporation. The case is entitled as JOSIE BADGER and ALEXANDRA
MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION; SEARS,
ROEBUCK & COMPANY; and KMART HOLDING CORPORATION, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00613-RCM (W.D. Pa., May 11, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell.

Sears Holdings is an American holding company headquartered in
Hoffman Estates, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago. It is the owner of
retail store brands Sears and Kmart.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322 9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231 0246
          E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com


SENIOR CARE: Fails to Pay Nurses for OT Work, "Ward" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH WARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SENIOR CARE CENTERS, LLC, a foreign
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00422 (W.D. Tex., May
11, 2017), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages,
statutory penalties, interest and costs, including reasonable
attorney's fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

This case arises out of the persistent and willful failure of the
Defendant, to properly compensate the Plaintiff, a Licensed
Vocational Nurse and a former employee of Defendant, and other
similarly situated current and former employees.

Specifically, Senior Care allowed and/or required Ward and others
to work "off the clock," without compensation, in violation of the
FLSA. All or virtually all of this off-the-clock time should have
been paid at an overtime premium, i.e., 1.5 times the regular rate
of pay. By reason of Defendant's persistent and willful violations
of the FLSA, Ward and other current and former employees of Senior
Care were and are illegally underpaid for their work.

Ward also asserts FLSA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)
on behalf of other similarly situated current and former employees
of Defendant who were and are affected by Defendant's policy of
not properly paying its employees for all hours worked.

Senior Care operates skilled nursing and rehabilitation facilities
in Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles W. Branham, III
          DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP
          302 N. Market St., Ste. 300
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 722 5990
          Facsimile: (214) 722 5991
          E-mail: tbranham@dobllp.com

               - and -

          Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (877) 561 0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582 5297
          E-mail: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com
                  jtb@jtblawgroup.com


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Faces "Texeira" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Credit
Systems, LP. The case is titled as Jennifer Texeira, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Southwest Credit Systems, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
03529 (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2017).

Southwest Credit is a debt collection company located in
Carrollton, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
          2687 Coney Island Avenue
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (917) 299 6612
          E-mail: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


SOUTHWEST MEDICAL: "Horton" Suit Moved to N.D. Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sam LeBarre Horton, Dr., on behalf
of himself and all other entities and persons similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Southwest Medical Consulting, LLC, Molina
Healthcare, Inc., and John Doe sued as John Does 1-10, intending
to refer to those persons, Corporations or other legal entities
that acted as agents, consultants, independent contractors or
representatives, Case No. CJ-17-00173, was removed from the Rogers
County District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma (Tulsa). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 4:17-cv-00266-CVE-mjx to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Claire V Eagan.

Southwest Medical is doing business consulting industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A Streett, Esq.
          STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
          107 W Main
          Russellville, AR 72801
          Telephone: (479) 968 2030

                - and -

          Jason Bjorn Aamodt, Esq.
          INDIAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          9 E 4th St S Ste 204
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 347 6169
          Facsimile: (918) 398 0514
          E-mail: Jason@aamodt.biz

               - and -

          Joe P Leniski, Jr., Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          227 2nd Ave N 4th Fl
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 254 8801

Molina Healthcare, Inc. is represented by:

          Daniel P Guillory, Esq.
          John B Davis, Esq.
          BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL
          & BERKOWITZ PC (BATON ROUGE)
          450 Laurel St 20th Fl
          Baton Rouge, LA 70801
          Telephone: (225) 381 7000
          Facsimile: (225) 343 3612

               - and -

          Ryan S Wilson, Esq.
          WILSON LAW FIRM
          PO BOX 891390
          OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73189
          Telephone: (405) 246 0092
          Facsimile: (405) 246 9652
          E-mail: ryan@RSWilsonlaw.com


SPACEX: Settles Class Action Over Shift Patterns
------------------------------------------------
Gareth Corfield, writing for The Register, reports that
Elon Musk's SpaceX has agreed pay out nearly $4m to thousands of
underpaid employees -- yet one of them is curiously annoyed with
his court-backed windfall.

Los Angeles judge Elihu M. Berle gave his court's backing to
SpaceX's settlement of the class-action lawsuit after first
hearing, and dismissing, the objections of former SpaceX man
Howard Smith, who was attempting to block the deal.

The settlement brings an end to several lawsuits brought over the
last few years alleging that SpaceX's shift patterns meant workers
could not take their statutory rest periods and meal breaks. Each
worker will receive an average of $500, with the highest payouts
being $2,000 per person.

Christina Lucio, lawyer for the 4,099 other people represented in
the class action suit, told the court: "I think the record is
clear that Mr Smith and his counsel had an opportunity to
represent the class and they were found to be inadequate."

Smith had been trying to sue SpaceX himself under a Californian
law that allows disgruntled employees to launch a lawsuit
themselves with the backing of the state -- but three-quarters of
any payout goes to the state's coffers in return, according to
legal site Law360.

His lawyers argued in response to Ms. Lucio that SpaceX was trying
to settle the class action suit in order to pay a lower settlement
to him personally.

The judge dismissed this and approved the $3.9m settlement to all
class action claimants, including Smith. [GN]


SPEEDWAY LLC: Must Face ADA Compliance Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania
federal judge denied Marathon Petroleum unit Speedway's bid to
strip putative class action claims from a lawsuit alleging its gas
stations across the country do not comply with Americans with
Disabilities Act requirements, agreeing with an April magistrate
judge's report.

U.S. District Judge Mark Hornak signed off on the report from U.S.
Magistrate Robert Mitchell, who found that the two individual
plaintiffs in the case and an advocacy group had asserted a valid
claim against the gas station operator.

"Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face: that Speedway's centralized
ADA accessibility policies are ineffective, and that these
policies have allowed, and will allow, architectural barriers to
develop and persist at Speedway's stores, and deter others
similarly situated from returning," Judge Mitchell said.

Plaintiffs Caroline Brodie and Angela Hunter joined with the
organization Access Now Inc. to sue Speedway LLC in January,
alleging that the parking lots at a number of locations in
Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio did not meet ADA requirements.
Both women have mobility disabilities and use wheelchairs.

Ms. Brodie alleged that a visit to a Speedway location outside of
Pittsburgh caused her unnecessary difficulty and risk because of
steep slopes. Hunter experienced similar challenges at a Speedway
outside of Cleveland.

The two women and Access Now had investigators visit over 15 other
Speedway locations in the three states, where they reported a
range of other ADA violations.

Speedway responded by filing to have the suit dismissed.  The
company argued that neither the women nor Access Now had standing
with regard to the locations the pair did not visit. It said this
made it impossible for the plaintiffs to establish standing in
order to pursue claims on a classwide basis.

But Judge Mitchell said the company relied on nonbinding precedent
from other courts and noted that it overlooked the rulings that he
and Judge Hornak made in a similar ADA class action involving
Cracker Barrel that ultimately ended in a settlement.  In that
case, the judges concluded that the pleadings stage was too early
to dismiss class action allegations.

The judge added that the pleadings showed class certification may
be appropriate if discovery backs up the plaintiffs' class
allegations.

"As pled, whether Speedway's alleged centralized policies are
ineffective and discriminatory would be common to all class
members," Judge Mitchell said. "Similarly, plaintiff's challenge
to this policy and the policy's effect on accessibility at all of
Speedway's stores is typical of, and to, all class members."

Benjamin Sweet -- bsweet@carlsonlynch.com -- who represents the
plaintiffs, said, "We are gratified that Judge Hornak adopted
Judge Mitchell's opinion in full. And we look forward to proving
our case at trial."

An attorney for Speedway did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Benjamin Sweet of Carlson Lynch
Sweet & Kilpela LLP.

Speedway is represented by April Byrd -- abyrd@shb.com -- and
Joseph Blum -- jblum@shb.com -- of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.

The case is Brodie et al. v. Speedway LLC, case number 2:17-cv-
00133, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania. [GN]


SPRINT SOLUTIONS: Class Certification Sought in Gorss Motels Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled GORSS MOTELS, INC., a
Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons v. SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC., a
Delaware corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 3:17-cv-00546-
JAM (D. Conn.), files its first amended motion for class
certification and for a temporary stay of further proceedings on
that motion.

Gorss Motels asks the Court to take the Amended Motion under
submission and deferring further activity on it until after the
discovery cutoff date to be set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23
scheduling order, or alternatively, to grant its motion for class
certification.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
                  bwanca@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com


STATE FARM: Pipkins Seeks Certification of Class Under Rule 23
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled RENEE PIPKINS, ET AL. v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Case No.
3:16-cv-00083-SDD-EWD (M.D. La.), move for class certification
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court certify the action for class
treatment, to appoint them as class representatives and to appoint
their counsel as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LuAg7UWb

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roland Tellis, Esq.
          Evan Zucker, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333
          Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
          E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
                  ezucker@baronbudd.com

               - and -

          J. Burton LeBlanc, Esq.
          David Cannella, Esq.
          Jeremiah Boling, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          2600 Citiplace Drive, Suite 400
          Baton Rouge, LA 70808
          Telephone: (225) 927-5441
          Facsimile: (225) 927-5449
          E-mail: bleblanc@baronbudd.com
                  dcannella@barondbudd.com
                  jboling@baronbudd.com

               - and -

          Denise Nelson Akers, Esq.
          Rebecca K. Wisbar, Esq.
          AKERS & WISBAR, LLC
          8280 YMCA Plaza Dr., Bldg. 8-C
          Baton Rouge, LA 70810
          Telephone: (225) 767-1003
          Facsimile: (225) 767-2280
          E-mail: denise@akerswisbar.com
                  Rebecca@akerswisbar.com

               - and -

          Robert E. Kleinpeter, Esq.
          Alan L. Schwartzberg, Esq.
          KLEINPETER & SCHWARTZBERG, L.L.C.
          6651 Jefferson Highway
          Baton Rouge, LA 70806
          Telephone: (225) 926-4130
          Facsimile: (225) 929-9817
          E-mail: rek@ksbrlaw.com
                  alans@ksbrlaw.com

               - and -

          Chad Dudley, Esq.
          Steven DeBosier, Esq.
          James Peltier, Esq.
          Lindsay Anderson, Esq.
          DUDLEY DEBOSIER INJURY LAWYERS
          1075 Government Street
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 379-3333
          Facsimile: (225) 379-3411
          E-mail: cdudley@dudleydebosier.com
                  sdebosier@dudleydebosier.com
                  jpeltier@dudleydebosier.com
                  landerson@dudleydebosier.com

               - and -

          Darrell J. Loup, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DARRELL J. LOUP, LLC
          9270 Siegen lane, Suite 601
          Baton Rouge, LA 90710
          Telephone: (225) 615-7887
          Facsimile: (225) 615-8297
          E-mail: dloup@louplawoffice.com


TECH MAHINDRA: Kumar Moves for Certification of Action Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled PANKAJ KUMAR on behalf of
himself, those similarly situated, and the proposed Rule 23 Class
v. TECH MAHINDRA (AMERICAS), INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-00905-JAR
(E.D. Mo.), moves the Court for an order:

   (1) conditionally certifying this case as a nationwide Fair
       Labor Standards Act collective action pursuant to 29
       U.S.C. Section 216(b);

   (2) approving the form of the Plaintiff's proposed notice;

   (3) setting a sixty-day notice period;

   (4) authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to mail and e-mail the
       notice at the beginning of the sixty-day notice period;

   (5) authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to mail and e-mail a
       reminder notice twenty-one days prior to the notice
       deadline;

   (6) ordering the Defendant to post the Court-approved notice
       in a conspicuous location in all break/lunch rooms at
       their office locations; and

   (7) ordering the Defendant to produce a list of all persons
       employed by Defendant as a U1-U3 band IT Delivery
       Engineers in the United States, at any time three years
       prior to the filing date of the complaint to the present,
       including each person's name, last known mailing address,
       last known personal email address, dates of employment,
       location of employment, and employee identification
       number, within ten (10) days of the Order.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=E3GfB4CP

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
          Brittany B. Skemp, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          80 South 8th Street, Suite 4600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3239
          Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
          E-mail: srey@nka.com
                  bskemp@nka.com

               - and -

          Benjamin F. Westhoff, Esq.
          Jessica M. Scales, Esq.
          SEDEY HARPER WESTHOFF, P.C.
          2711 Clifton Ave.
          St. Louis, MO 63139
          Telephone: (314) 773-3566
          Facsimile: (314) 773-3615
          E-mail: bwesthoff@sedeyharper.com
                  jscales@sedeyharper.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert A. Kaiser, Esq.
          Jovita M. Foster, Esq.
          Jeremy M. Brenner, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
          7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1800
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 342-4153
          E-mail: rkaiser@armstrongteasdale.com
                  jfoster@armstrongteasdale.com
                  jbrenner@armstrongteasdale.com


TUFTS ASSOCIATED: Chambers Files Suit for Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Chambers, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Tufts Associated Health Maintenance
Organization, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10517-NMG (D.
Mass., March 27, 2017) is class action lawsuit filed by plaintiffs
asserting breach of insurance contract.

Plaintiff purchased the "Commonwealth Advantage HMO Saver 2000"
plan from Tufts with coverage for the period 01/01/2015 to
12/31/2015 for himself and his wife (the "Family Plan").  The
Family Plan had an individual deductible of $2,000, and a
family deductible of $4,000.

At all times material hereto, says the complaint, Plaintiff paid
his premiums on time. In 2015, Plaintiff incurred approximately
$13,000 for covered medical treatment and services from an in-
network provider.
Tufts required Plaintiff to pay up to the family deductible
($4,000) before it would cover the expenses, when Tufts should
have required Plaintiff to pay only up to the individual
deductible ($2,000) under the terms of his contract with Tufts,
which contract was drafted by Tufts.  Plaintiff contacted Tufts'
customer service line to attempt to correct the billing error.
However, Plaintiff was told by Tufts that the way Tufts billed
Plaintiff is the way Tufts bills for all Saver Plans.

On September 29, 2016, Tufts sent Plaintiff a letter refusing to
provide relief and refused to explain why Tufts was charging the
family deductible ($4,000) rather than the individual deductible
($2,000) pursuant to the terms of the Family Plan contract.
Tufts also denied Plaintiff's claim, relying on a 180-day
limitations period contained in the "Clinical Grievances" section
of the Family Plan.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff asks the Court to (i) enter a
declaratory judgment declaring that Tufts 180-day time limit for
challenging Tufts' coverage decisions is an "unfair or deceptive
act or practice" in violation of M.G.L. c. 93A and ordering Tufts
to cease such practice, (ii) award Plaintiff and the class their
damages, trebled under M.G.L. c. 93A, as well as their costs and
attorneys' fees, and statutory interest, and (iii) grant Plaintiff
and the class further relief as justice requires.

Defendant Tufts is a Massachusetts-licensed health maintenance
organization (HMO) headquartered in Watertown, Middlesex County,
Massachusetts, doing business under the name Tufts Health Plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Noah Rosmarin, Esq.
   John Peter Zavez, Esq.
   Jeffrey Thorn, Esq.
   90 Canal Street, Suite 500
   Boston, MA 02114
   Tel: (617) 367-1040


UNITED PARCEL: "Backus" Suit Moved to District of Oregon
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sean P. Backus, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. United
Parcel Service, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 17CV14460,
was removed on May 12, 2017 from the Multnomah County Circuit
Court of Oregon, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon (Portland 3). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:17-cv-00754-BR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Anna J. Brown.

United Parcel is the world's largest package delivery company and
a provider of supply chain management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Arthur Schuck, Esq.
          SCHUCK LAW, LLC
          9208 NE Hwy 99, Ste 107-84
          Vancouver, WA 98665
          Telephone: (360) 566 9243
          E-mail: dschuck@wageclaim.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Calvin L. Keith, Esq.
          Joanna T. Perini-Abbott, Esq.
          Sarah J. Crooks, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE, LLP
          1120 NW Couch Street, 10th Floor
          Portland, OR 97209-4128
          Telephone: (503) 727 2000
          Facsimile: (503) 727 2222
          E-mail: ckeith@perkinscoie.com
                  jperini@perkinscoie.com
                  scrooks@perkinscoie.com


USCB CORPORATION: Faces "Navas" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USCB Corporation.
The case is captioned as Diane Navas, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. USCB
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02873 (E.D.N.Y., May
11, 2017).

USCB is a debt collecting agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


WELLS FARGO: Faces "McCoy" Suit in S.D. Mississippi
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo, N.A.
The case is captioned as Wilbert McCoy and Esther McCoy, on behalf
of herself and all of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Wells Fargo, N.A., doing business as Wells Fargo Financial
National Bank and The Window Source, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00360-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss., May 12, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. District Judge Halil S. Ozerden.

Wells Fargo is a provider of banking, mortgage, investing, credit
card, and insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Macy D. Hanson, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MACY D. HANSON, PLLC
          102 First Choice Drive
          Madison, MS 39210
          Telephone: (601) 853 9521
          Facsimile: (601) 853 9327
          E-mail: macy@macyhanson.com


WELLS FARGO: Nguyen Moves for Certification of Class & Sub-Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned HUY NGUYEN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO
BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 3:15-cv-05239-JCS (N.D. Cal.), asks the Court to certify a
class and a sub-class.

     Class:

     All persons who are or have been employed, at any time from
     August 25, 2011 through the date of the Court's granting of
     class certification in this matter, by Wells Fargo Bank,
     National Association in California under the job titles Home
     Mortgage Consultant, Home Mortgage Consultant Jr. and
     Private Mortgage Banker (collectively "HMCs").

     Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class:

     All persons who have been employed and separated from
     employment (either by involuntary termination or
     resignation), at any time from August 25, 2011 through the
     date of the Court's granting of class certification in this
     matter, by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association in
     California under the job titles Home Mortgage Consultant,
     Home Mortgage Consultant Jr. and Private Mortgage Banker and
     who did not timely receive all of their wages at time of
     separation.

Mr. Nguyen also seeks to have certified for resolution on behalf
of the class each of the causes of action pled in his First
Amended Class Action Complaint, which include: Claim Four for
reimbursement of business expenses; Claim Five for failure to pay
all wages at termination; Claim Six for failure to provide lawful
wage statements; and, Claim Seven for violations of California's
Unfair Competition Law, including failure to reimburse business
expenses and to pay timely commissions.  He further seeks to have
his counsel be appointed as Class Counsel.

A copy of the memorandum of points and authorities in support of
plaintiff's motion for class certification is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sMknYueE

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
          David Pogrel, Esq.
          Elizabeth Gropman, Esq.
          LEONARD CARDER, LLP
          1330 Broadway, Suite 1450
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 272-0174
          Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
          E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
                  dprogel@leonardcarder.com
                  egropman@leonardcarder.com

               - and -

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


WILSON SPORTING: Oda Seeks to Certify Nationwide Class & Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Hiroyuki Oda, et al. v.
Wilson Sporting Goods Co., Case No. 8:15-cv-02131-JLS-JCG (C.D.
Cal.), ask the Court to certify a nationwide class and California
subclass.

     Nationwide Class:

     All persons, residing in the United States who, during the
     Class Period, purchased a 2013 and/or 2014 DeMarini White
     Steel softball bat (the "Defective Bats") directly from
     Defendant Wilson Sporting Goods Co. ("Wilson") or through
     one of its authorized retailers for primarily personal
     purposes, and not for resale, excluding claims for personal
     injury.

     California Subclass:

     All persons who, during the Class Period, purchased the
     Defective Bats in the State of California for primarily
     personal purposes, and not for resale, excluding claims for
     personal injury.

The "Class Period" for the Nationwide Class and California
Subclass is from December 23, 2011 to the present.  Further,
excluded from the Nationwide Class and California Subclass are:
(a) any officers, directors or employees of Wilson; (b) any judge
assigned to hear this case (or spouse or family member of any
assigned judge); (c) any employee of the Court; and (d) any juror
selected to hear this case.

Alternatively, if the Court does not certify a Nationwide Class,
then the Plaintiffs seek to certify the California Subclass as a
separate, standalone class for California residents based on
violations of California's Unfair Competition law, Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as
representatives of the proposed Nationwide Class and California
Subclass, and to appoint the law firms of Bisnar Chase LLP and
Dickson Kohan & Bablove LLP as joint-lead Class Counsel for the
proposed Nationwide Class and California Subclass.  The Plaintiffs
further seek approval of their proposed Class Notice and notice
procedure.

The Court will commence a hearing on July 14, 2017, at 2:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gFsoNCR0

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian D. Chase, Esq.
          Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
          BISNAR CHASE LLP
          1301 Dove Street, Suite 120
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 752-2999
          Facsimile: (949) 752-2777
          E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com
                  jbeligan@bisnarchase.com

               - and -

          Jesse M. Bablove, Esq.
          DICKSON KOHAN & BABLOVE LLP
          1101 Dove Street, Suite 220
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 629-4485
          Facsimile: (949) 535-1449
          E-mail: jbablove@dkblawyers.com


* Democrats Oppose Bill to Avert Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------
Isabella Alves, Sky Chadde and Miranda Moore, writing for
Missourian, report that sanctuary cities came under attack during
a House floor debate on May 10.

Although the bill officially being debated was about state
property, several lawmakers proposed unrelated amendments,
including one to prohibit St. Louis from acting as a sanctuary
city.  Such cities are places undocumented immigrants can go
without fear of being deported.

The amendment was adopted and the bill passed, meaning it now goes
to the Senate for consideration.  Only two days remain in the
legislative session.

Mostly Democrats opposed the amendment, while mostly Republicans
supported it.  The concerns echoed the national debate about
sanctuary cities and their legality.

The Trump administration vehemently opposes them, threatening to
withdraw federal funding from cities that adopt sanctuary city
policies.  Those issues were echoed on the House floor.

Rep. Stacey Newman, D-St. Louis, repeatedly spoke out against the
amendment, stating that it was unconstitutional.

"Sanctuary cities basically mean safe places," Ms. Newman said,
later adding, "We've done enough discrimination in this body for
this session."

Ms. Newman said laws that target sanctuary cities are "designed to
attack, segregate, stereotype and further discriminate people
based on how they look."

Rep. Doug Beck, D-St. Louis, also spoke against the bill, saying
that it goes against the history of St. Louis as a city of
immigrants and legislation like this isn't "the American way."

Rep. Rick Brattin R-Harrisonville, said the amendment isn't
unconstitutional, and that sanctuary cities are illegal.

"If you go read the federal law, it makes it illegal for any type
of sanctuary," Rep. Brattin said.

Other lawmakers, including Rep. Deb Lavender, D-Kirkwood, thought
that adding amendments that are unrelated to the original bill may
alienate lawmakers that were going to vote for the original bill.
She said she was going to vote for the bill, but with the
amendments, will not.

The sanctuary city debate wasn't the only one that involved adding
amendments unrelated to the original bills.

Representatives also discussed the early child care requirement
clause of the K-12 Foundation Formula that funds schools.  When
lawmakers fully funded the formula, they triggered a requirement
to fund early child care in schools.

That discussion was part of an amendment attached to a bill about
political subdivisions.

Rep. Kathryn Swan, R-Cape Girardeau, proposed an amendment to a
bill that would phase in the funding requirement over a three-year
period, instead of all in one year.  The amendment passed, but not
without protest from some lawmakers.

Rep. Michael Butler, D-St. Louis, said lawmakers made an agreement
to people when they fully funded the foundation formula, and by
passing this amendment, they're breaking that agreement by not
funding the early childhood clause right away.

But Rep. Scott Fitzpatrick, R-Shell Knob, said the phase-in
wouldn't be detrimental to the program.

"We still get to the same endpoint after 3 years,"
Rep. Fitzpatrick said.

Opposition to discrimination bill

About 20 House Democrats gathered outside Gov. Eric Greitens'
office door on May 10 to encourage him to veto Senate Bill 43,
which would make it harder for employees to prove discrimination
based on race, gender, age or religious beliefs.

"You heard a lot about what the lawyers say about what the bill
does," said Rep. Bruce Franks Jr., D-St. Louis.  "At the end of
the day, it's discrimination."

Rep. Franks said they were appealing to the side of the governor
who lambasted the toppling of grave stones in a Jewish cemetery.

"That's the governor we're looking for, the governor that stands
against racism and discrimination," Rep. Franks said.  "We're not
looking for the pro-business governor."

After their press conference, the Democrats filed into the waiting
area of Gov. Greitens' office and handed over letters to a
staffer, who put them in a manila envelope.

Democrats block lawsuit bill

Restricting the ability to sue a company, employer or physician is
the goal of a large number of bills that were filed at the
beginning of the legislative session.  Few have been adopted, and
one ran into a roadblock on May 10.

The bill, one of several sponsored by Rep. Glen Kolkmeyer, R-
Odessa, would restrict the ability of plaintiffs to join similar
lawsuits together.

Current Missouri law regarding venue allows out-of-state
plaintiffs to sue in Missouri if defendants are located here.
Current law regarding what are known as "joinders" allows
different plaintiffs suing the same defendant to join their cases
together.

The proposed law is intended to reduce the backlog in Missouri
courts, specifically in St. Louis, which proponents say will
reduce costs to taxpayers.  Opponents of the bill say that it
would make it much harder for individuals to sue large companies.

The bill under consideration is among the more technical of the
tort bills that have been proposed this session, and the
discussion centered around hypotheticals and explanations of what
the bill would mean for Missouri law if passed.  Sen. Scott
Sifton, D-Affton, was called in to help explain the bill.
Sen. Sifton is an attorney.

As Sen. Sifton was explaining a hypothetical under which the
proposed law might apply, Senate Minority Floor leader
Gina Walsh, D-Bellefontaine Neighbors, expressed frustration.

"This is getting more like 'Who's on First' the further down we
go," she said.

After several senators, mostly Democrats, filibustered the bill
for a couple of hours, the Senate moved on to other topics without
voting.  If the discussion isn't revived by Friday, May 12, the
bill will die. [GN]


* Employers Face Increased Risk of FMLA Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq., of
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that a recent
decision has added to the chorus of courts recognizing that FMLA
class actions must be pursued under Rule 23 and are often
appropriate for class certification.  As a practical matter, this
means that FMLA class actions can now be pursued as opt-out --
rather than opt-in -- actions because the statutory language of
the FMLA does not incorporate language requiring that plaintiffs
affirmatively consent to join the action.  These recent decisions
ultimately make FMLA class actions more attractive to the
plaintiffs' bar and increase the likelihood that employers may
face similar actions in the future.

Employers who have paid time off (PTO) or short-term leave
policies are now at an increased risk of facing a class action
under the Family-Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") due to a recent
decision in Carrel v. MedPro Group, Inc., No. 16-130, 2017 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 62969 (N.D. Ind. April 26, 2017).  The decision, which
applied Rule 23 to FMLA class action claims and certified a class
under Rule 23, serves as the most recent example of how
plaintiffs' attorneys are achieving success in FMLA class actions
and may signal that additional and similar actions may be
forthcoming.

Case Background

In Carrel, the Plaintiff brought a class claim under the FMLA
alleging that she was docked earned PTO and that Defendant failed
to pay her unused PTO upon the termination of her employment.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged that Defendant's short-term
leave policy violated the FMLA because each employee was provided
PTO at the beginning of the year according to Defendant's PTO
policy and thus, PTO was unlawfully "docked" whenever an employee
took FMLA leave. Id. at *2.

Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification under Rule 23
seeking certification of a class defined as "all current and
former [Defendant] employees who took FMLA leave at any point
since March 29, 2013[.]" Id. at *5.

The Court's Decision

The Court granted Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
First, the Court rejected Defendant's argument that class
certification under Rule 23 was the wrong mechanism for an FMLA
class, and that the alleged class-wide violations of the FMLA must
be treated as a collective action instead. Id. *6.  Although the
Seventh Circuit has not weighed in on the applicability of Rule 23
to FMLA actions, the Court noted that other case law authorities
in the Seventh Circuit have held that "class violations of the
FMLA must be treated as opt-out actions pursuant to Rule 23
because the statutory language of the FMLA Sec 2617(a)(2) does not
incorporate the additional language in the FLSA expressly
requiring that plaintiffs affirmatively consent to join the action
by opting-in." Id. at *7.  Accordingly, the Court held that "Rule
23 is the correct mechanism by which to proceed with the analysis"
of the Plaintiff's class certification motion. Id. at *8.

Second, the Court proceeded to find that the requirements of Rule
23(a) had been satisfied.  Specifically, the Court found that the
"commonality" requirement of Rule 23(a) was satisfied because
"Plaintiff and the putative class members were all [Defendant]
employees who were subject to the same uniformly applied PTO
policy." Id. at *12.  Therefore, "[w]hether the Defendant's PTO
policy violated the FMLA presents a common question of law." Id.
In so holding, the Court noted that how Defendant's policy
individually impacted each member of the class was an issue
relating to the merits and did not defeat commonality. Id. at *15.

Finally, the Court noted that certification under Rule 23(b)(3)
-- applicable to classes seeking monetary relief -- was
appropriate.  In so holding, the Court found that the Rule
23(b)(3) "predominance" factor was satisfied because "causation
issues, which here are actually issues concerning what damages, if
any, each class member has actually suffered pursuant to the PTO
policy applied in his/her own case, will not predominate over
common liability issues. Id. at *22. Therefore, it did not matter
to the Court's inquiry "how much PTO each employee used or would
have used." Id. at *23.

Implications For Employers

Employers are at an increased risk of facing similar FMLA class
actions in the future in light of the fact that an increasing
number of courts have found FMLA class actions to be proper for
class certification under Rule 23. The simple fact that
plaintiffs' attorneys can now pursue FMLA class actions under Rule
23, instead of an opt-in class akin to FLSA claims, may serve to
increase the total number of potential class members (and an
employer's total exposure), and likely makes such actions much
more attractive to the plaintiffs' bar.  In addition, the fact
that courts have found that individual issues pertaining to
employees' usage of PTO do not predominate over the overarching
issue of whether an employer's PTO policy violates the FMLA also
increases the likelihood that more employers may be faced with
similar actions in the future. [GN]


* Foley & Lardner Attorneys Discuss How Arbitration Works
---------------------------------------------------------
Jay N. Varon, Esq. -- jvaron@foley.com -- and Jennifer M. Keas,
Esq., of Foley & Lardner LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote
that businesses across the country regularly bemoan the time and
expense of litigation. Even when businesses are successful in
defending non-meritorious consumer claims alleging unfair or
deceptive practices, false advertising, technical violations of
statutory rules, and so on, they nonetheless essentially suffer
defeat because of the time and resources they expend to fend off
such claims.  There is a relatively proven way to ameliorate this
situation that is often quicker and less expensive for everyone
involved--and yet many companies do not understand or utilize
pre-dispute arbitration provisions when they easily could do so.

Arbitration is a procedure in which a dispute is submitted, by
agreement of the parties involved, to one or more neutral
arbitrators who will make a binding decision on the dispute.  In
choosing arbitration, the parties opt for this alternative dispute
resolution process, thus avoiding the delays, technical
procedures, and expense that often accompany use of the court
system.  For businesses, arbitration clauses also provides an
effective tool to avoid or minimize cost and risk from class
actions or other multi-party lawsuits, as well as sometimes the
irreparable publicity that accompanies a lawsuit even if it is
meritless.

In this article, we explain how arbitration works, what type of
arbitration agreements are generally enforceable, what features
that have or can cause problems, and how such provisions can
reduce the risk of class actions.

How does arbitration work?
Agreement to arbitrate. Businesses often will include a pre-
dispute arbitration clause ("arbitration clause") in their
existing consumer contracts.  Arbitration clauses typically
provide that either party to the agreement can file claims against
the other in arbitration and obtain a binding decision from the
arbitrator.  They also may provide that if one side sues the other
in court, the party that has been sued in court can invoke the
arbitration clause to require that the matter proceed in
arbitration instead of court.  An arbitration clause also may
contain a provision prohibiting the consumer from bringing claims
as a group (a "class action waiver").

The arbitration process. Arbitrations are subject to their own
simplified procedures.  Although arbitration requires paying for
the arbitrator's time and certain administrative/filing fees, the
costs are usually much lower than a court case.  In general,
motions and discovery are restricted in arbitration, in contrast
with the burdensome and costly discovery obligations and motions
practice associated with court litigation.  In arbitration, the
parties have an opportunity to select their arbitrator(s), who may
specialize or have experience in the relevant subject matter.
Arbitrations are generally resolved faster, with very little
appeal rights and limited bases to vacate awards. Arbitrations are
confidential, whereas most court files are public.  As Congress
has stated, "[t[he advantages of arbitration are many: it is
usually cheaper and faster than litigation, it can have simple
procedural and evidentiary rules; it normally minimizes hostility
and is less disruptive . . . [and] is often more flexible."

How are arbitration agreements enforced?
The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), which applies "in any
maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction
involving commerce." creates a strong national policy in favor of
honoring arbitration clauses, requiring courts to compel
arbitration in accordance with the terms of an arbitration
agreement, upon the motion of either party to the agreement,
provided that there is no issue regarding its creation. Consistent
with this mandate, there is solid court precedent generally
upholding the validity of arbitration agreements, with the Supreme
Court issuing major cases in recent years upholding arbitration
clauses in the face of many different kinds of state laws designed
to curtail the arbitration procedure5 and, in most situations,
enforcing class action waivers.6

Nevertheless, not all arbitration clauses and class waiver
provisions will be enforceable. To begin with, subject to
variations in state laws, arbitration clauses can be voided based
on the same contract principles and defenses applicable to
contracts generally.  That inquiry will often focus on whether the
arbitration clause is "unconscionable," that is, whether it is so
oppressive or one-sided that it cannot be enforced.  There are
issues that both relate to how the contract was formed
(so-called procedural unconscionability) as well as the fairness
of actual terms of the contract (so-called substantive
unconscionability).

Further, although the Supreme Court has generally confirmed the
enforceability of class waivers in arbitration agreements, just
like some arbitration clauses may not be enforced based on
contractual principles, there are a few circumstances in which
class action waivers will not be enforced.  For example, in one
case, where a service provider included an arbitration clause with
a class action waiver in a warranty brochure in a box containing
the purchased product (a cellphone) and nothing in the box called
the consumer's attention to the existence of the arbitration
clause, the court refused to enforce the arbitration clause and
class action waiver.  Likewise, in April of this year, in a case
distinguishing the United States Supreme Court's Concepcion
decision, the California Supreme Court invalidated a general class
waiver because it sought to prohibit the consumer from pursuing
claims for public injunctive relief in any forum under
California's Unfair Competition and False Advertising laws and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, which provide statutory rights to
seek public injunctive relief.  The lower appellate court had gone
the other way, holding that a California rule which categorically
prohibits arbitration of these kinds of injunctive relief claims
falls squarely within the line of authority establishing that the
FAA preempts any state law that amounts to a categorical ban on
arbitration.  But in a unanimous opinion, the California Supreme
Court disagreed, concluding that the arbitration provision was
unenforceable to the extent it purported to waive the statutory
right to seek public injunctive relief under these consumer
protection laws, which the high court stressed are aimed at
prohibiting unlawful acts that threaten future injury to the
general public.10 That issue is a likely candidate for review by
the U.S. Supreme Court.

Where do arbitration agreements and class action waivers go off
the rails and what features make them more defensible?
Companies should have their agreements with arbitration clauses
reviewed periodically to make sure they are up to date, account
for differences in state law and the most recent guidance provided
by the courts, and are tailored for the types of disputes and
circumstances they are intended to cover.  Generally speaking,
here are some of the more common issues that arise regarding the
general enforceability of a class action waiver and/or arbitration
clause:

Arbitration clauses and class action waiver provisions should be
clear and prominent.  The arbitration clause, as well as any class
action waiver provision, should be brought to the attention of the
consumer at the time of entering the consumer agreement (using
capital letters, bolding, headers, etc. to draw the consumer's
attention as compared to the rest of the agreement). This includes
but is not limited to language alerting the consumer to the fact
that in agreeing to arbitrate, the consumer is waiving any right
to a jury trial.  Likewise, make any class action waiver clear and
conspicuous and, if desired, indicate that the parties do not want
there to be any class or multi-party proceeding in the
arbitration.  While not required, arbitration clauses and class
action waivers are generally more likely to be upheld if the
consumer (i) acknowledges (e., with a separate signature or
initials by each such provision) having read and understood them;
and/or (ii) is given the opportunity to opt out from such
provisions.

Arbitration should be accessible and affordable to the consumer.
High administrative fees may make arbitration agreements
unenforceable, if the result is that the costs to the consumer
would be prohibitively expensive.  Companies may wish to consider
agreeing to cover all or most of the arbitration costs. Providing
consumers with an unreasonably short period of time or
unreasonably burdensome method in which to file or advance a
grievance also could be deemed unconscionable.

The terms should not be overly one-sided against the consumer.
Examples could include providing the company with an unfair
advantage in the process of selecting the arbitrator(s), or
providing that the company has the unrestricted discretion to
retroactively amend or alter the terms of the arbitration
agreement.

A class action waiver/arbitration clause may face higher risks of
challenge if it seeks to deny the consumer benefits or rights
conferred by statute.  Examples include providing for a shorter
statute of limitations than would be allowed under the applicable
law, limiting available statutory damages (or, in California, the
right to seek certain kinds of injunctive relief such as those at
issue in McGill), or providing that the consumer would not be
entitled to attorney's fees or costs in cases involving fee-
shifting statutes.

Consider including a provision that if any portion of the
arbitration provision is deemed invalid or unenforceable, the
remaining arbitration provisions shall nevertheless remain in
force.

Apart from the foregoing types of issues that could endanger the
enforceability of an arbitration clause/class action waiver, there
are many other considerations bearing on the efficiency and
effectiveness of the agreement to arbitrate.  These include, but
are not limited to, the following:

Care should be taken with the language describing the scope of
disputes to be arbitrated. Give thought to whether you intend to
arbitrate all disputes that may touch on or collaterally relate to
the contract, or whether you may need express language
specifically identifying and narrowly describing the scope of
disputes to be arbitrated.

Consider whether the agreement to arbitrate is intended to be
broad enough to encompass claims involving nonsignatories, such as
claims involving other companies that are not a party to the
consumer agreement but that may have a role in the consumer's
transaction and, accordingly, potentially could face litigation
risk along with you. In that case, special care should be taken in
drafting the arbitration clause, with reference to applicable
state contract law principles.

Clearly designate who is to resolve any issues regarding the
availability of class claims and/or arbitrability.  If an issue
arises concerning arbitrability (e., whether the parties have
agreed to arbitrate) and the agreement does not expressly provide
for how that issue is to be decided, courts have generally held
that the issue should be resolved by a court, not arbitrator.
However, the courts are split on whether the decision of the
availability of class arbitration is for a court or an arbitrator.
While it is not a "silver bullet," a best practice is to clearly
and unmistakably indicate in the agreement who should resolve any
questions about arbitrability or the availability of class
arbitration under that agreement, as well as the arbitration
provider and rules that will apply.

Other issues. Depending on the specific circumstances,
consideration could also be given to addressing the such
procedural issues as: the number of arbitrators; whether pre-
arbitration mediation or negotiation is required; special
allowances or limitations on discovery; hearing venue and choice
of law; and the right to appeal (keeping in mind that because the
FAA provides for very limited review, you would have to take
special measures if you want to provide for such review, such as,
for example, structuring the arbitration agreement under the law
of your state, rather than the FAA).

The proposed CFPB rule on arbitration is unlikely to be enacted
quickly enough to change the current environment favoring
arbitration.

In 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB")
proposed a rule11 ("Proposed Arbitration Rule") that would
prohibit certain companies who provide consumer financial products
and services from using arbitration clauses to bar consumers from
filing or participating in class actions.  The Proposed
Arbitration Rule also would require such companies to submit
information to the CFPB concerning arbitrations conducted under
agreements.

This proposal arose under a provision of the Dodd-Frank Act in
which Congress instructed the CFPB to study the use of pre-dispute
arbitration provisions in connection with consumer financial
products or services, and authorized the CFPB to prohibit or
impose conditions or limitations on their use if doing so was in
the public interest and for the protection of consumers.  In 2015,
the CFPB completed its study and published a 728-page report.  The
report's premise is that most consumers are not aware of or do not
understand arbitration clauses, such that these agreements are
"forced" on consumers, and that they do not offer significant
benefit over traditional litigation.  The CFPB took comments on
the Proposed Arbitration Rule and the comment period ended on
August 22, 2016.  While many consumer groups supported the
Bureau's proposal, the Chamber of Commerce and several other
groups issued scathing criticisms of the procedures utilized in
the Bureau's study and its conclusions.  A final rule would
require compliance within 211 days of final publication.

If enacted, the CFPB's Proposed Arbitration Rule likely would
curtail the use and benefits of arbitration clauses and class
action waivers by business that would be subject to its
restrictions, and it is likely that the number of class action
lawsuits filed each year would increase. But even before the
recent PHH court decision questioned the constitutionality of the
CFPB, the President's inability to remove the CFPB's director
except "for cause," and whether the agency should be subject to
the same agency review as other executive agencies, it is likely
that any effort to publish and finalize the Proposed Arbitration
Rule would have faced immediate and serious legal challenges. It
seems highly unlikely that the CFPB would seek to finalize its
arbitration rule with the questions posed by the PHH panel
decision hanging over the CFPB and the full court review of that
decision pending.  Given that the PHH case is only going to be
argued in the end of May, that a ruling is likely to take at least
several months (if not much more), that a final rule would not
require compliance until 211 days of its final publication, and
that Director Cordray's term ends in July 2018, it is doubtful
that the Proposed Arbitration Rule will ever take effect in its
current form.

Our Takeaway
A properly drafted arbitration clause with a class action waiver
should be enforceable and can be a good and useful line of defense
against expensive and costly litigation, especially class action
lawsuits.  If consumers have valid claims, they can and should be
successfully prosecuted through arbitration, which will be more
efficient than through the courts.  On the other hand, if such
claims are not meritorious and are bundled together simply to
exert leverage and to try to force settlements based on the mere
anticipated costs of defense, then arbitration agreements can be
of great assistance in avoiding "blackmail" settlements. It is a
good time to review your consumer agreements and make sure you
have what you need in place. [GN]


* JBA President Responds to Dormant Account Fees Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Gleaner reports that President of the Jamaica Bankers
Association (JBA), Nigel Holness, has described as unfortunate the
decision of the St Catherine South Member of Parliament Fitz
Jackson to continue pursuing a class action suit against local
banks for applying fees to dormant accounts.

Mr. Holness says both the JBA and Mr. Jackson have been discussing
the issue and banks have committed to reviewing their policy on
the charging of fees for dormant accounts.

Mr. Holness, who is the managing director of CIBC First Caribbean
Bank, says most banks have suspended the fee and are currently
seeing what adjustments can be made to eliminate the cost
associated with maintaining dormant accounts.

The JBA president contends that banks are usually responsive to
customers and many have reacted positively to complaints from
customers about the charges on dormant accounts.

Meanwhile, despite the threat of a class action suit, Mr. Holness
says banks are prepared to find a solution to the issue.

Mr. Jackson on May 9 withdrew a controversial bill to amend the
Banking Services Act to mandate banks to provide customers with a
minimum service standard and to regulate fees and charges.

The MP pulled the bill from Parliament's Order Paper after
complaining of undue delays despite opening the debate on the bill
from January.

He explained that the withdrawal is to facilitate changes to the
proposed legislation based on feedback from the banking sector and
the Commerce Ministry.

Mr. Jackson said he would return shortly with a revised Bill. [GN]


* Securities Class Action Filings Surge in First Quarter 2017
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Gorman, Esq. -- gorman.tom@dorsey.com -- of Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that in the first
quarter of 2017 there was a record number of securities class
actions filed, according to a new report by Cornerstone Research.
In the first quarter of this year 127 securities class actions
were filed compared to about half that number in the first quarter
of last year -- 64.  In 2015 there were 38 suits filed, 36 in 2014
and 34 in 2013.

During the same period there was also a record number of M&A
filings.  In the first quarter of 2017 there were 45 actions filed
-- over four times the number brought at the beginning of 2016
when just 11 suits were filed.  Similarly, in 2015 only 1 M&A
based suit was filed in the first quarter while there were 3 in
2014 and 2 in 2013.

Filings were up in every sector, according to Cornerstone.  For
example, in the first quarter 2017 there were 56 securities class
actions filed in the consumer non-cyclical sector compared to just
21 on average for 2015 -- 2016.  There were similar increases in
other sectors compared to the average in that sector for the first
quarter of 2015-2016:

   -- Communications: 15 suits were filed in the first quarter of
this year compared to an average of 5 for the first quarter of the
prior two years;

   -- Consumer cyclical: 12 actions were filed this year compared
to the average for the prior two years of 5;

   -- Industrial: 12 this year compared to an average of 6 for the
prior two years;

   -- Financial: 11 for the first quarter this year compared to an
average of 7 for the same period in the prior two years;

  -- Technology: 9 this year compared to an average of 6; and
Energy: 6 this year compared to an average of 4 for the prior two
years.

There was also a significant increase in the number of securities
class actions filed in the biotech, pharmaceuticals and healthcare
sector in the first quarter of this year area compared to prior
years.  In the first quarter of this year 48 suits were filed in
this sector compared to 16 in 2016, 7 in 2015, 11 in 2014 and just
6 in 2013.

Finally, while the increase in M&A suits can be tied to the Trulia
decision, that does not account for the increase overall. What may
be most noteworthy about the overall surge in filings is the lack
of market volatility.  Typically there is an increase in filings,
according to the Report, when the markets are volatile. The
markets have, however, been relatively calm and rising. Some
observers believe that the uptick may be keyed in part to an
increase in "emerging" plaintiffs' law firms shopping for business
and filing lower quality complaints, according to the Report. [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  * * *