/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170530.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 30, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 107


314E CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
ADVANCED CALL: Faces "Dipisa" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
AEG MANAGEMENT: Campbell Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
AKARI THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
ALABAMA: Waits for Ruling in Inmate Mental Health Suit

ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Bailey" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Schwartz" Suit in E.D. New York
AMERICAN HONDA: "Shamah" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
AMERICAN SECURITY: "Hopkins" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
AMERICAS STYRENICS: Faces "Velardez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

ARCONIC INC: Shareholders Sue Directors for Duty Breach
ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Juliani" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
ATTICARE CORP: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Katz" Suit Claims
AT HOME: Faces "Sadullaev" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AUROBINDO PHARMA: MSPA Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania

BAODING CFC: "Wen" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA
BKAL INC: "Read" Suit Sues Over Workplace Sexual Harassment
BUMBLE BEE: To Pay $25-Mil. Fine in Installments
BUTLER, PA: Faces Suit Over Lead in School Drinking Water
CARPCO EFFICIENT: "Harmon" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

CHIPOTLE: Faces Class Action Over Potential Data Breach
CHOPARD USA: Faces "Portillo" Class Suit in C.D. Cal.
CJS SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Sanders" Suit Says
CLIENT SERVICES: Saroza Sues Over Debt Collection Violation
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Meisels" Suit in E.D. New York

CONN'S INC: Investigation on Officers and Directors Initiated
COOK COUNTY, IL: Ex-Jail Guard Sues Merit Board Over Firings
CRACKER BARREL: "Blackshear" Suit Seeks Compensation Under CEPA
CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Thompkins" Suit in E.D. New York
CREDIT PROTECTION: Moran Sues Over Debt Collection Violation

CUYAHOGA COUNTY: Faces "Anghelache" Suit Over Decreased Pensions
DAIMLER: German Prosecutors to Search Offices in Emissions Probe
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces "Portela" Suit in D. New Jersey
DRG BILLING: Faces "Reinbold" Suit Over Wage and Hour Violation
EMORY UNIVERSITY: Partial Victory in Bid to Junk Code 403b Fee

FANNIE MAY CONFECTIONS: Chocolate Packaging Misleading, Suit Says
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Cunningham Sues Over Pension & Retirement
FEDERATED LAW: Faces "Webb" Suit in District of New Jersey
FIAT CHRYSLER: U.S. Gov't Suit Alleges Emissions Test Cheating
FIELDTURF USA: Faces Lakeview Day Suit in District of New Jersey

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces Potential Suit Over Electricity Charges
FBR & CO: "Kim" Sues Over Proposed B. Riley Merger
FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: "FWK Holdings" Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
FRITO-LAY NA: Allred Sues Over Misbranded Flavored Potato Chips
GC SERVICES: Faces "Dawson" Suit in Eastern District of New York

HAT WORLD: "Ward" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to W.D. Washington
INSPIRA HEALTH: Faces "Costante" Suit Alleging Sexual Harassment
INTERNAL REVENUE: Lois Lerner's Testimony to Remain Confidential
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Seek Reversal of $72MM Award in Talc Case
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Accuses Talc Case Plaintiffs Attorney of Lying

LION BIOTECHNOLOGIES: "Desilvio" Sues Over Share Price Drop
MACNEIL AUTOMOTIVE: "Kusinski" Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA
MARTIN GAFFEY: Supreme Court Sends Rental Suit Back to Dist. Court
MDL 2724: NECA-IBEW Antitrust Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
MEI-GSR HOLDINGS: Violates NLRA by Retaliating vs. Former Worker

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Glick" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
MILOS BY COSTAS: Bovino Sues Over Race Discrimination
MMODAL SERVICES: Seijas Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Faces "Severns" Suit Over Robocalls
NEMET MOTORS: "Feliciano-Bauzo" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages

NEUROTROPE INC: July 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
NEW CENTURY: Faces Class Action for Misclassifying Dancers
NEW WORLD DRAYAGE: Faces "Cano" Suit in California Superior Court
NISSAN NA: Pinto Suit Moved to New Jersey Federal Court
OAKTON COMMUNITY: Judge Allows Age Discrimination Suit to Proceed

OASIS APARTMENTS: Slapped with Suit Over Rat-infested Complex
OCWEN LOAN: "Aquilar" Suit Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
ONG AMNUAY: Faces "Calel" Suit in Southern District of New York
PARTY RENTAL: "Castellanos" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
PAYMENT ALLIANCE: Cobra Tactical Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia

PERCHERON FIELD: Faces "Loecker" Suit in Pa. Common Pleas Court
R.J. REYNOLDS: 11th Cir. Greenlights Smokers' Suits
RANBAXY INC: Meijer Seeks to Transfer Case to Mass.
ROCCO IADEVAIA: "Aquino" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
SANTANNA NATURAL: Johansen Sues Over Telemarketing Practices

SHERBROOKE: CAD17-Mil. Out-of-Court Settlement in Gas Cartel Suit
SOUTHGATE PROPERTY: Gets Top Court's Favor on Tenant's Lawsuit
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $45 Million
SPOKEO INC: 4th Cir. Vacates $11MM FCRA Class Action Judgment
ST. STEPHENS CEMETERY: Police Says Charges Coming in Soon

SYNAGEVA BIOPHARMA: Faces "Lahiff" Suit in Texas State Court
TARGET: Settles 2013 Data Breach with 47 States for $18.5MM
TESLA INC: Law Firms Vie for Derivative Case Lead Counsel Post
TEXAS: Austin Sues State Over Ban on 'Sanctuary Cities'
THREE J'S: Faces "Cavanaugh" Suit in California Superior Court

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 11th Cir. Rejects Bid to Restart Wage Suit
UNION BANK: Proposed Suit Should Be Dismissed, Says Magistrate
UNITED STATES: Faces Evideo Suit in Federal Claims Court
UNITY NATIONAL: Account Holders' Suit v. Kase Lawal Terminated
VANTAGE TRAVEL: "Hebert" Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts

VISA INC: 9th Circ. Clamps Down on Those Who Dodge Jurisdiction
VOESTALPINE USA: Faces "Chapman" Suit in S.D. Texas
WAL-MART STORES: Settles First LGBT Class Action
WALTER INVESTMENT: "Elkin" Securities Suit Sent to E.D. Penn.
WILLIAMS & STROHM: "Boyd" Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection

YAHOO INC: Ad-free Email Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss

* Class Action Risks of Comparative Price Advertising
* How 401(k) Advisers Can Bullet-Proof Against Litigation Risk
* Lawsuits Aim to Address Big Law Gender Equality Problem
* Pharmaceutical Cos. Sued Over Opioid Drug Deceptive Advertising


314E CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
Grant Jones, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. 314E Corporation and Does 1
through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 17cv02203 (Cal. Super. Ct., May
19, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation and failure to provide meal and rest periods
in violation of the California Labor Code.

314E Corporation provides healthcare information services that
offers application integration, information management,
application development, access, and security services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
      Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
      Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
      2255 Ceille Clara
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858)551-1223
      Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
      E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com

ADVANCED CALL: Faces "Dipisa" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Call Center
Technologies, LLC. The case is captioned as Peter Dipisa, Jr., On
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03029 (E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2017).

Advanced Call Center provides contact center and back office
support services to companies in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

AEG MANAGEMENT: Campbell Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
CHENILLE CAMPBELL, individually, and on behalf of other me
the Plaintiff, v. AEG MANAGEMENT OAKLAND, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; AEG WORLDWIDE, a business entity of unknown
form; ANSCHUTZ ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC, a Colorado corporation;
and DOES 1 Through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
RG17359830 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 10, 2017), seeks restitution of
unpaid wages and prejudgment interest under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendants
failed to provide Plaintiff and class members all overtime wages,
minimum wages, all meal and rest periods, accurate and complete
wage statements, and accurate payroll records.

AEG is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Anschutz Company.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Chenille Campbell:

          Amab Banerjee, Esq.
          Brandon Brouillette, Esq.
          Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
          Capstone Law APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067,
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310)943-0396
          E-mail: Amab.Banerjee@capstonelawyers.com

AKARI THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
Sherli Shamoon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Akari Therapeutics PLC, Gurarye Yehuda Roshwalb, and
Dov Elefant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03783 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2017),
alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) officers of
the Company, including Akari's Chief Executive Officer, were
involved in publishing false information about the Company,
including false information about the Phase 2 PNH trial of the
Company's Coversin product; (ii) the Company lacked adequate
checks and protections to prevent such behavior; and (iii) as a
result of the foregoing, Akari's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

Akari Therapeutics, Plc is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company focused on developing inhibitors of acute and chronic
inflammation, specifically the complement system, the eicosanoid
system, and the bioamine system for the treatment of rare and
orphan diseases. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
      Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
      1200 Ashwood Parkway Suite 410
      Atlanta, GA 30338
      Telephone: (770) 392-0090
      Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
      E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com

ALABAMA: Waits for Ruling in Inmate Mental Health Suit
E News Courier reports that Alabama is waiting for a federal
judge's ruling in a class-action lawsuit over inmate mental health
care, a decision that could determine if there's a special session
on prison issues, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey said on May 19.

Ivey told reporters that she will not rule out a special session
at some point on state prisons, but said she first want to see
what U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson orders the state to do.

"Calling a special session may very well be an option because
we've got to meet the needs of the state and we've got to meet the
needs of what the judge outlines," Ivey said. "We'll wait and see
what the judge rules."

State prisons have come under criticism for crowding, violence and
the level of health care provided to inmates. Thompson is expected
to rule in a lawsuit filed by inmates claiming that Alabama has
failed to identify, protect and treat mentally ill prisoners,
leading to suicides and complications from untreated conditions
that spiral out of control. The Department of Corrections has
disputed the claims.

Alabama lawmakers did not approve a prison construction plan in
the legislative session that ended on May 19.

The proposal would have built four new mega-prisons but was bogged
down as lawmakers raised concerns arose about the price tag of
construction, who would get the contracts and the loss of jobs
when existing prisons close.

Ivey said she was disappointed that the bill did not win approval.

"I was just optimistic that we could get a prison bill passed to
demonstrate to the court that this state is dead serious -- pardon
the pun -- but dead serious about making a difference to improve
our prison structure," Ivey said.

House Speaker Mac McCutcheon said he believed the need for a
special session "will be determined on the judge's ruling."

"I'm sure there will be a timeline in there for us. It just
depends on that," McCutcheon said. [GN]

ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Bailey" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
Amy Bailey, f/k/a Adams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allied Interstate, LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company and LVNV Funding, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01115-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind., April 7, 2017) seeks to recover damages,
costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Defendants used a letter to collect debt from the Plaintiff.
Defendants' letter, however, failed to state that Allied could not
also sue on the debt and that Allied could not also make a credit
report about the debt; moreover, by stating that LVNV "will not"
sue or credit report, rather than it "cannot" sue or credit
report, the letter implied that LVNV still had the option to take
those actions, and that it was simply choosing not to do so, notes
the Plaintiff.

Defendants attempted to provide a disclaimer that the debt was
time-barred, that disclaimer was ineffective because: a) they
failed to foreclose the possibility that Allied could not sue on
the debt; b) they did not foreclose the possibility that Allied
could not credit report the Debt and c) they failed to foreclose
that LVNV could not legally sue or credit report the debt, not
that LVNV has simply chosen not to do so. Moreover, by claiming
that the debt was still an "obligation" that needed to be
"resolved" via a "settlement", Defendant used unfair or
unconscionable means to collect the debt, the complaint asserts.

Defendants Allied Interstate and LVNV Funding, LLC is a debt

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David J. Philipps, Esq.
   Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
   Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
   Philipps & Philipps, Ltd.
   9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
   Palos Hills, IL 60465
   Tel: (708) 974-2900
   Fax: (708) 974-2907
   Email: davephilipps@aol.com

        - and -

   John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
   5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
   Indianapolis, IN 46227
   Tel: (317) 780-8300
   Fax: (317) 217-1320
   Email: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Schwartz" Suit in E.D. New York
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP.  The case is captioned as Joel Schwartz, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v.
Alltran Financial, LP, formerly known as: United Recovery Systems,
L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03090 (E.D.N.Y., May 22,

Alltran Financial specializes in revenue cycle, accounts
receivable, and contact center solutions within healthcare,
financial services, higher education, and government industries in
the Unites States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

AMERICAN HONDA: "Shamah" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
The class action lawsuit titled NICOLE SHAMAH, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN
SERVICES, the Defendant, Case No. MON-L1289-17, was removed on May
22, 2017, from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Trenton). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-
03653-PGS-TJB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Peter G. Sheridan.

American Honda Finance Corporation provides various forms of
financing to purchasers and lessees, and authorized independent
dealers of Honda and Acura products in the United States and
Canada. It acquires retail installment contracts from dealers; and
closed-end vehicle lease contracts between authorized dealers and
their customers, as well as offers wholesale flooring and
commercial loans to authorized dealers of Honda and Acura
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          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:

          Gerard Cedrone, Esq.
          1300 Route 73, Suite 307
          Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 778 5544
          E-mail: gcedrone@lavin-law.com

AMERICAN SECURITY: "Hopkins" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
RODERICK HOPKINS, and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN SECURITY GROUP A-l, INC., a Florida Profit
Corporation, d/b/a A-l LOCK AND KEY, a/k/a A-l LOCK & KEY
MGN CONQUEST CORPORATION, a Florida Profit Corporation, MICHAEL G.
NETTLES, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 56306628 (Fla.
Cir. Ct., May 11, 2017), seeks to recover damages exceeding
$15,000 excluding attorneys' fees or costs for breach of agreement
and unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and
for wrongful, retaliatory discharge of an employee in violation of
Section 440.205 of the Florida Statutes, and for unlawful,
retaliatory discharge pursuant to Florida's private sector
Whistleblower's Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff performed work for
Defendants as a non-exempt locksmith working for Defendants' AAA
Roadside Assistance franchise(s). The Defendants jointly employed
Plaintiff from on June 23, 2016 through February 24, 2017,
approximately 36 weeks. The Plaintiff was not paid at the proper
overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.
Additionally, throughout Plaintiffs employment, he worked numerous
hours for which he received no compensation whatsoever, in
violation of the laws of the United States and the State of
Florida. Throughout Plaintiffs employment, Plaintiff worked an
average of 72 hours per week.

The Defendants misclassified Plaintiff as an "independent
contractor," despite not being able to work for anyone else, or to
set his own schedule. Plaintiff drove a company vehicle, a
Toyota Prius and did not have independent discretion regarding his
job assignments. The Plaintiff was paid "by the job," meaning
Defendants would pay Plaintiff either four dollars, six dollars,
or twenty dollars, depending on the difficulty of the locksmith
assignment and the location of the vehicle to be unlocked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: pmh@rgpattomeys.com

AMERICAS STYRENICS: Faces "Velardez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
Fernando Velardez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Americas Styrenics, LLC and Does 1 through 100,
Inclusive, Case No. BC662098 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 19, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation at the overtime rate for work in excess of 8 hours a
day and 40 hours per week.

Americas Styrenics, LLC owns and operates a chemicals company Los
Angeles, state of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ebby S. Bakhtiar, Esq.
      3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1669
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 632-1550
      Facsimile: (213) 632-3100

ARCONIC INC: Shareholders Sue Directors for Duty Breach
Arthur Ehrlich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Arconic Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Klaus
Kleinfeld, Amy E. Alving, Patricia F. Russo, Arthur D. Collins,
Jr., Rajiv L. Gupta, David P. Hess, E. Stanley O'Neal, L. Rafael
Reif, Julie G. Richardson and Ratan N. Tata, Defendants, Case No.
170402581, filed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas
Trial Division on April 18, 2017, seeks to recover damages for
breach of fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiff, shareholder Arthur Ehrlich, on behalf of himself
and other similarly situated shareholders, filed the complaint
against the Company and certain officers and directors, alleging
breach of fiduciary duty related to Arconic's April 12, 2017
filing of a Form 8-K in which the company disclosed that it had
given notice of a "potential change in control" under the terms of
a rabbi trust agreement. Plaintiffs allege that this statement
constitutes an improper attempt to coerce shareholders into voting
for incumbent directors.

Arconic Inc., formerly Alcoa Inc., is engaged in lightweight
metals engineering and manufacturing.

Wells Fargo is a provider of banking, mortgage, investing, credit
card, insurance, and consumer and commercial financial

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Cohen, Esq.
   Stephan Zouras LLP
   604 Spruce Street
   Philadelphia, PA 19106
   Tel: 215-873-4836
   Fax: 312-233-1560
   Email: dcohen@stephanzouras.com

        - and -

   Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
   Adam E. Polk, Esq.
   Girard Gibbs LLP
   601 California Street, Suite 1400
   San Francisco, CA 94108
   Tel: 415 981-4800
   Fax: 415 981-4846
   Email: dcg@girardgibbs.com

        - and -

   Peter Safirstein, Esq.
   Safirstein Metcalf LLP
   1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
   New York, NY 10001
   Tel: 212 201-2845
   Email: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com

ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Juliani" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services Inc.  The case is styled as Lindita Juliani and Nino
Juliani, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
consumers, the Plaintiff, v. ARS National Services Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03050 (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2017).

ARS offers accounts receivable management services. It caters to
financial services organizations; banks; and credit card

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

ATTICARE CORP: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Katz" Suit Claims
David Katz, Ricardo Melandez, and Moshe Fogfx, on behalf of
themselves and all persons similarly situated v. Atticare Corp.
and Does 1 through 10, Case No. RG17861043 (Cal. Super. Ct., May
19, 2017), is brought on behalf of these workers who worked for
Atticare in California and were classified as independent
contractors, in order to collect the wages due them as employees
of Atticare, the cost of the employer's share of payments to the
federal and state governments for income taxes, social security
taxes, medicare insurance, unemployment insurance and payments for
workers' compensation insurance, plus penalties and interest.

Atticare Corp. provides services to local Residential and
Commercial buildings to identify, clean, and prevent rodent
infestations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arthur W. Lazear, Esq.
      Morgan M. Mack, Esq.
      436-14th Street Suite 1117
      OAKLAND, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 735-6316
      Facsimile: (510) 545-4226

AT HOME: Faces "Sadullaev" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
Islom Sadullaev, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. At Home Solutions, LLC, Case No. 154673/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 19, 2017), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to provide employees the proper hourly compensation
for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread of hours"

At Home Solutions, LLC is primarily engaged in providing nursing
and home health aide services at the residences of its clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

AUROBINDO PHARMA: MSPA Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida entity; MAO-MSO RECOVERY, LLC, a
Delaware entity; MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, a Delaware entity,
Defendants, Case No. Case 3:17-cv-00144-VLB (D. Conn., Jan. 31,
2017), seeks reimbursement for the money lost by third-party
payers for paying artificially inflated prices for Doxycycline
Hyclate Delayed Release ("Doxy DR") and Glyburide drugs.

According to the complaint, the claims in this case arise from
conspiracies between the Defendant pharmaceutical drug
manufacturers to fraudulently inflate prices and reduce
competition in the United States for Doxy DR and Glyburide causing
third-party payers, like Plaintiff, to pay more money for generic
drugs than they otherwise would have paid.

The Plaintiff and class members suffered damages as a result of
the Defendants' racketeering and anti-competitive conduct. The
Plaintiff was assigned the recovery rights from third party payers
who purchased or provided reimbursement for the various generic
pharmaceutical drugs that are the subject of this lawsuit at
supracompetitive prices as a result of Defendants' illegal

The case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:17-cv-02159) before
the Hon. Cynthia M Rufe.

Aurobindo Pharma manufactures generic pharmaceutical drugs. The
company was incorporated in 2004 and is based in Dayton, New
Jersey. Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Aurobindo Pharma Limited.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
          URY & MOSKOW, L.L.C.
          883 Black Rock Turnpike
          Fairfield, CT 06825
          Telephone: (203) 610 6393
          Facsimile: (203) 610 6399
          E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

               - and -

          Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
          Nicholas R. Rockforte, Esq.
          Courtney L. Stidham, Esq.
          1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 355 0086
          E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Baum, Esq.
          R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
          GOLDMAN, P.C.
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207 3233
          Facsimile: (310) 820 7444

BAODING CFC: "Wen" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA
Wen Long Liu, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Baoding CFC Inc. d/b/a
"Baoding CFC", Bin Chen, "Jane" (First Name Unknown) Chen, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02864-RJD-SMG (E.D.N.Y., May 10,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
wages, reimbursement for expenses relating to tools of trade,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knew that the
nonpayment of minimum wage, overtime pay, spread of hours pay,
reimbursement for expenses relating to tools of the trade, and
failure to provide the required wage notice at the time of hiring
would financially injure Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees and violate state and federal laws.  From March 8, 2016
to April 22, 2017, the Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work
as a deliveryman for Defendants' restaurant. Defendants did not
provide Plaintiff with the required minimum wage according to
state and federal laws. Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff
overtime compensation according to state and federal laws. The
Plaintiff was not compensated for New York State's "spread of
hours" premium for shifts that lasted longer than 10 hours, one
day each week.

Baoding is a Chinese restaurant located at Flushing, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: 718 353 8588
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com

BKAL INC: "Read" Suit Sues Over Workplace Sexual Harassment
BETTY READ, the Plaintiff, v. BKAL, INC. d/b/a OCEANA'S
Defendant, Case No. L-1926-17 (N.J. Super. Ct., May 11, 2017),
seeks judgment against the defendants jointly, severally and in
the alternative, together with economic compensatory damages, non-
economic compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, cost of
suit, attorneys' fees, enhanced attorneys' fees, equitable back
pay, equitable front pay, equitable reinstatement, and any other
relief the Court deems equitable and just.

The case is brought under the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination (LAD) alleging sexual harassment in the workplace.
This matter also alleges age harassment and age discrimination by
way of termination. The Plaintiff alleges that all sexual
harassment was continuous, ongoing and part of a pattern and
practice such that all sexual harassment is actionable under the
continuing violation doctrine. From the time her employment
commenced, through the conclusion of her employment, plaintiff was
subjected to sexual harassment at the hands of both owner Tom
Kalavrouziotis and co-workers, including a cook named Leo (last
name unknown)

The Plaintiff requests that the Court order the defendants to
cease and desist all conduct inconsistent with the claims, both as
to the specific plaintiff and as to all other individuals
similarly situated.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727 9700

BUMBLE BEE: To Pay $25-Mil. Fine in Installments
Bianca Bruno writing for Courthouse News reports that an attorney
for packaged-seafood giant Bumble Bee told a judge on May 18 there
are no plans to sell the company, which was criminally fined $25
million this month for price fixing.

Bumble Bee pleaded guilty on May 8 to fixing prices on canned
tuna. It agreed to pay $25 million in criminal fines to the
federal government, which its attorney Ted Hassi, Esq. --
ehassi@omm.com -- of O'Melveny revealed on May 18 will be paid in
installments, as it cannot afford to pay the lump sum.

If the company is sold, the buyer will have to pay another $56.5
million, under the terms of the settlement. Hassi said the
additional, conditional fine was tacked on because "the Department
of Justice wanted a larger fine but Bumble Bee has the inability
to pay a larger fine."

"The Department of Justice does not want to run a good American
company out of business," Hassi told U.S. District Judge Janis
Sammartino. "There is no sale of Bumble Bee; there is no packing
up and leaving the country."

The May 18 hearing, however, was on a civil matter: a status
hearing on a class action brought by grocers and suppliers in
2015. They claim the tuna price-fixing conspiracy among Bumble
Bee, Tri-Union Seafoods aka Chicken of the Sea, Starkist and
others goes as far back as 2004.

The class action, which has survived a motion to dismiss from the
tuna companies, involves dozens of major food supplier and grocer
plaintiffs, including Wal-Mart, Publix, Kroger, Albertsons, Winn-
Dixie and others.

The Department of Justice intervened last year and has filed
750,000 documents -- 2.3 million pages -- related to its parallel
criminal investigation this April, attorneys said at the May 18

At the heart of the case are 14 amended complaints, whose more
than 1,000 pages include dozens of antitrust claims against the
international seafood companies.

While the May 18  hearing was expected to be a run-of-the mill
conference to set filing dates and other deadlines, a bit of
courtroom drama ensued when Hassi said Bumble Bee and Chicken of
the Sea executives have been contacted by a private investigator
trying to gather information on the case.

Hassi suggested the private investigator may have been hired by
the plaintiffs.

"We don't think this kind of thing should be happening," Hassi
said, suggesting it would be a breach legal ethics.

He handed Sammartino a proposed stipulation he asked the class
attorneys to sign, which would preclude them and staffs --
including private investigators -- from contacting current
employees, who are represented by counsel. He also asked that
plaintiffs' counsel consult with defense attorneys before
contacting former employees, though former employees can talk

One of the class attorneys, William Blechman of Kenny Nachwalter,
called the stipulation "overbroad and not needed."

"There's a negative inference from this stipulation that someone
has done something wrong," Blechman said. "We don't want to see it
happening any more than defense counsel does. . . . It is taking a
sledge hammer to solve a problem which requires a scalpel to

Multiple attorneys for the plaintiffs denied hiring an

After some back and forth between both sides -- including a
suggestion the investigator might have been hired by a news agency
-- Sammartino ordered Hassi to depose the investigator to find out
who he was working for.

The judge also struck down a suggestion from another attorney,
that court hearings be closed to the public and media, saying
there are other ways to seal classified information.

Sammartino pushed back some deadlines, for the attorneys and for
her own staff, to ensure they have time to review filings before a
motion to dismiss hearing is held this fall.

She said she needed at least a month to go through their court

"This is not the equivalent of a case I can work up in a week,"
the judge said.

"Everyone told me, 'Oh, it's not a big deal,' of all the different
states and statutes involved in this case. You have to have a
little bit of faith, counsel, that I will do what's most
reasonable and fair to both sides."

Another status hearing is set for July 26. [GN]

BUTLER, PA: Faces Suit Over Lead in School Drinking Water
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that at
one time a staple of the manufacturing industry, lead has evolved
from a common product found in everything from paint to children's
toys, to a known toxin, and the source of lead paint poisoning and
other injuries to the nervous system and beyond. Thus, there's
little surprise that concerned parents would turn to the courts
when lead was found in the drinking water of an elementary school
in Pennsylvania, but were not informed for months, or so it is

Defendants in the lead poisoning class action are the Butler Area
School District and former superintendent Dale Lumley. The lawsuit
was filed in US federal court in early February.

According to court documents, plaintiff Jennifer Tait asserts the
school district received test results that reflected levels of
lead and copper in the water supply of Summit Elementary School
located in Butler, Pennsylvania -- about 50 miles north of
Pittsburgh. Levels of lead in the school's water supply were
alleged to have been 200, to 300 percent higher than allowable
limits. Additionally, levels of copper in the drinking water were
found to be approaching levels that are also considered hazardous,
or so the class action lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit notes that elevated levels of copper and lead in
drinking water can lead to lasting injuries and damage to the
brain and kidneys.

Tait asserts in her lead poisoning lawsuit that Lumley and the
maintenance director of the school district received the results
of water testing at the school, but decided against revealing the
results to students or their parents in a timely fashion. The
lawsuit, asserting risks to neurologic brain memory and the
nervous system, claims the defendants knew the health risks, but
withheld the information.

Tests were conducted in August of last year and the results were
received by the defendants in September. The class action suit
asserts that Lumley and his maintenance director -- both of whom
have since resigned -- contacted the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PDEP) with the test results to review
their obligations to students and parents. The PDEP, according to
court records, duly informed the school district officials that
parents should be advised and the water should not be consumed.
However, that communication never took place until months later,
in January of this year, or so it is alleged.

"Representative plaintiff has been caused extreme mental and
emotional anguish and distress, causing severe depression,
nightmares, stress, and/or anxiety, some or all of which have or
may require psychological treatment," the complaint said.

The lead poisoning class action is Tait et al v. Butler Area
School District et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00182 in the US District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. [GN]

CARPCO EFFICIENT: "Harmon" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00429-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., May
14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime, liquidated
damages, all available equitable relief, attorney fees, and
litigation expenses/costs, including expert witness fees and
expenses, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the FLSA entitlement of the
right to receive pay for all time worked for Defendant. The
Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff and others similarly
situated for continuous workday activities which are integral and
indispensable to their principal activities.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has repeatedly and
willfully violated, and continues to willfully violate, Sections
6 and 7 of the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees, or former employees, for the hours
worked by such employees, by failing to pay Plaintiff for hours in
excess of 0 hours per week at a rate not less than one and one-
half times the regular hourly rate of pay at which such employees
are compensated (overtime).

Carpco is in the oil and gas field services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bob Whitehurst, Esq.
          5380 Old Bullard Road
          Suite 600, No. 363
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone: (903)593-5588

CHIPOTLE: Faces Class Action Over Potential Data Breach
Blair Miller at The Denver Channel reports that Chipotle faces a
class-action lawsuit for the potential data breach the company
first reported, alleging the company's willful negligence and
"elementary" security measures led to the breach and is now
costing banks and customers money.

The Denver-based company first reported the possible breach late
last month, saying that credit and debit cards used between March
24 and April 18 of this year may have been compromised by
"unauthorized activity" on company servers.

"Consistent with good practices, consumer should closely monitor
their payment card statements. If anyone sees an unauthorized
charge, they should immediately notify the bank that issued the
card," the company said in its statement. "Payment card network
rules generally state that cardholders are not responsible for
such charges."

And that statement is exactly what the lawsuit filed May 4 in the
U.S. District Court of Colorado claims is the basis for the suit.

The suit's class has yet to be certified, but it was filed by New
Hampshire-based Bellwether Community Credit Union on the behalf of
all "credit unions, banks, and other financial institutions" they
may have had to reissue customers' cards that were compromised in
the breach, close compromised accounts, or remedy any false

The suit claims that there are more than 100 members of the
proposed class, and that alleged damages exceed $5 million.

Though it's still unclear how many customers may have been
affected in the alleged breach, the suit claims that the company
knew it was putting itself at risk for further security breaches
after a 2004 breach and a handful of recent ones involving other
food-service companies.

"The deficiencies in Chipotle's security system include a lack of
elementary security measures, which even the most inexperienced IT
professional could identify as problematic," the suit says.

It claims that the company, which had around 2,250 U.S. locations
as of March 31, failed to upgrade its security after a breach the
company says cost it about $4.3 million between 2004 and 2006.

The suit also cites Chipotle's February 2017 annual report to the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in which the
company itself said:

"We may in the future become subject to additional claims for
purportedly fraudulent transactions arising out of the actual or
alleged theft of credit or debit card information, and we may also
be subject to lawsuits or other proceedings in the future relating
to these types of incidents . . . Consumer perception of our brand
could also be negatively affected by these events, which could
further adversely affect our results and prospects.

"The liabilities resulting from any of the foregoing would likely
be far greater than the losses we recorded in connection with the
data breach incident in 2004."

The suit claims that one of the biggest problems that led to the
hacking was Chipotle's failure to adhere to credit card companies'
regulations that required companies to start using chip technology
by October 2015.

The chips mask information contained within transactions about
credit card information, unlike the former magnetic strip cards.

But the suit claims that Chipotle stated specifically that it
would not switch over to the chip-only system because it would
"slow down customer lines."

By doing so, the company opened itself up to face damages from
litigation, as per the regulations set forth by the card companies
that said that any business not adhering to the October 2015
deadline would "agree to be liable for damages resulting from any
data breaches," according to the lawsuit.

The suit says that Chipotle has said that 70 percent of its sales
involved a debit or credit card transaction, and estimates that
"hundreds of thousands" of Chipotle customers could have had their
private credit and debit card numbers, and information relating to
them, compromised.

Since the burden is on banks to close accounts and reissue new
cards, the suit claims that any bank having to do so because of
the Chipotle breach is damaged by the breach and subject to

The class, should it be certified, requests damages and injunctive
and declaratory relief on the basis that Chipotle was negligent in
its failure to upgrade its security systems for transactions and
data storage.

It asks a judge to issue an injunction forcing Chipotle to adhere
to industry-standard encryption methods, switch to chip-card
readers, and undergo a large audit and subsequent upgrade of its
security systems.

A request for comment made to Chipotle had not been returned as of
the time of publishing.

A scheduling conference for the case has been set for July 18 in
Denver. [GN]

CHOPARD USA: Faces "Portillo" Class Suit in C.D. Cal.
Mynor F. Portillo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chopard USA Ltd., a New York
Corporation and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-02939 (C.D. Cal., April 18, 2017) seeks to recover damages,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants
from engaging in its illegal practice of violating the California
Penal Code.

During a telephone call with Chopard, Plaintiff was not aware that
the call was being recorded. Defendant did not, at any point
during the telephone conversation with Defendant's customer
service representative, advice Plaintiff that the call was being
recorded. Plaintiff did not give either express or implied consent
to the recording.

Plaintiff expected that his telephone call would be private due to
Defendant's failure to disclose any recording or monitoring.

Chopard is a Swiss luxury company focused on watches, jewelers and

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
   David W. Reid, Esq.
   Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
   Pacific Trial Attorneys, APC
   4100 Newport Place Dr., Ste. 800
   Newport Beach, CA 92660
   Tel: (949) 706-6464
   Fax: (949) 706-6469
   Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com

CJS SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Sanders" Suit Says
Patricia Sanders and Anthony Wilson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The CJS Solutions Group, LLC
d/b/a The HCI Group, Case No. 1:17-cv-03809 (S.D.N.Y., May 19,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The CJS Solutions Group, LLC is a corporation providing
information technology educational services for the healthcare
industry across the country. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harold Lichten, Esq.
      Jill Kahn, Esq.
      Olena Savytska, Esq.
      729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
      E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com

         - and -

      David M. Blanchard, Esq.
      221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
      Ann Arbor, MI 48104
      Telephone: (734) 929-4313
      E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com

         - and -

      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
      Camille Fundora, Esq.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net

CLIENT SERVICES: Saroza Sues Over Debt Collection Violation
NESTOR SAROZA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-03429-MCA-SCM (D.N.J., May 12, 2017), seeks to
recover actual and statutory damages, against Defendant for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which
prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and
unfair practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendant collects and attempts to
collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for
personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors
using the United States Postal Services, telephone or Internet.

The Defendant is a "debt collector".  Sometime prior to May 12,
2016, Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation to
Citibank, N.A. for a Sears Charge Plus Account (Citibank).
Citibank is a "creditor". Also prior to May 12, 2016, Citibank,
either directly or through intermediate transactions, assigned,
placed or transferred the Citibank obligation to Defendant for
purposes of collection.  At the time, the Citibank obligation was
assigned, placed, or transferred to Defendant such obligation was
in default.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          HERSH LEGAL
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507 6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com

CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Meisels" Suit in E.D. New York
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services,
Inc. The case is titled as Simon Meisels, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Client
Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03091 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 22, 2017).

Client Services is a full service accounts receivable management
firm offering a diverse selection of collection and recovery

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

CONN'S INC: Investigation on Officers and Directors Initiated
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq. -
- charles.foti@ksfcounsel.com -- a partner at the law firm of Kahn
Swick & Foti, LLC, announces that KSF has commenced an
investigation into Conn's, Inc..

Throughout 2012 to 2013, Conn's began implementing a plan to
inflate sales by loosening its credit underwriting and lending
standards, thus exposing the Company to a considerable amount of
high-risk consumer debt despite making contrary statements to
investors that it was strengthening its credit and collection
practices. The Company gradually revealed throughout the latter
part of 2013 to 2014 that earnings were lower than anticipated,
while making assurances that the problems were resolved. On
December 9, 2014, the truth was revealed as the Company announced
significant increases in bad debt and consumer delinquency rates,
that it was withdrawing its earnings guidance for 2015 and that it
was not providing earnings guidance for 2016 at that time.

Thereafter, Conn's and certain of its executives were sued in a
securities class action lawsuit, charging them with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws. On May 5, 2016, the Court denied a motion
to dismiss the case and it continues to move forward to the

KSF's investigation is focusing on whether the Company's officers
and/or directors breached their fiduciary duties to Conn's
shareholders or otherwise violated state or federal laws.

If you have information that would assist KSF in its
investigation, or have been a long-time holder of Conn's shares,
and would like to discuss your legal rights, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or
email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com).

                         About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include the Former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices
in New York, California and Louisiana.[GN]

     Lewis Kahn
     Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
     Tel: 1-877-515-1850
     E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com

COOK COUNTY, IL: Ex-Jail Guard Sues Merit Board Over Firings
Steve Schmadeke, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a
former Cook County Jail guard has filed a lawsuit seeking to claw
back his firing and dozens of others by Sheriff Tom Dart's merit
board after a higher court ruling cast doubt on nearly four years
of the board's disciplinary decisions.

An Illinois appellate court panel ruled that Dart and the Cook
County Board did not have the power to appoint former merit board
member John Rosales to anything less than a six-year term. Rosales
was appointed in 2011 to a one-year term and never reappointed,
yet remained on the tribunal and joined in its decisions until
2015, according to court records.

The higher court's decision came in the case of former deputy
Percy Taylor, who sued after the board fired him in 2012. Judge
Neil Cohen threw out the board's decision and found that Taylor
was owed back pay. An appellate court panel upheld Cohen's
reversal and ordered the case be heard again before a "legally
constituted" board.

Now onetime jail guard Joseph Acevedo has filed a lawsuit asking a
judge to reinstate dozens of fired officers and award them back
pay because the merit board's firing decisions from June 2011 to
April 2015 are allegedly legally void.

"The purpose of this lawsuit is to remedy the fact that the
sheriff illegally left Rosales on the board," said Acevedo's
attorney, Dana Kurtz, Esq. -- dkurtz@kurtzlaw.us -- at Kurtz Law
Offices. "He's the chief law enforcement officer in the county of
Cook. . . . He's required to abide by the statute but didn't."

The lawsuit could involve nearly 100 sheriff's employees and
include damages of some $15 million, she said. Acevedo has been
unable to find work since he was fired, Kurtz said.

Dart's office plans to appeal last week's appellate court ruling,
said the sheriff's policy chief, Cara Smith. The case has already
been before the Illinois Supreme Court, which declined to hear
Dart's earlier appeal but asked the lower court to clarify its
decision, resulting in the ruling.

Lawsuit against Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, merit board over
firing Smith said the merit board's decisions should remain.

"The disciplinary process we have in place was sound and we
believe the discipline and terminations should stand," she said.

According to the lawsuit, which Acevedo's attorneys are asking a
judge to certify as a class action, Acevedo had been a
correctional officer for nearly 16 years when he was fired in 2015
for allegedly racking up too many unapproved absences between 2012
and 2013. If a judge allows the case to move forward as a class
action, all the officers' claims would be consolidated in a single
case; if not, each officer must file a separate lawsuit.

Dart, the merit board and Cook County government are listed as
defendants in the case. [GN]

CRACKER BARREL: "Blackshear" Suit Seeks Compensation Under CEPA
INC.; EDDIE IBARRONDO and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, Defendants, Case
No. MER-L-884-17(N.J. Super., Mercer County, April 26, 2017),
alleges that plaintiff was directly retaliated against as a result
of having engaged in protected conduct under the Conscientious
Employee Protection Act (CEPA) and so the Plaintiff is entitled to
claim compensatory, economic and punitive damage under CEPA.

Plaintiff requests that the Court order the defendants to cease
and desist all conduct inconsistent with the claims made herein
going forward, both as to the specific plaintiff and as to all
other individuals similarly situated.

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. is an American chain of
combined restaurant and gift stores with a Southern country theme.
Plaintiff is a preparation cook. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
     18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
     Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
     Phone: (856) 727-9700

CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Thompkins" Suit in E.D. New York
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control
Services, Inc. The case is entitled as Eulalie Thompkins, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Credit Control Services, Inc., d/b/a Credit
Collection Services, as assignee of Credit Collection Services,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03058 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2017).

Credit Control provides business process outsourcing solutions for
customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

CREDIT PROTECTION: Moran Sues Over Debt Collection Violation
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03471 (N.D. Ill., May 9, 2017),
seeks statutory damages and actual damages under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's debt collection letter
violates the clear language of the FDCPA by stating contradictory
periods within which the consumer may request validation a debt
and threatening unintended action during the validation period.
The collection letter is false, deceptive, and misleading,
threatens action not intended to be taken, and overshadows and is
inconsistent with the consumer's dispute. The Defendant is liable
for making false, deceptive, and misleading representations
regarding alleged debt. The Defendant is also liable for
threatening to take action not intended to be taken. The Defendant
is further liable for collection activities that overshadow and
are inconsistent with the consumer's 30-day validation period.

Credit Protection specializes in low-balance, high-volume
collections in the able and home video market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Hyslip, Esq.
          1100 W. Cermak Rd., Suite B410
          Chicago, IL 60608
          Telephone: (312) 380 6110
          Facsimile: (312) 361 3509
          E-mail: jeffrey@lifetimedebtsolutions.com

CUYAHOGA COUNTY: Faces "Anghelache" Suit Over Decreased Pensions
Angelica Anghelache, Charmaine L. Gageham and Thomas J.
Fitzmaurice, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Cuyahoga County and Cuyahoga County
Sheriff, Defendants, Case No. CV-17-878840 (Ohio Court of Common
Pleas, April 13, 2017) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to
rectify Plaintiff's failures, as well as monetary relief to
recompense employees for any residual or continuing effect on
their retirement pensions.

Plaintiffs and other class members were injured because of the
County's failure to remit contributions which decreased the value
of their Ohio Public Employees Retirement System(OPERS) accounts
and the amounts of the pensions to which they are entitled.

Cuyahoga County is a county located in the U.S. state of Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
   Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
   Nilges Draher, LLC
   7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
   Massillon, OH 44646
   Tel: 330-470-4428
   Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com

         - and -

   Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
   46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104
   Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
   Tel: 440-973-9000
   Email: tom@chagrinlaw.com

DAIMLER: German Prosecutors to Search Offices in Emissions Probe
The Associated Press reports that German automaker Daimler AG says
prosecutors will search several of its offices in Germany as part
of a preliminary investigation into suspected manipulation of
diesel emission controls.

Daimler said on May 23 it was cooperating with the probe conducted
in its home base of Stuttgart.  The company had already disclosed
the probe in its financial reports.  It said the investigation
focused on "known and unknown employees" of the company.

The company declined further comment.

Daimler said in its first-quarter earnings report that authorities
in the U.S. and Europe had asked it for information about test
results and the control systems used on its Mercedes-Benz cars.
It said the U.S.  Justice Department had asked the company to
conduct an internal investigation.

Diesel emissions have come under closer scrutiny after Volkswagen
AG admitted in September 2015 that it had equipped cars with
software that detected when the vehicles were on test stands and
turned up the emissions control, then turned controls off in
everyday driving.  Volkswagen has agreed to pay more than $16
billion in civil settlements and a $4.3 billion criminal penalty
in the United States.

Fiat Chrysler has updated emission control software in 2017 models
after U.S. environmental authorities said its vehicles emitted
more pollution on the road than showed up in emissions tests.

DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces "Portela" Suit in D. New Jersey
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified
Consultants, Inc.  The case is captioned as DIEGO F. PORTELA, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03431-JMV-MF (D.N.J., May 12,
2017).  The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John Michael

Diversified Consultants is a business specializing in accounts
receivable management functions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227 5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244 0019
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

DRG BILLING: Faces "Reinbold" Suit Over Wage and Hour Violation
JARED REINBOLD, LAUREN POIRIER, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DANIEL R.
No. 1781CV1446B (Mass. Super. Ct., May 11, 2017), seeks relief
against the Defendants for violation of state wage and hour laws.

The Plaintiff further seeks relief further for the
misappropriation of withholding taxes taken from the Plaintiffs
pay and not paid over to the United States Treasury or the State
Department of Revenue, failure to pay FICA and Medicare taxes on
behalf of the Plaintiffs, and failure to pay profit sharing as
promised, and intentional misclassification of employee as
independent contractors in violation of G.L. c. 149 section 148B,
fraud, deceit, and breach of fiduciary duty.

According to the complaint, the Defendants provide billing
services to home health care companies (HHC's) principally located
in the Commonwealth, which companies participate in
the Medicare and Medicaid programs funded by the State and Federal
governments. HHC's provide care to persons who qualify and who
require "medically necessary" services in accordance with the laws
and regulations of the Commonwealth. DRG charges its clients a
percentage of the amounts which its customers bill
to the Commonwealth or to the Federal Medicare program. Its task
is to oversee that the bills are properly submitted and paid in
accordance with written contracts with its customers.

In the winter of 2015, Defendant Gillentine was working for a
company known as Advanced Billing Technologies, LLC (ABT).  He
became that company's chief executive officer in November-December
of 2015. At that time Gillentine falsely complained to Plaintiffs
that he was "not being paid" by ABT. He began to discuss with
Plaintiffs the idea of his leaving ABT and forming his own
company, after lying to them about his compensation.  During the
winter and early spring of 2016, Gillentine told Plaintiff that he
had been communicating with ABT's customers and that he had lined
up enough customers to leave ABT and go with him in his own
company, which actions he had concealed from ABT.

In the time frame of April-May of 2016, Gillentine informed
Plaintiff that he was definitely leaving ABT and he solicited
Plaintiff and other employees of ABT to leave ABT and assume the
identical jobs at DGR. The Plaintiff had no knowledge of any
arrangements that Gillentine had with ABT, except his complaints
of not being paid -a claim that Plaintiff has since discovered was
untrue. Plaintiff is informed and therefore believes that in fact
ABT had given Gillentine a $50,000 bonus, and increased his salary
to $100,000 per year at his demand. Gillentine promised Plaintiff
that if he left his job at ABT he would receive in addition to his
wages, a bonus of 1% of the profits of DRG, which Gillentine
claimed would be considerable based upon his experience working
for ABT and obtaining knowledge of ABT's customers. Gillentine
also told numerous other employees of ABT that if they left ABT
and worked for DRG, they would likewise receive a 1% of the
profits bonus. This information was concealed from ABT, but used
by Gillentine to induce employees who had been trained at ABT to
join Gillentine.

In June-July of 2016 Gillentine left ABT and opened a business in
Waltham, MA in accordance with his plans and his prior
solicitation of ABT's customers. Numerous employees of ABT
including Plaintiffs and many of its customers left ABT and went
to DRG under Gillentine's direction. DRG began "billing" for those
Clients and money came to DRG from billings and from investors in
DRG which he at first paid his employees. Plaintiffs often worked
more than 40 hours per week for DRG, as did many other employees
of DRG. No one received any overtime.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          S. Lames Boumil, Esq.
          120 Fairmount Street
          Lowell, MA 01852
          Telephone: (978) 458 0507
          E-mail: SJBoumil@Boumil-Law.com

EMORY UNIVERSITY: Partial Victory in Bid to Junk Code 403b Fee
Nancy S. Gerrie, Esq., Mary K. Samsa, Esq., Joseph K. Urwitz,
Esq., of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, writing for The National Law
Review, reports that multiple large, class action lawsuits have
been filed against prominent higher education institutions
claiming fiduciary breaches under their Code Section 403(b) plans
as a result of insufficient oversight of plan investments, which
allegedly caused excessive fees to be paid by participants.

District courts in Georgia and North Carolina, respectively, ruled
on defendants' motions under Henderson v. Emory University and
Clark v. Duke University. Although the defendants in these cases
had some success in eliminating certain causes of action, other
causes of action involving the payment of excessive fees and use
of multiple record-keepers will continue through litigation.

In Depth

More than 10 large, class action lawsuits have been filed against
prominent higher education institutions (e.g., John Hopkins, Yale,
Cornell, Vanderbilt) claiming fiduciary breaches under their
Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 403(b) Tax Sheltered Annuity
Plans as a result of insufficient oversight of plan investments,
which allegedly caused excessive fees to be paid by participants.

District courts in Georgia and North Carolina, respectively, ruled
on defendants' motions to dismiss under Henderson v. Emory
University, N.D. Ga., No. 1:16-cv-02920-CAP (5/10/17) and Clark v.
Duke University, M.D.N.C., No. 1:16-cv-01044 (8/10/16). Each court
granted in part and denied in part portions of the respective
motions to dismiss. Although the defendants in these cases had
some success in eliminating certain causes of action, other causes
of action involving the payment of excessive fees and use of
multiple record-keepers will continue through litigation. Code
Section 403(b) plan sponsors can glean best practices from the
arguments in each of these cases as well as the upcoming cases
against Columbia University and New York University.

Summary of the Allegations

The allegations in the original underlying complaints generally
fall into eight categories, which plaintiffs argue led to
fiduciary breaches:

   1. Funds are too expensive. Alternative funds were available at
      lower cost and with similar risk/return characteristics.

   2. Failure to offer lower-cost share class. Fiduciaries failed
      to investigate the availability of lower-cost share classes
      of mutual funds (e.g., institutional) and continued to offer
      higher-cost share classes (e.g., retail).

   3. Failure to remove underperforming funds. Fiduciaries failed
      to adequately monitor investment options and remove those
      that exhibited poor performance against benchmarks. Further,
      they argue that the use of investment options that included
      revenue-sharing arrangements was not appropriate because
      plan fiduciaries did not compare overall plan fees against a
      reasonable participant-based recordkeeping fee.

   4. Too many fund options are offered. By providing too many
      investment options, the fiduciaries created duplicative
      offerings that charged higher fees and confused
      participants, preventing them from making educated choices.

   5. Failure to take advantage of "mega plan" economies of scale
      or to conduct periodic Requests for Proposals for evaluating
      service providers. The fiduciaries failed to conduct a
      Request for Proposal (RFP) to ascertain whether a better and
      less expensive provider was available. The fiduciaries
      further failed to capitalize on the size of the Code Section
      403(b) plan, by potentially combining plans, to secure the
      best pricing for administrative and investment services.

   6. Too many record-keepers were involved. By utilizing multiple
      record-keepers, the fiduciaries impeded the plan's ability
      to consolidate management of plan investments and negatively
      impacted the plan's ability to secure more favorable fee
      terms or to streamline administration or reduce costs.

   7. Failure to appropriately evaluate revenue sharing funds.
      Fiduciaries did not compare overall plan fees against a
      reasonable participant-based recordkeeping fee.

Annuity products offered were too expensive and restrictive.
Fiduciaries continued to offer annuity products whose fees were
excessive and which "locked in" participants.

Although the rulings did not necessarily provide significant
insight into the court's thinking on each of the above issues, the
ultimate decision of each court's ruling on certain of the above
issues is set forth below under the respective case name.

Henderson v. Emory University

In its 26-page decision, the court in the Northern District of
Georgia determined the following:

   -- Dismissal granted with respect to the issue that defendants
acted imprudently by offering too many investment options. The
court concluded that "[h]aving too many options does not hurt the
Plans' participants, but instead provides them opportunities to
choose the investments that they prefer."

   -- Partial dismissal granted with respect to plaintiffs' intent
to seek any damages that occurred more than six years prior to the
complaint being filed caused by imprudence. The court determined
that claims of imprudence further back than six years are time
barred but plaintiffs could proceed based on revised claim that
there is a continuing duty to monitor and remove imprudent

   -- Partial dismissal granted with respect to any plaintiff
allegation that investment in mutual funds offered by a service
provider who is a "party-in-interest" is a prohibited transaction.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
provides an exception from the prohibited transaction rule for
mutual funds.

All other allegations in the complaint are permitted to proceed.

Clark v. Duke University

In its five-page decision, the court in the Middle District of
North Carolina determined the following:

   -- Dismissal granted in full with respect to "locked in"
allegations pertaining to certain annuity products and their
imprudence. Defendants submitted a 2009 Form 5500 as proof that
certain investments with a "locked in" feature had been in place
for more than six years. The court determined that plaintiffs'
claim that "Duke's decision to commit[] the Plan to an imprudent
arrangement," to "allow[] the Plan to be locked into an
unreasonable arrangement," had to consider when the arrangement
was entered into. Since the arrangement was entered into prior to
2010, it was barred by the statute of limitations.

   -- Partial dismissal granted with respect to any plaintiff
allegation that investment in mutual funds offered by a service
provider who is a "party-in-interest" is a prohibited transaction.
ERISA provides an exception from the prohibited transaction rule
for mutual funds.

   -- Dismissal granted in full with respect to plaintiffs'
allegation of breach of duty to monitor. Plaintiffs' complaint was
devoid of facts of how the monitoring process was deficient.

All other allegations in the complaint are permitted to proceed.

FANNIE MAY CONFECTIONS: Chocolate Packaging Misleading, Suit Says
CLARISHA BENSON and LORENZO SMITH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FANNIE MAY
CONFECTIONS, an Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-03519 (N.D. Ill., May 10, 2017), seeks monetary damages as
a result Defendant's violation of Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic

The case is a consumer protection action arising out of deceptive
and otherwise improper business practices that Defendant engaged
in with respect to the packaging of its 7.0 oz. (7 ounces)
chocolate and confection products (the Products).  The Products
are sold in non-transparent boxes and marketed extensively
throughout Illinois.  They are available at numerous retail and
online outlets such as Fannie May retail stores, Walgreens, Jewel
and online through Amazon.

Defendant manufactures, markets and sells the Products with non-
functional slack-fill in violation of the Federal Food Drug &
Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The size of the boxes in comparison to the
volume of the Products contained therein makes it appear to
Plaintiffs and Class members that they are buying more than what
is actually being sold, thus deceiving them into making purchases
they would not make at the given prices had they known the

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
          The Khowaja Law Firm
          70 East Lake St., Suite 1220
          Chicago IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 356 3200
          Facsimile: (312) 386 5600
          E-mail: kasif@khowajalaw.com

               - and -

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          LLC Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201 0575
          Facsimile: (312) 332 0600
          E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com

FEDERAL EXPRESS: Cunningham Sues Over Pension & Retirement
CLIFTON CUNNINGHAM and DON TEED, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00845 (M.D. Tenn., May 12, 2017),
seeks compensation for the loss of benefits suffered by reason of
Defendants' failure to comply with the provisions of Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).

The case is an action brought pursuant to the USERRA, on behalf of
a class of current and former employees of Federal Express
Corporation d/b/a/ FedEx Express (FedEx) who did not receive the
full pension and retirement contributions mandated by USERRA for
the periods in which the FedEx employees took leave from FedEx to
honorably serve in the United States Armed Forces.

Since at least 2002, FedEx and its retirement plans, which include
the FedEx Corporation Employees' Pension Plan and FedEx
Corporation Retirement Savings Plan ("Pension Plan Defendants" or
"the Plans"), have been required by federal law to make pension
contributions to FedEx employees for periods in which they engaged
in qualified military service. Because thousands of service
members employed by FedEx regularly work hours and receive
compensation that are not fixed, their compensation has been "not
reasonably certain."

As a result, contributions for thousands of FedEx employees'
periods of qualified military service must be calculated using a
formula that measures each employee's own average rate of
compensation during the 12-month period immediately prior to the
period of qualified military service. This formula is commonly
called a "12-month look-back" rule.

Since 2002 FedEx and the Pension Plan Defendants have applied a
policy for making pension and retirement contributions for periods
of qualified military service that did not comply with USERRA,
because they did not apply the 12-month look-back formula that
USERRA requires. Contrary to the text of USERRA section 4318, and
the Sixth Circuit's interpretation of section 4318, FedEx has
applied a formula that is not a true 12-month look-back to
determine the pension and retirement contributions and credits of
employees whose compensation is not reasonably certain. FedEx's
formula multiplies the average rate of pay during the 12-month
period before a period of military service by the number of hours
the FedEx employee would have worked without taking into account
overtime or other factors that would increase the number of hours
the FedEx employee works ("FedEx's formula").

For FedEx employees like Plaintiffs Cunningham and Teed whose
compensation is not reasonably certain because they often work
more than 40 hours in a week and receive overtime compensation,
FedEx's compensation formula always -- or nearly always -- causes
the employees to receive lower amounts of USERRA pension and
retirement contributions and credits than the amounts that are
required under USERRA's 12-month look back rule for their periods
of qualified military service.

FedEx Corporation is an American multinational courier delivery
services company headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. Napiltonia, Esq.
          219 Third Avenue North
          Franklin, TN 37064
          Telephone: (615) 734 1199
          Facsimile: (615) 534 4141
          E-mail: joenapiltonia@gmail.com

               - and -

          Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq.
          601 Massachusetts Ave. NW
          Second Floor West
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 847 4400
          Facsimile: (646) 952 9114
          E-mail: prf@outtengolden.com

FEDERATED LAW: Faces "Webb" Suit in District of New Jersey
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FEDERATED LAW GROUP,
PLLC. The case is titled as ANDREA WEBB, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FEDERATED LAW
GROUP, PLLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03603-KM-JBC (D.N.J.,
May 19, 2017).  The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kevin

Federated Law is a law firm that pursues delinquent debt accounts
owned by companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507 6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com

FIAT CHRYSLER: U.S. Gov't Suit Alleges Emissions Test Cheating
Tom Krisher, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
U.S. government is suing Fiat Chrysler, alleging that some of its
diesel pickup trucks and Jeep SUVs cheat on emissions tests.

The lawsuit filed on May 23 by the Justice Department marks the
second time the government has gone after an automaker alleging
use of software on diesel engines that allows them to emit more
pollution on the road than during Environmental Protection Agency
lab testing.

Last year, the government accused Volkswagen of cheating on tests,
and the company ended up pleading guilty to criminal charges in a
scandal that cost VW more than $20 billion in the U.S. alone.

In the latest case, the government alleges that Fiat Chrysler, or
FCA, put eight "software-based features" on diesel engines in
nearly 104,000 Ram pickups and Jeep Grand Cherokees from the 2014
to 2016 model years.  The software allowed the vehicles to emit
fewer pollutants during lab tests by Environmental Protection
Agency than during normal driving conditions.

The 3-liter FCA diesels emit nitrogen oxide at a much higher rate
than allowed under federal laws when on the road, the EPA said in
a statement.  The company failed to disclose the software during
the process to become certified so the vehicles can be sold,
according to the EPA. The agency called the software a "defeat
device" that changes the way the vehicles perform on treadmill
tests in a laboratory.

"Each of these vehicles differs materially from the specifications
provided to EPA in the certification applications," the statement
said.  "Thus the cars are uncertified, in violation of the Clean
Air Act."

The Italian-American automaker said in a statement on May 23 that
it is disappointed that the lawsuit was filed because it has been
working with the EPA for months to clarify pollution control
issues.  FCA has contended that unlike VW, it did not install the
software with intent to cheat on tests.

"The company intends to defend itself vigorously, particularly
against any claims that the company engaged in any deliberate
scheme to install defeat devices to cheat U.S. emissions tests."

In the lawsuit filed in Detroit federal court, the government
seeks civil fines that could total over $4 billion, as well as
court orders stopping the company from making or selling vehicles
with undisclosed software.

The EPA issued a "notice of violation" against FCA, exposing the
software in January in the waning days of the Obama
administration. FCA had planned to appeal to the administration of
President Donald Trump for help after Trump promised fewer
government regulations.

At the time, FCA CEO Sergio Marchionne denied any wrongdoing and
said the agency was blowing the issue out of proportion.

The EPA and the California Air Resources Board still are
discussing with FCA ways to make the vehicles comply with federal
and California pollution laws.  FCA says it still hopes to resolve
the matter in negotiations.

"The nature and timing of any resolution of this issue are
uncertain," the EPA statement said.

The lawsuit is another example of stepped up enforcement of diesel
emissions cases worldwide after the VW scandal.  Earlier on May 23
German automaker Daimler AG said that prosecutors will search
several of its offices in Germany as part of a preliminary
investigation into suspected manipulation of diesel emission

FIELDTURF USA: Faces Lakeview Day Suit in District of New Jersey
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fieldturf USA, Inc.
The case is captioned as LAKEVIEW DAY CAMP, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FIELDTURF
USA, INC., a Florida corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-
03301-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., May 10, 2017). The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Peter G. Sheridan.

Fieldturf engages in manufacturing and installation of infield
artificial turf systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley Keith King, Esq.
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474 9111
          E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces Potential Suit Over Electricity Charges
Dan Shingler, writing for Crains Cleaveland Business, reports that
just what Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp. needed as it was arguing
before state legislators to save its nuclear plants, largely for
their benefit to the state's economy: a new, potential class-
action lawsuit led by an Ohio business claiming the power company
ripped them off during the polar vortex of 2014.

That's what it got, in the form of a May 8 lawsuit -- which
plaintiffs have asked to be classified as a class-action suit --
led by the Youngstown-based Schwebel Baking Co. against
FirstEnergy's unregulated power subsidiary, FirstEnergy Solutions.
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, in Youngstown.

And while Schwebel's name is on the suit, the complaint purports
to cover an untold -- and still undetermined -- number of other
businesses and puts the potential cost of the suit into the

According to the complaint, the suit's class "includes hundreds to
thousands of businesses" and "the amount in controversy exceeds

The plaintiff's attorneys either declined to comment publicly on
the story or did not respond to requests for comment, but it's
typical for class-action lawsuits to entail damages far beyond the
amount stated in an initial complaint.

At issue is whether FirstEnergy was contractually permitted to
pass on the increased cost of electricity during the historic cold
weather during the winter of 2014,when the polar vortex, extremely
cold air usually penned in by the jet stream near the North Pole,
shifted south.

The vortex caused temperatures to drop in early January of that
season, across the middle and eastern portions of the northern
U.S. -- including Cleveland, where thermometers hit minus 11
degrees. That caused increased demand for electricity and prompted
PJM, the regional transmission organization (RTO) that serves the
region, to increase what it charged companies such as FirstEnergy
for the power it distributed.

The suit's complaint does not dispute that fact, but it claims
that FirstEnergy had no right to pass on its additional
electricity charges to customers who had negotiated fixed-rate
prices for their power.

Much of the case seems to center on a particular paragraph of
FirstEnergy's agreement with the big commercial customers who
negotiate and use such contracts. But the interpretation of that
paragraph is key, and already FirstEnergy and the customers in the
suit disagree strongly over what it means.

It says, in part, that FirstEnergy can pass on additional costs
"if any regional transmission organization (RTO) or similar
entity . . . requires a change to the terms of the Agreement, or
imposes upon (FirstEnergy) new or additional charges or
requirements . . ."

But does that include increased costs for power during an extreme
weather event? Is an increase in costs a "new or additional"

Plaintiffs don't think so.

"Nothing in the Fixed-Rate Agreement permits FES to pass through
an increase in electrical charges to its customers because of an
unusually cold winter. In fact, the only weather-related provision
that FES included in its Agreement was its 'force majeure' clause
. . . . which excuses a party's non-performance due to 'flood,
earthquake, storm, fire, lightning,' " the complaint states.

FirstEnergy, on the other hand, thinks the paragraph says the
opposite -- that it specifically can pass along such additional
charges from PJM, which it did.

"Our contracts allowed us to pass through those charges to
customers," said FirstEnergy spokeswoman Diane Francis.

"It was probably one of the coldest Januaries that we've had on
record, and what happened during that time was . . . the demand
went very high trying to keep up with the very cold temperatures.
PJM basically had to remove all of their price caps, in order to
serve the load," she said of the situation then.

Francis declined to estimate how much was at stake in terms of
charges related to the polar vortex that are contested by
FirstEnergy customers.

This is not the first time customers have complained. In 2014, a
group of companies that included Cleveland's Lincoln Electric Co.,
Marathon Petroleum Co. in Canton and the Greater Cleveland
Regional Transit Authority sued FirstEnergy Solutions for passing
along polar vortex-related charges. That court case is still
pending, Francis said.

Francis said it was too soon for FirstEnergy to comment on the
potential outcome of the suit -- to which it has yet to even file
an answer in court.

But the stakes are fairly high already and could go higher.
Plaintiff's attorneys are not only asking that the suit be
classified as a class action, but their complaint invites more
affected companies from Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan,
Maryland and New Jersey to join it. [GN]

FBR & CO: "Kim" Sues Over Proposed B. Riley Merger
Woo J. Kim, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FBR & Co., et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00444-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va., April 12, 2017) is brought
against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties and for
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, Defendants filed or caused to be filed
a Registration Statement with the SEC in connection with a
proposed transaction that provides for the combination of B. Riley
Financial, Inc. and FBR. However, the Registration Statement omits
material information that must be disclosed to the FBR's
stockholders to enable them to render an informed decision with
respect to the Proposed Transaction.

Defendant FBR is a full-service investment banking and
institutional brokerage firm with a deep expertise and focus on
the equity capital markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
   Levi & Korsinsky LLP
   1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
   Washington, DC 20007
   Tel: (202) 524-4290
   Fax: (202) 337-1567
   Email: etripodi@zlk.com

FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: "FWK Holdings" Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
The case captioned FWK Holdings, L.L.C., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fougera
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09898-
WHP, filed on December 23, 2016, was removed from the Southern
District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on April 12, 2017, and assigned Case No.

Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc. develops, manufactures, distributes,
and sells specialty pharmaceuticals for the treatment of skin
diseases to dermatologists in the United States and

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David S. Nalve, Esq.
   Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
   One Main Street
   4th Floor
   Cambridge, MA 02142
   Tel: (617) 482-3700
   Fax: (617) 482-3003
   Email: davidn@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

   Hae Sung Nam, Esq.
   Jeffrey Philip Campisi, Esq.
   Joshua H, Saltzman, Esq.
   Richard J. Kilsheimer, Esq.
   Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
   Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
   850 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10022
   Tel: (212) 687-1980
   Fax: (212) 687-7714
   Email: jsaltzman@kaplanfox.com

        - and -

   David P. Germaine, Esq.
   Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
   Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
   Vanek, Vickers & Massini, P.C.
   55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500, Suite 4050
   Chicago, IL 60606
   Tel: (312) 224-1500
   Fax: (312) 224-1510
   Email: jvanek@vaneklaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Laura S Shores, Esq.
   Margaret Anne Rogers, Esq.
   Saul P Morgenstern, Esq.
   Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
   600 Massachusetts Ave, N.W.
   Washington, DC 20001
   Tel: 202-942-5000
   Fax: 202-492-5999
   Email: laura.shore@apks.com

FRITO-LAY NA: Allred Sues Over Misbranded Flavored Potato Chips
BARRY ALLRED and MANDY C. ALLRED, on behalf of themselves, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiffs,
v. FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
FRITO-LAY, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
37-2017-00017305-CU-BC-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., May 11, 2017), seeks
an order compelling Defendants to, inter alia: cease packaging,
distributing, advertising and selling the Product in violation of
U.S. FDA regulations and California consumer protection law; re-
label or recall all existing deceptively packaged Product; conduct
a corrective advertising campaign to inform California consumers
about the deceptive advertising; award Plaintiffs and other Class
Members restitution, actual damages, and punitive damages; and pay
all costs of suit, expenses, interest, and attorneys' fees, for
violations of California consumer protection laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendants label and advertise a
snack product as "Salt and Vinegar Flavored Potato Chips".  The
Product's packaging, labeling, and advertising is false and
misleading, and the Product itself is misbranded under California
law. It is illegal to sell misbranded products in California. The
Product is labeled as if it is flavored only with natural
ingredients, when in fact it contains undisclosed artificial
flavors in violation of state and federal law. The Defendants did
not simply fail to disclose the artificial flavor; the Product's
label proclaims that it contains, "No Artificial Flavors". This is
simply false. The Defendants' packaging, labeling, and advertising
scheme is intended to, and does, give reasonable consumers the
impression they are buying a premium, "all natural product with
natural flavoring ingredients, instead of an artificially flavored

The Plaintiffs, who were deceived by Defendants' unlawful conduct
and purchased the Product in California, brings this action on
behalf of themselves and a California Class of consumers to remedy
Defendants' unlawful and unfair acts.

The Defendants manufacture, distribute, advertise, market, and
sell a variety of flavored and unflavored snack products,
including potato chips.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Elliot, Esq.
          3200 Fourth Avenue, Suite 207
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 468 4865
          E-mail: davidelliot@elliotlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          William B. Richards, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696 9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564 6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com

GC SERVICES: Faces "Dawson" Suit in Eastern District of New York
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership. The case is captioned as Kadeidra Dawson, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. GC Services Limited Partnership, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-03094 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2017).

GC Services is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of
call center management and collection agency services in North

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HAT WORLD: "Ward" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to W.D. Washington
The class action lawsuit titled Matthew Ward, on behalf of himself
individually and in the alternative for claims under the FLSA, on
behalf of other similarly situated current or former employees,
the Plaintiff, v. Hat World, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 17-00002-10535-0, was removed on May 19, 2017,
from the King County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington (Seattle).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00781 to the proceeding.

Hat World is an American retailer specializing in athletic
headwear. It primarily operates under the LIDS and Hat World
brands with stores in the U.S., Puerto Rico and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. McKay, Esq.
          6523 CALIFORNIA AVE SW
          SEATTLE, WA 98136
          Telephone: (206) 992 5466
          E-mail: scottjmckay@hotmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James Raymond Morrison, Esq.
          999 3rd Ave., Ste 3600
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 332 1380
          E-mail: jmorrison@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Curt Roy Hineline, Esq.
          999 3rd Ave., Ste 3600
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 332 1380
          Facsimile: (206) 624 7317
          E-mail: chineline@bakerlaw.com

INSPIRA HEALTH: Faces "Costante" Suit Alleging Sexual Harassment
MEDICAL GROUP, P.C and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, Defendants, Case
No. L-1799-17 (N.J. Super., Camden County, May 3, 2017), was filed
pursuant to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination's
prohibition concerning sexual harassment in the workplace and
constructive discharge.

Plaintiff asks the Court to order the defendants to cease and
desist all conduct inconsistent with the claims made herein going
forward, both as to the specific plaintiff and as to all other
individuals similarly situated.

Inspira Health Network is a charitable nonprofit health care
organization.  Plaintiff was employed as a medical assistant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
     18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
     Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
     Phone: (856) 727-9700

INTERNAL REVENUE: Lois Lerner's Testimony to Remain Confidential
Rick Moran  writing for PJ Media reports that Lois Lerner, the
former IRS manager who was at the center of the targeting scandal,
will have her testimony in a class action lawsuit brought by
conservative groups against the IRS remain secret.

Lerner and another IRS employee, Holly Paz, want their testimony
to remain secret because they fear death threats if it becomes

Washington Times:

U.S. District Judge Michael R. Barrett had originally ordered
their depositions be sealed, but on May 18 he removed that
prohibition and instead said the testimony should be deemed
"confidential," keeping it secret until he can see what the women
had to say and what effect releasing it to the public would have.
He said the parties in the case can eventually ask to make the
information public, and at that point the burden will be on Ms.
Lerner and Ms. Paz to explain why it should be kept secret.

"Good cause exists to maintain the confidentiality of the
depositions during the discovery phase," Judge Barrett ruled.

For now, only the lengthy list of lawyers involved in the case
will be allowed to see the deposition testimony.

In a case already fraught with tension, the women's request for
secrecy added a new dimension.

"I'm outraged," said Mark Meckler, president of Citizens for Self-
Governance and co-founder of Tea Party Patriots.

Mr. Meckler's group is funding a class action lawsuit against the
IRS for its targeting, and hundreds of organizations snared in the
targeting are part of the case. They want to talk to Ms. Lerner
and Ms. Paz as part of their effort to get to the bottom of what
went on.

"What she's claiming is the public should have no right to know,
if they're made at a public official, what that official says
under oath," Mr. Meckler said.

He also said Judge Barrett got May 18's ruling wrong. He said the
judge should have said his plan is for transparency, leaving open
the chance for limited parts to be kept secret if need be.

"I think he got it backwards," Mr. Meckler said.

More than 400 groups were on the list of nonprofit organizations
the IRS said it subjected to intrusive scrutiny up through 2013.
It singled groups out because of worries about perceived political

The public has no right to know the activities of a person while
she was in government?

Lois Lerner is already hated. It's hard to see how the level of
anger against her can get any worse. The Obama Justice Department
cleared her and Ms. Paz of criminal wrongdoing in the targeting
scandal so the release of her deposition carries no legal
consequences with it -- as far as we know.

So why the secrecy? Lerner doesn't want to live with the social
consequences of her actions while she was an important manager at
the IRS. It was her policies that interfered with the right of Tea
Party groups to exercise their constitutional rights of free
speech and free association. Most of her targets were ordinary
Americans who had never become politically involved in their
lives. They didn't have the money to fight the IRS. Lerner and the
rest of IRS management knew this full well which is why they went
after them so viciously.

I can't believe she will be in additional danger if her deposition
is made public. I think the judge will agree. [GN]

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Seek Reversal of $72MM Award in Talc Case
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that in the past
year, consumer giant Johnson & Johnson has been hit with four jury
verdicts totaling about $300 million in cases linking its popular
baby powder to ovarian cancer.  With each defeat, its lawyers have
pledged the fight is not over.

On May 10, Johnson & Johnson got its first crack at dismantling
one of the verdicts in which Missouri juries have found that its
baby powder caused a woman to get ovarian cancer.  And a lot rides
on how the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Bristol-Myers Squibb v.
Superior Court of California, a closely watched case that could
clarify the rules of jurisdiction for mass torts claims.

In oral arguments, broadcast live by Courtroom View Network,
Johnson & Johnson attorney Thomas Weaver, Esq. --
tweaver@armstrongteasdale.com -- asked the Missouri Court of
Appeals to reverse a $72 million award to the family of an Alabama
woman who died from ovarian cancer.  The panel's decision is
likely to impact the three other verdicts in Missouri that went
against Johnson & Johnson, including a $110 million verdict this
month. (The company so far has prevailed in one trial.)

In its appeal, Johnson & Johnson raises the jurisdictional issue
that's now before the U.S. Supreme Court in Bristol-Myers: Whether
a plaintiff from one state can sue in a different state where a
defendant or her injuries have no connection.  At the end of the
hearing, Judge Angela Quigless told lawyers that the panel would
postpone its decision until after the high court rules.

"Both parties agree there is a good chance that Bristol-Meyers
will address and resolve these issues," said Mr. Weaver, a partner
at Armstrong Teasdale in St. Louis.

The case, brought in Missouri's 22nd Circuit Court in St. Louis,
involved 65 plaintiffs, 63 of whom weren't from Missouri. It's one
of nearly two dozen cases in Missouri state court, where more than
1,000 talc claims are pending against Johnson & Johnson.

The trial centered on Jacqueline Fox, who died in 2015 at age 62
after using Johnson & Johnson's talc products for more than 35
years.  The jury found against Johnson & Johnson on claims of
failure to warn, negligence and conspiracy.

Mr. Weaver argued that Missouri state court has no personal
jurisdiction over New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson as to the
claims of the non-Missouri residents, including Fox, who didn't
purchase the products or get injured in Missouri.

"We acknowledge the Missouri court has jurisdiction over the
defendant with regard to Missouri resident claims," Mr. Weaver
said.  "But that does not create jurisdiction over the defendant
with regard to the non-resident claims, which do not arise out of
or relate to the activities of the defendants in Missouri."

He's got some added ammunition: A Feb. 28 ruling by the Missouri
Supreme Court in State ex rel. Norfolk Southern Railway v. Dolan
found Missouri had no jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.
Under that ruling, Mr. Weaver said, "it's clear that Ms. Fox could
not have brought her claim here."

Judge Kurt Odenwald appeared receptive to Johnson & Johnson's
argument, questioning why Missouri's courts should be backlogged
so that out-of-state plaintiffs can sue there.  But he also wasn't
sure that the practice was prohibited under Missouri's joinder

"I don't like that policy, but I don't know that our joinder rule
precludes that," he said.

In a more welcome signal for J&J's appellate team, Judge Odenwald
also repeatedly referenced the "strong language" in Norfolk.

"That isn't just guidance to use, it's instructions to us. We have
to follow," he told plaintiffs attorney Edward "Chip" Robertson, a
partner at Leawood, Kansas-based Bartimus Frickleton Robertson.
"Tell me why Norfolk Southern gives you a pass."

Mr. Robertson said Norfolk involved parties who were all out of
state.  Ms. Fox's case had two Missouri plaintiffs, and Johnson &
Johnson sold talc products in Missouri.

"J&J put this out there for the world," he said.  "It can't, in
fairness, not expect to be here."

Putting aside the jurisdictional issue, Johnson & Johnson
continued its attack on plaintiffs experts who link talcum powder
to cancer for promoting what its lawyers have labeled "bad
science."  Mr. Weaver said the plaintiffs experts didn't provide
sufficient evidence that talc caused Ms. Fox's cancer.

The argument has gained traction in New Jersey where a judge last
year threw out the first two bellwether trials from among more
than 200 coordinated talc cases after finding that the experts had
employed "made-for-litigation" scientific methods.

Johnson & Johnson's arguments have mirrored those of tort reform
groups, which have pushed for reforms in Missouri.

The panel acknowledged the legislative overhauls in Missouri
designed to address the state's rules, both on experts and

"Believe me we all know about that," Judge Odenwald said.  "That's
not our duty. Argument is to follow the law, as it is now."

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Accuses Talc Case Plaintiffs Attorney of Lying
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that Johnson &
Johnson, hoping to reverse a $502 million verdict, is accusing
plaintiffs attorney W. Mark Lanier of lying to a federal judge and
jury about payments he made to two expert witnesses in a pivotal
hip implant trial last year in Dallas.

The allegations against the Houston lawyer surfaced in documents
unsealed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which
is hearing Johnson & Johnson subsidiary DePuy Orthopaedics Inc.'s
appeal of the verdict.  In an April 18 appeal brief, Johnson &
Johnson lawyers Paul Clement and John Beisner said a "strange
thing happened" when they started deposing the experts for a
subsequent trial: The plaintiffs turned over checks written out to
the experts, both of whom Lanier had insisted were not compensated
for their testimony.

"Plaintiffs' concealment of the fact that two critical expert
witnesses had been paid or expected to be paid -- at the same time
their volunteer status was trumpeted to the jury and used to evade
the expert-report requirement -- deprived defendants of their
ability to fully and fairly defend themselves," they wrote.

The revelations, the lawyers argue, warrant a new trial and could
undermine "the reliability of the entire bellwether process."

Mr. Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general, is a highly regarded
appellate lawyer and partner at Kirkland & Ellis in Washington,
D.C.; Mr. Beisner, who heads the mass torts, insurance and
consumer litigation group at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
in New York, is national litigation counsel to Johnson & Johnson.

They claim Mr. Lanier donated $10,000 to one expert's grade
school, followed by a $35,000 check for his services.  A second
expert, they wrote, allegedly admitted that he had expected to be
paid from the start; once the trial ended, Mr. Lanier cut him a
check for $30,000.

In an email, Mr. Lanier called the allegations "laughable if it
weren't so sad."

"Everything I SAID WAS 100% ACCURATE AND TRUTHFUL," he wrote. "J&J
paints a one-sided version, fails to tell the whole story, and
leaves a false impression."

Mr. Lanier added: "This brief is what the underlying case was full
of: J&J intimidating and disparaging anyone who dares to stands in
their way and seek to hold them accountable."

Mr. Lanier's response in the Fifth Circuit is due May 17.

'There Was No Agreement'

On Dec. 9, a district judge in Dallas rejected Johnson & Johnson's
motion for a new trial based on the same allegations. In that
order, which also was unsealed, U.S. District Judge Edward
Kinkeade of the Northern District of Texas found no evidence of

"The evidence before the court tends to show that at the time of
trial there was no agreement for compensation between plaintiffs'
counsel and the [experts]," the judge wrote.  The defendants also
ignored the fact that their own experts received "far larger
payments" for their testimonies, Judge Kinkeade said.  "Defendants
have not shown how evidence of plaintiffs' experts receiving a
fraction of the compensation of defendants' experts would have
produced a different result at trial," he said.

The $502 million verdict in March 2016 was followed by a $1.04
billion verdict on Dec. 1, 2016, in the second and third
bellwether trials in multidistrict litigation over DePuy's
Pinnacle hip implants. (The $1 billion verdict was later cut to
$540 million.) More than 9,000 lawsuits have been filed alleging
the devices caused pain and subsequent removal surgeries.  DePuy
won the first verdict in 2014.

The Pinnacle case is one of several mass torts that resulted in
substantial verdicts against Johnson & Johnson in 2016.

The verdict challenged by Messrs. Clement and Beisner awarded five
plaintiffs and three of their spouses.  The jury found DePuy had
failed to warn that its hip implant was defectively designed and
that Johnson & Johnson aided and abetted DePuy's actions.

DePuy has filed two appeals of the judgment. One, backed by the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce in an amicus brief, challenges the
"inflammatory rhetoric" at trial and a host of other "legal
flaws." The other involves the expert payments.

In that appeal, Johnson & Johnson's lawyers wrote that Lanier's
misrepresentations about both experts, Drs. Bernard Morrey and
Matthew Morrey, put him at an unfair advantage at trial.  The
unpaid status of his experts, who are father and son, was a
central theme at trial, and often contrasted with the "bought
testimony" of the defense witnesses, they wrote.  By insisting
they were unpaid, Mr. Lanier ensured that DePuy would not have an
opportunity to review expert reports before trial, they wrote.

They also cite Mr. Lanier's letters to both experts a month after
trial in which he noted that their testimonies "made a real
difference to the jury" and felt it was unfair that they hadn't
gotten paid.  The letters accompanied the two checks.  Both
witnesses ended up being designated as paid experts in the third
bellwether trial.

But Mr. Lanier wrote there was never any financial arrangement
with the experts during the trial, and neither expected to get
paid by plaintiffs' attorneys, according to his response to
DePuy's original motion.  Once the second trial ended, both got
checks after Lanier had a "change of heart."

"Only by creative interpretation, omission, and outright
misrepresentation are defendants able to suggest an improper
arrangement that never existed," he wrote.

LION BIOTECHNOLOGIES: "Desilvio" Sues Over Share Price Drop
Leonard Desilvio, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc.,
Manish Singh, Michael Handelman and Elma Hawkins, Defendants, Case
No. 3:17-cv-02086 (N.D. Cal., April 14, 2017) seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violation of the federal
securities laws.

The federal securities class action is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
Lion between November 14, 2013 and April 10, 2017, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint says Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business,
operational and financial results, which were known to Defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them.

On this news, shares of Lion fell $1.23 per share or over 13.9%
over two trading days to close at $7.95 per share on May 15, 2014,
damaging investors.

Defendant Lion is a clinical-stage biotechnology company that
focuses on developing and commercializing cancer immunotherapy

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
   The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
   355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
   Los Angeles, Ca 90071
   Tel: (213) 785-2610
   Fax: (213) 226-4684
   Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

MACNEIL AUTOMOTIVE: "Kusinski" Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA
MARTIN KUSINSKI, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MACNEIL AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS
LIMITED, d/b/a WEATHERTECH, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03618
(N.D. Ill., May 12, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Illinois Minimum Wage

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a warehouse
worker for WeatherTech. Defendant did not pay Martin, and
similarly situated employees, proper overtime wages of one and
one-half time their regular rate of pay for all hours worked above
forty hours in a work week.

WeatherTech provides complete automotive interior carpet
protection from mud, dirt, and snow.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
          John Kunzev
          THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C.
          200 E 5th Ave Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355 7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778 0400

MARTIN GAFFEY: Supreme Court Sends Rental Suit Back to Dist. Court
Dar Danielson writing for Radio Iowa reports that the Iowa Supreme
Court issued a ruling in two lawsuits against an Iowa City

Tenant Joan Walton sued landlord Martin Gaffey in 2014 saying some
of the fees and charged in the lease -- including carpet cleaning
-- were not legal. Walton also sought to have the lawsuit made a
class action to include other tenants.

Gaffey contended the contested provisions are not prohibited under
Iowa Code, and Walton has no claim because the provisions were
never enforced against her.

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled the carpet-cleaning provision is
unenforceable, but left open the possibility that other fees and
damages are recoverable by Gaffey and sent the case goes back to
the district court for review.

The Supreme Court also reversed the class action ruling in favor
of Walton, but says that does not rule out that Walton can
establish the grounds for class action certification when the
district court reviews the case.

The Supreme Court issued a similar ruling in a case involving
tenants of Southgate Property Management. It also sent that case
back to the district court for review. [GN]

MDL 2724: NECA-IBEW Antitrust Suit Transferred to E.D. Penn.
The antitrust class action titled NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund v.
Mylan, Inc., Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Taro
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Sandoz, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01128
(D.P.R., January 27, 2017), was transferred on April 26, 2017,
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
and assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01912.

The case is being consolidated with MDL 2724 in re: Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. The MDL
was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on April 18, 2017. It appears that the
action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of
fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and assigned to Judge Rufe.
Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the action(s)
on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. par. 1407
to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for the reasons stated in
the order of August 5, 2016, and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe. This order does not
become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be
stayed 7 days from the entry. If any party files a notice of
opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7-day period,
the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel. The
lead case is 1:16-mc-07000-WHP.

Mylan Inc., Sandoz Inc. and Taro Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.
were alleged of controlling virtually the entire U.S. market for
clomipramine which suggests a concerted price-rigging effort. The
drug is used for obsessive compulsive disorder, panic disorder,
major depressive disorder and chronic pain.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andres W. Lopez, Esq.
      The Law Offices of Andres W. Lopez, P.S.C.
      PO Box 13909
      San Juan, PR 00908
      Tel: (787) 294-9508, 787-406-9075
      Fax: (787) 294-9519
      Email: andres@awllaw.com

MEI-GSR HOLDINGS: Violates NLRA by Retaliating vs. Former Worker
David Pryzbylski, Esq., at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, in an article
for Lexology, reported from scrutiny of class action waivers to
invalidating non-union employer handbooks, we've seen the National
Labor Relations Board (NLRB) over the past eight years
incrementally expand and encroach into areas companies never
expected. This means companies have had to deal in totally
different ways with the agency traditionally known for governing
management-union relations.

On May 16, the NLRB broke new ground yet again in its decision in
MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC, 365 NLRB No. 76 (2017), where it held a
casino violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by denying
access to its property to a former employee who had filed a class
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) -- a law the NLRB
has no jurisdiction to enforce.

The NLRB held that the former employee's filing of the FLSA class
action was protected activity under the NLRA because it was
"concerted" in nature and dealt with "matters concerning the
workplace." Based on its protected activity finding, the NLRB went
on to hold that the company violated the NLRA when it informed the
former employee that she was barred from entering company property
while the FLSA litigation was pending. The NLRB majority reasoned
that the company's motivation to ban the former employee from the
property was directly tied to her protected activity (i.e., was
"retaliatory"), and that such retaliation would "chill" other
employees from engaging in protected conduct.

NLRB Chairman Philip Miscimarra issued a dissenting opinion in the
case, noting the majority's decision appeared to be an overreach
in light of the fact that potential remedies may be available to
the former employee under the FLSA -- the federal statute at issue
in the case. Miscimarra specifically noted: "I do not believe that
Congress, when enacting the NLRA, intended to guarantee that every
former employee would have a right of access to the private
property of his or her former employer whenever he or she joined
other employees in a non-NLRA lawsuit against that former
employer . . .  [T]he FLSA has its own anti-retaliation provision,
and we are not permitted to 'tak[e] it upon ourselves to assist in
the enforcement of other statutes. The Board was not intended to
be a forum in which to rectify all the injustices of the

Miscimarra's dissent may be a signal that the NLRB will revert to
its more traditional, narrow view of governing management-union
relations if/when Republicans gain a majority on the NLRB. (We
previously reported that President Trump likely is to make NLRB
appointments soon that will give Republicans a majority.) Until
the composition of the NLRB changes, however, it appears the NLRB
will continue to attempt to expand its reach into various types of
workplace disputes it never previously touched. [GN]

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Glick" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Shmuel Glick, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, and
Encore Capital Group, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03092
(E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MILOS BY COSTAS: Bovino Sues Over Race Discrimination
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated class members,
CORPORATION, the Defendant, the Defendant, Case No. 56212147 (Fla.
Cir. Ct., May 9, 2017), seeks damages including back pay, front
pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and his attorneys'
fees and costs under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA).

The Plaintiffs bring these claims for race/national origin
discrimination against Defendant for subjecting them to
discrimination, and ultimately termination in violation of the

The Plaintiffs worked in Miami-Dade County, Florida. They are
males of Italian descent who suffered discrimination because of
their race/national origin by Defendant; and they suffered adverse
employment action and were subjected to a discriminatory
environment based on their status as a males of Italian descent,
including being terminated for same. On December 22, 2015,
Defendant terminated the employment of Mr. Moccia, Mr.
Sciancalepore, and Mr. Di Martino, alleging vaguely that these
gentlemen were somehow "not up to Milos standards."

The Defendant is a seafood Restaurant in Miami Beach, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard Celler, Esq.
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (866) 344 9243
          Facsimile: (954) 337 2771
          E-mail: richard@florifaovertimelawyer.com

MMODAL SERVICES: Seijas Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
MICHELLE SEIJAS f/k/a MICHELLE CRAM, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MMODAL SERVICES,
LTD., INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
5:17-cv-00218-PGB-PRL (M.D. Fla., May 11, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and declaratory relief,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and those similarly
situated spend days sitting in front of the computer while not
getting paid while they log in and out looking for jobs,
particularly after Defendant began outsourcing most of their jobs
to India. Many times Plaintiff and those similarly situated are
forced to work on weekends and wait for work, unpaid, until a job
or two comes through. Moreover, the hours worked in front of their
computers was not included in determining overtime compensation.

MModal Services provides narrative medical text to electronic
transformation services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Faces "Severns" Suit Over Robocalls
CLINTON SEVERNS, individually and on behalf of classes of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. NAVIENT
SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03590 (N.D. Ill., May 11, 2017), seeks
injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unauthorized text
messages and telephone calls featuring a prerecorded or artificial
voice and an award of actual and statutory damages to the class
members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

According to the complaint, in an effort to collect outstanding
debts from consumers, Navient, a nationwide servicer of student
loans, violated federal law by making unauthorized automated text
message calls and automated telephone calls using a prerecorded or
artificial voice (robocalls) to the cellular telephones of
individuals throughout the nation. By effectuating these
unauthorized robocalls, Defendant has violated the called parties'
statutory rights and has caused the call recipients actual harm,
not only because the called parties were subjected to the
aggravation and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies
unauthorized automated calls -- particularly calls using a
prerecorded or non-human artificial voice -- but also because the
called parties, like Plaintiff, must frequently pay for the calls
they receive or incur a usage allocation deduction from their
calling plans, notwithstanding that the calls were made in
violation of specific legislation on the subject.

Navient Solutions provides loan management, servicing, and asset
recovery solutions to clients in higher education and business
clients, as well as federal, state, and local governments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NEMET MOTORS: "Feliciano-Bauzo" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages
Guillermo Feliciano-Bauzo, Individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Nemet Motors, LLC, Case No.
706919/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 19, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees, pursuant to the New York Minimum Wage Act.

Located in Queens County, New York at 153 12 Hillside Avenue,
Jamaica, NY 11432, Nemet Motors, LLC is engaged in the auto
dealership business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NEUROTROPE INC: July 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Neurotrope, Inc., and
certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased
Neurotrope securities between January 7, 2016, and April 28, 2017,
both dates inclusive. Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/ntrp.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material adverse information regarding the efficacy of
its lead product candidate, Bryostatin-1.

On May 1, 2017, Neurotrope announced "positive top-line results"
of the focal Phase 2b trials of Bryostatin-1, mentioning
"improvement in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's
disease," Conversely, the trial data allegedly negates these
statements, as the top-line data relating to the 20 microgram dose
of Bryostatin-1 did not produce statistically significant results.
Neurotrope also allegedly failed to disclose statements about the
efficacy of the 40 microgram dose in connection with its primary
and secondary endpoints. Following this news, Neurotrope stock
dropped from a close of $18.81 per share on April 28, 2017, to a
close at $6.97 per share on May 1, 2017.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/ntrpor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Neurotrope you have until July 17, 2017 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.   Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.

NEW CENTURY: Faces Class Action for Misclassifying Dancers
Wadi Reformado  writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a class action has been filed against the New Century Theater
on behalf of current and former exotic dancers over allegations of
unfair business practices.

Olivia Doe filed a complaint on behalf of all those similarly
situated on April 12 in the San Francisco County Superior Court
against Bijou - Century LLC and Joseph Carouba and Does 1-100
alleging conversion, fraud and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she was
misclassified as an independent contractor. The plaintiff holds
Bijou - Century LLC, Carouba and Does 1-100 responsible because
the defendants allegedly failed to provide accurate wage
statements, unlawfully required the class to "tip out" the
district manager, and failed to compensation them for all hours

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensatory
damages, restitution of all monies due, interest, all legal fees,
punitive and exemplary damages and any other relief as the court
deems just. She is represented by James A. Quadra, Rebecca M. Coll
and Niall Vignoles of Quadra & Coll LLP in San Francisco.

San Francisco County Superior Court Case number CGC17558142 [GN]

NEW WORLD DRAYAGE: Faces "Cano" Suit in California Superior Court
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New World Drayage,
Inc.  The case is captioned as Henry Cano, On Behalf of Himself,
Similarly Situated Employees, Current and Former Aggrieved
Employees, and The General Public, the Plaintiff, v. New World
Drayage, Inc., A California Corporation; Sergio Miranda; Gilma
Diaz; and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC662043 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 19, 2017).

New World Drayage is bonded freight shipping and trucking company
running freight hauling business from Downey, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Glick, Esq.
          1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 387 3400
          Facsimile: (213) 387 7872

NISSAN NA: Pinto Suit Moved to New Jersey Federal Court
The class action lawsuit titled PINTO OF MONTVILLE, INC.,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, the
doing business as: NISSAN WORLD OF DENVILLE, JOHN DOES 1-10
(names being fictitious and unknown), and ABC CORPS. 1-10 (names
being fictitious and unknown), Case No. MRS-L-00753-17, was
removed on May 11, 2017 from the New Jersey Superior Court Law
Division: Morris County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:17-cv-03353-SDW-LDW to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Susan D. Wigenton.

Nissan North America designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
Nissan and Infiniti vehicles in the United States, Canada, and

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas Alexander Vytell, Esq.
          120 Mountain View Boulevard
          P.O. Box 650
          Basking Ridge, NJ 07920
          Telephone: (908) 848 6300
          E-mail: nvytell@cmk.com

Attorney for Nissan North America, Inc.:

          Andrew B. Joseph, Esq.
          600 Campus Drive
          Florham Park, NJ 07932-1047
          Telephone: (973) 360 1100
          E-mail: andrew.joseph@dbr.com

OAKTON COMMUNITY: Judge Allows Age Discrimination Suit to Proceed
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that an age
discrimination class action against Oakton Community College after
the college decided to no longer hire those collecting pensions
through the State Universities Retirement System will be allowed
to proceed, after a federal judge weighed in on the matter.

In an opinion issued May 17, District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly
granted certification for the class claims of Barry H. Dayton, who
sued the college, select administrators and its board of trustees
over a November 2014 decision to no longer employ annuitants of

Dayton had been a part-time faculty member at the school until the
policy change went into effect July 1, 2015. He said implementing
the policy violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and
also violated his rights under the Illinois Constitution's pension

In addition to the college, named defendants included Margaret
Lee, college president in 2014; and members of the president's
advisory council at the time, including current Oakton President
Joianne Smith and Michael Anthony, Karl Brooks, Maya Evans, Tom
Hamel, Collette Hand, Bonnie Lucas and Mum Martens. Two other
employees who filed complaints regarding the policy had their
cases consolidated with Dayton's.

Oakton classifies faculty members as full time, part time and
adjunct. Those who teach 27 or fewer lecture hour equivalents are
adjuncts, covered by the college's collective bargaining agreement
with the Oakton Community College Adjunct Faculty Association. A
part-time faculty member is one who does not have full-time work
but is not qualified to join the adjunct union. Only full-time
faculty are eligible for tenure. The college offers course
assignments on a term-by-term basis.

In 2012, Illinois amended its Return To Work law to strengthen
earnings limitations on people receiving SURS retirement benefits
who continue to work for participating colleges and universities.
Under the amendment, employers must determine which employees
qualify based on a formula involving their current compensation
and annuity payments compared to their highest annual pre-
retirement earnings, then pay a financial penalty to SURS for each
affected employee.

Oakton paid a $75,000 penalty after employing Dayton and the
others. Lee and the advisory council determined it would be best
for the college, rather than tracking which employees might incur
the penalty, to not employ anyone collecting SURS payments. That
decision affected 79 faculty and staff members.

Dayton argued the college knew many of those people could not
generate the penalty based on caps on adjunct compensation and
available course loads, and said the decision to bar them all
constituted age discrimination. The college argued individualized
assessment was appropriate given unique claims based on personal
work history, and the fact it assigned classes each term based on
need and availability. Kennelly sided with Dayton.

"Though their likelihood of being assigned courses, and the number
of courses they might be assigned, might differ, it is undisputed
that Oakton's decision not to employ SURS annuitants was made on a
college-wide basis and was not based on any particular annuitant's
individual circumstances such as his or her job performance, class
schedule or availability to teach classes," he wrote, noting the
questions Dayton raised -- whether the Oakton policy had a
disparate affect on older teachers and whether it violated federal
age discrimination law -- are common to every putative class

Different class members could be entitled to different amounts of
damages, he added, but the complaint targets the school's policy
itself as discriminatory.

In addition to certifying the class, Kennelly appointed attorneys
Nathan D. Eisenberg, Esq., Sara J. Gene, Esq. and Erin F.
Medeiros, Esq., of the Prevent Law Firm, of Milwaukee, and Stephen
Yokkaichi, Esq. -- contact@LaborAdvocates.com -- of the firm of
Dowd, Bloch, Bennett, Corvine, Auer Bach & Yokkaichi, of Chicago,
to represent Dayton and the class.

Oakton Community College is represented in the action by attorneys
with the firm of Robbins, Schwartz, Nicholas, Lifton & Taylor
Ltd., of Chicago.

A status hearing is set for May 22. [GN]

OASIS APARTMENTS: Slapped with Suit Over Rat-infested Complex
Rick Daysog, writing for Hawaii News Now, reports that a new
lawsuit claims dozens of people have been tricked into renting
filthy apartments at an Oahu complex infested with rats.

Hawaii News Now's first reports on the rat infestation at the
Oasis Apartments in Waipahu were made last year. A class-action
lawsuit filed on May 17  says the owners have known about the
problem for years -- but have done little to fix it.

"They're tricking people into thinking that they're going to be
renting a beautiful, sanitary, clean apartment, and then they're
getting a slum," said attorney Bridget Morgan, who filed the suit.

Former residents says dozens of rats live in crawl spaces, chew up
holes in the walls and cabinets, and leave their dropping

"You could hear the squealing. You could hear the clawing of the
rats on the traps," said former resident Jennifer Cannon, who now
lives in Houston.

Cannon said the rat problem forced her to move out.

"So basically, we got sick, whether it was from the dander or the
rat feces," she said.

Latee Fretwell, another former tenant, said one rat got stuck in
her shower drain for several days.

"It was just scratching. I think it was trying to come up. (The
exterminator) looked at it and said 'that's a rat,'" she said.

Morgan says that under Hawaii law, the owner's responsibilities
are clear.

"Upon notice that their housing units have rats, they have to
clean it up. It's that simple," Morgan said.

We reached out to the company, but got no response. When we last
covered the infestation, it issued this statement:

"We take every issue raised by our residents extremely seriously.
We will look into this and any future issues diligently," said
Michael Stamper of Apartment Management Consultants, which manages
the property.

Besides health risks associated with rat infestations, the suit
also alleges that the owners misled potential tenants about the
conditions of the apartments.

Morgan said many residents were stuck in their unsanitary
apartments because their lease included a $3,800 early termination
fee, which many couldn't pay. [GN]

OCWEN LOAN: "Aquilar" Suit Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
Israel Aquilar, the Plaintiff, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC
AND OCWEN MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-
cv-01530-WMW-TNL (D. Minn., May 9, 2017), seeks to recover
statutory damages, actual damages, and award of punitive damages
in response to Defendants' violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

From April 13, 2012, through December 15, 2015, Defendants called
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 9572
via an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS).  This ATDS has
the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called,
using a random or sequential number generator.  When Plaintiff
would answer the calls from Defendants, there would often be a
silence, sometimes with a click or beep-tone, before an Ocwen
Representative would pick up and start speaking. Sometimes,
Plaintiff would receive calls from Defendants in which the caller
was a recorded voice or message, rather than a live
representative.  In total, Plaintiff has received at least 1,017
calls from Defendants on Plaintiff's cellular telephone.

Ocwen Loan offers and services residential mortgage loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony P. Chester, Esq.
          Robert L. Hyde, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          120 S. 6th St., Suite 2050
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (952) 225 5333
          Facsimile: (800) 635 6425
          E-mail: tony@westcoastlitigation.com

ONG AMNUAY: Faces "Calel" Suit in Southern District of New York
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ong Amnuay Inc.  The
case is styled as Candelaria Ordonez Calel and Carlos Manuel Ticum
Yacon, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. Ong Amnuay Inc., doing business as Chaamlex,
Narong Piemtongkam, and Thanya Ong, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-03817 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2017).

Ong Amnuay is in the oncologist business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appeal pro se.

PARTY RENTAL: "Castellanos" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03251-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., May 9, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime pay for each and every overtime hour
they worked and were not properly paid under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendant as a
collective action on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated -- non-exempt service sales representatives who
suffered damages for damages as a result of Defendant's violations
of the FLSA pursuant to the collective action provisions.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant full time as a non-exempt
laborer, from in or about 2005, through in or about July 2016. The
Defendant owns and/or maintains a party rental business that
provides services and products throughout the State of New Jersey
as well as neighboring states. The claims of the Named Plaintiff
are typical of the claims of the putative class. The Named
Plaintiff and the putative class members were all subject to
Defendant's policies and willful practices of failing to pay
employees all earned overtime wages. The Named Plaintiff and the
putative class members thus have sustained similar injuries as a
result of Defendant's actions.

Party Rental is a full-service party rental company, renting
special event items and equipment along the East Coast.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, No. 306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687 9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595 0308
          E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com

PAYMENT ALLIANCE: Cobra Tactical Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
The class action lawsuit titled Cobra Tactical, Inc., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Payment Alliance International Inc., and Global Payments Direct,
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2017cv288951, was removed on May
19, 2017, from the Fulton County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-01827-MHC to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mark H. Cohen.

Payment Alliance provides payment solutions across ATM machines,
credit cards, and check services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
          Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
          1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444 0773
          E-mail: eadamwebb@hotmail.com

PERCHERON FIELD: Faces "Loecker" Suit in Pa. Common Pleas Court
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Percheron Field
Services. The case is titled as LOECKER, MARIA, the Plaintiff, v.
PERCHERON FIELD SERVICES, the Defendant, Case No. CI-17-04877
(Penn. Ct. of Common Pleas, May 19, 2017).

Percheron offers specialized expertise in land, right of way,
surveying and environmental services.[BN]

R.J. REYNOLDS: 11th Cir. Greenlights Smokers' Suits
Katheryn Hayes Tucker, writing for Daily Report, reports that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a 284-page
en banc opinion on May 18 saying that smokers who won a class
action against tobacco companies can also file individual
lawsuits. The court ruled 7-3 in favor of the smokers.

There were some fireworks between the judges. Three wrote
dissents. One called the process a "chaotic poker game" and said
judges should "stick to our day jobs" instead of advocating for

In the end, the judges upheld the lower court decision in favor of
Theresa Graham against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and its
affiliates. Judge William Pryor wrote the majority opinion.
"This appeal presents the questions whether due process forbids
giving a Jury's findings of negligence and strict liability in a
class action against cigarette manufacturers preclusive effect in
a later individual suit by a class member and, if not, whether
federal law preempts the jury's findings," Pryor began. "Florida
smokers and their survivors filed a class action against several
tobacco companies, and after a yearlong trial designed to answer
common questions concerning the companies' tortious conduct
against all members of the class, a jury found that each company
had breached its duty of care and sold defective cigarettes."
Pryor was referring to the jury's decision in Engle v. Liggett
Group, Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006).

He noted the Florida Supreme Court upheld the jury verdicts of
negligence and strict liability and decertified the class to allow
individual actions about the remaining issues of specific
causation, damages and comparative fault. He rejected the tobacco
company's argument that the decision violates the due process
clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

He also turned down R.J. Reynolds' request to "overrule our
decision to the contrary in Walker v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. ,
734 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2013)." And he shut down the tobacco
maker's attempt to seek protection under federal law.

"Because we reaffirm our holding in Walker and conclude that
federal law does not preempt the Engle jury findings, we affirm
the judgments against R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris," Pryor

"It's a significant decision on the legal fronts that it covers,"
said Samuel Issacharoff, the New York University law professor who
spoke for the plaintiffs at oral arguments in June of last year.
He added, "It took a while to produce 280 pages of opinions."
Especially for Judge Gerald Tjoflat. His dissent took up 238 of
those pages. He accused the majority of creating a "false
narrative" and being partial to the smokers.

"If one lesson can be learned from this chaotic poker game it is
that we should stick to our day jobs," Tjoflat wrote. "Rather than
act as advocates for the plaintiff, we should saddle him with the
burden the law tasks him with carrying, and assess, impartially,
whether the plaintiffs have established the elements of proving
preclusion in the manner the law demands. On the record before us
now, the plaintiff clearly has not, and the District Court's
judgment should be reversed."

Judges Julie Carnes and Charles Wilson agreed partially with
Tjoflat but managed to hold their dissents to one page each. The
docket lists 22 attorneys for the plaintiffs side and 70 on the
tobacco company side -- 32 for R.J Reynolds and 38 for Philip
Morris, although some are duplicates.

Topping the lists are: Elizabeth Joan Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein in San Francisco for the plaintiffs and
Stephanie Ethel Parker of Jones Day in Atlanta for R.J. Reynolds.
They could not be reached. The record also includes 17 amicus
filings. [GN]

RANBAXY INC: Meijer Seeks to Transfer Case to Mass.
In the case captioned Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution, Inc.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Ranbaxy, Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd., Ranbaxy
U.S.A., Inc. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Defendants,
Case 2:17-mc-00091-WB, (E.D. Penn., May 5, 2017), the Plaintiff
filed a motion for an order transferring the case to the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, or in the
alternative, compelling third-party Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Endo Health Solutions, Inc. ("Endo") to produce documents and
information responsive to the October 25, 2016 Endo Subpoena
served by Plaintiffs.

Meijer seeks redress for alleged anticompetitive and racketeering
behavior prior to the market entry of generic Valcyte and Diovan.

Plaintiff asks the Court to transfer the case to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Should this motion be denied, Plaintiff request the court to
compel Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Endo Health Solutions, Inc.
to produce the documents and information responsive to the October
25, 2016 Endo Subpoena served by Meijer regarding the monthly unit
sales, average net selling prices and a customer list for Endo's
generic Valcyte and Diovan, manufacturing records and regulatory
correspondence on a generic version of Diovan and Endo's asserted
bases for non-infringement or invalidity of the brand patents.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
      280 King of Prussia Rd.
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Tel: (610) 667-7706
      Fax: (610) 667-7056
      Email: tziegler@ktmc.com

ROCCO IADEVAIA: "Aquino" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
GREGORIO AQUINO on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROCCO IADEVAIA LANDSCAPE
and ROCCO F. IADEVAIA, as an individual, the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-02886 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2017), seeks to recover overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a manual
laborer for Defendants from October 2011 until December 20, 2016.
The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in most workweeks in which
he was employed by the Defendants but was paid overtime
compensation for the hours he worked after 40 hours per week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          103 Cooper Street
          Babylon, NY 11702
          Telephone: (631) 257 5588
          E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com

SANTANNA NATURAL: Johansen Sues Over Telemarketing Practices
KEN JOHANSEN on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
ENERGY SERVICES, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03604 (N.D. Ill.,
May 12, 2017), seeks to injunctive relief, treble damages, and
statutory damages under Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The Plaintiff brings this action to enforce the consumer-privacy
provisions of the TCPA in response to widespread public outrage
about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing
practices. In violation of the TCPA, the Defendant placed
telemarketing calls to a telephone number Mr. Johansen had
registered on the National Do Not Call Registry for the purposes
of advertising their goods and services.

According to the complaint, Mr. Johansen never consented to
receive these calls, and they were placed to him for telemarketing
purposes. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to
hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en
masse, Mr. Johansen brings this action on behalf of a proposed
nationwide class of other persons who received illegal
telemarketing calls from or on behalf of the Defendant.

Santanna Natural Gas, doing business as Santanna Energy Services,
supplies natural gas and electricity to commercial, industrial,
institutional, and residential customers in Illinois, Michigan,
Indiana, and Ohio. The company was founded in 1988 and is based in
Bolingbrook, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Lauren E. Snyder, Esq.
          1350 N. Wells Street, Apt. A214
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Telephone: (419) 344 1146
          E-mail: lauren.elizabeth.snyder@gmail.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          99 High St., Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (508) 221-1510
          E-mail: anthony@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          The Law Office of Matthew P. McCue
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net

SHERBROOKE: CAD17-Mil. Out-of-Court Settlement in Gas Cartel Suit
CBC News reports that a 10-year legal battle has resulted in a
CAD17-million out-of-court settlement between a group of Eastern
Township motorists and a number of gas retailers in the area.

The class-action lawsuit involving residents of Sherbrooke, Magog,
Victoriaville and Thetford Mines sought damages from a so-called
cartel charged with criminal price fixing by the Competition

In 2008 and 2010, the bureau charged 39 individuals and 15 gas
retailers with fixing the price of gas in those four cities and
towns after a three-year investigation involving wiretaps and

The bureau said the gas retailers -- individual operators who ran
their stations under the banners of Shell, Esso, Petro-Canada and
Irving Oil -- called each other to agree on prices.

Around CAD40 in free gas

The CAD17-million settlement, which two-thirds of the companies
and retailers named in the class-action lawsuit have agreed to,
could translate into a reimbursement of about CAD40 each for
200,000 residents after legal fees and other deductions.

"By the standards of a class action, that's actually relatively
significant on an individual level," said George Iny, executive
director of the Automobile Protection Association, the group
spearheading the lawsuit.

"The settlement on May 19 is a very big step forward in the
action. It's a very tough battle."

The money may be paid in gas cards, direct mailers, or money off
at the pump, Iny said.

Companies must reimburse at least 90 per cent of the affected
consumers within about two years, or else the balance of the
settlement will be paid out to the APA.

Since not all parties have agreed to the settlement, legal
proceedings will continue. [GN]

SOUTHGATE PROPERTY: Gets Top Court's Favor on Tenant's Lawsuit
Madison Arnold, writing for The Gazette, reports that another
tenant versus Iowa City landlord lawsuit has been decided, this
time seemingly in the landlord's favor.

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled on May 19 that SouthGate Property
Management's lease terms -- which include carpet cleaning, a move-
in checklist and other fees and charges -- are not prohibited
practices, thereby reversing an earlier district court ruling
supporting the tenants' claims.

Three previous tenants had sued SouthGate, but the court held
"none of the rental agreement provisions challenged by the tenants
in this case are prohibited" under Iowa's Uniform Residential
Landlord and Tenant Act.

The tenants -- Daniel Kline, Frank Sories and Amaris McCann --
did, however, win their argument about a lease provision about
being unable to take possession of an apartment on the lease's
promised start date.

The court found that provision could allow SouthGate to turn over
an apartment late with prorated rent. The provision "clearly
purports to attempt to limit SouthGate's liability and the
tenants' remedy for damages sustained as a consequence of the

Christopher Warnock, Esq. of Iowa Tenants Project and the tenants'
attorney, said in an email statement that "while we didn't win on
the legality of a number of specific provisions, I was very happy
that the Supreme Court found that tenants have a right to a legal
lease, a lease free from illegal provisions,"

The ruling sent back to a lower court the issue of whether the
three tenants could be considered a "class" in the lawsuit and
file a class-action lawsuit.

In 2015, Warnock came out the winner in tenant lawsuits against
Apartments Downtown, Iowa City's largest landlord company.

The class-action lawsuit ended with the company reimbursing
previous tenants $65 per year of residency for a mandatory carpet-
cleaning charge included in the lease.

The courts ruled the company had illegally charged tenants for
maintenance and repair and collected illegal penalties and

SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $45 Million
Emily Walkenhorst writing for Arkansas Online reports that
attorneys for thousands of Fayetteville Shale property owners and
Southwestern Energy and its subsidiaries have reached a settlement
in a seven-year lawsuit that accused the companies of improperly
skimming payments to property owners for drilling wells on their

Conway County Circuit Judge Terry Sullivan gave preliminary
approval on May 18  to the settlement, which states the company
will pay as much as $45 million. Sullivan will hold a final
fairness and approval hearing June 28.

The settlement class represents about 13,000 people who were owed
royalties from Jan. 1, 2006, through Sept. 30, 2016, although they
may opt out, according to court records.

The settlement comes nearly a year and a half after Southwestern
Energy, the last major driller in the shale, withdrew its last
drilling rigs from the area. Wells have continued to run in the
shale with diminished production and value.

In the settlement, Southwestern Energy and its subsidiaries SEECO
(Southwestern Energy Exploration Co.), SWN Production, DeSoto
Gathering Co. and Southwestern Energy Services deny the claims of
Eldridge Snow, an 88-year-old Center Ridge man who sued them in

The settlement states the company and its subsidiaries will pay
$30 million, lower deductions from future royalty payments at an
estimated value of $15 million to property owners and pay up to
$150,000 for a settlement administrator.

Attorneys for Snow intend to seek up to 45 percent of the $30
million -- $13.5 million -- in attorneys' fees. They also plan to
seek a fee for Snow and up to $750,000 for various litigation

Court records had not previously included plaintiffs' estimates
for how much they allege Southwestern Energy and its subsidiaries
improperly deducted from royalty payments.

Dan Smolen, Esq. -- danielsmolen@ssrok.com -- an attorney for Snow
from Smolen Smolen and Roytman in Tulsa, said he could not divulge
how the settlement amounts were reached because of a protective
order. But he said attorneys had estimated between $0.05 and $0.19
per thousand cubic feet of gas had been improperly deducted.

In a news release from his attorneys, Snow said, "this is a great
settlement, especially considering the prolonged period of
extremely low natural gas prices."

In his order tentatively approving the settlement, Sullivan wrote
that the settlement was fair and had been entered into "in good

In their joint motion for approval of their proposed settlement,
attorneys for Snow and Southwestern Energy and its subsidiaries
argued that their settlement was "fairly and honestly negotiated,
at arm's length, and without collusion."

"In reaching this proposed compromise, the parties have considered
the time, effort, and costs involved in protracted class action
litigation, particularly in light of the strengths and weaknesses
of their respective cases and the overall complexity of this case,
and believe the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the
possibility of any future recovery, promotes judicial economy, and
serves the interest of justice," the filing reads.

Attorneys for the company and its subsidiaries were unavailable or
declined comment to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on May 19.

"We believe this to be a fair and reasonable settlement and a true
win for the royalty owners," Smolen said in the news release. "The
settlement, if approved by the Court, provides the benefit of a
substantial recovery for the class while avoiding the costs and
risks inherent in adversarial litigation."

The case was one of three certified class-action lawsuits against
Southwestern Energy and its subsidiaries that claimed the company
cheated property owners out of promised royalty payments by
deducting fees for doing business among the Southwestern
subsidiaries, and other complaints.

The Snow case alleged that SEECO used internal accounting
practices to determine deductions that exceeded reasonable
amounts, deducted costs that weren't allowed, and reported false
and misleading amounts to property owners on their check stubs,
among other complaints. It was certified for class action in
October 2014 and affirmed for class action by the Arkansas Supreme
Court in December.

The three class-action lawsuits are among numerous lawsuits that
have been filed in recent years in Arkansas over whether people
who leased mineral rights to natural-gas companies were adequately
compensated according to their contracts. Such lawsuits have
become common nationwide, including in Pennsylvania, Texas,
Oklahoma, Ohio and Louisiana. Some cases have been settled in
Arkansas and other states.

Many of the lawsuits contend that natural-gas companies --
including the shale's biggest companies, Southwestern Energy Co.,
XTO Energy and BHP Billiton, which purchased Chesapeake Energy's
assets in the shale -- have withheld payments improperly in a
variety of ways from people who signed leases. Those ways,
according to the suits, include charging too many fees, such as
for services through subsidiary companies.

Experts have said the three Southwestern cases all being certified
at the same time created a "race to judgment." In a race to
judgment, the case that is resolved first can limit who can be a
member of a class in other cases. Typically, class-action lawsuits
over similar issues representing similar populations are combined
into one case, experts said, but that didn't happen with Eldridge
Snow v. SEECO, Sara Stewmon v. SEECO or Connie Jean Smith v.

Attorneys for Southwestern Energy and its subsidiaries filed a
notice of the Snow settlement on May 18  in federal court, which
is hearing Connie Jean Smith's lawsuit against the companies.

"The settlement, if finally approved, would fully resolve the
claims of all members of the class in the case pending before the
Court, as well as the claims of other SEECO cost-bearing royalty
owners who are not members of the class in this case, but are
members of the classes in Snow and Stewmon," attorneys wrote. That
case is set for trial June 5. The companies have requested a
continuance of that trial and a stay in the case in light of the
Snow settlement.

Stewmon v. SEECO has had little action since having its class-
certification upheld by the Arkansas Supreme Court in December.
The claims made by two class members, who had become the class
representatives, were dismissed in March, but the class-action
remained, according to a state court records search. [GN]

SPOKEO INC: 4th Cir. Vacates $11MM FCRA Class Action Judgment
Amy Jonker of Maurice Wutscher LLP, writing for Lexology, wrote
that relying on Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently vacated
and remanded for dismissal a trial court's summary judgment ruling
in favor of the plaintiff in an $11 million, 69,000 member class
action under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15
U.S.C. Sec 1681 et seq., where the defendant credit reporting
agency listed the name of a defunct credit card issuer instead of
the name of the servicer as the source of information on the
plaintiff's credit report.

In so ruling, the Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiff had not
suffered an injury-in-fact arising from alleged incomplete or
incorrect credit report information, and thus had not satisfied
the constitutional standing requirements to pursue a claim.

During a background check for security clearance the plaintiff
claimed that he first discovered that his cousin had opened a
credit card in his name and had run up a substantial balance. The
plaintiff requested credit reports from three credit reporting
agencies to clear up the problem.

One of those reports listed the tradeline under the name of the
original creditor with a P.O. Box address. Plaintiff sent letters
to the original creditor requesting verification of the debt and
received a response on the creditor's letterhead along with a
statement showing the outstanding balance and a copy of the online
credit card application with his name and social security number.

The plaintiff then wrote to the creditor requesting that it stop
reporting the account as inaccurate but did not receive a
response. He then contacted the credit reporting agency directly
to make the same request but without result.

The plaintiff alleged that caused him stress and wasted his time,
but the credit reporting error did not affect his security
clearance, which was approved.

Later, the account was deleted from his credit file. The original
creditor had gone out of business during the 2008 financial crisis
and the FDIC had become the receiver and appointed a servicing
company to collect the outstanding balances on the portfolio of
accounts. The servicer conducted its work using the original
creditor's name, phone number, and website and furnished account
information to credit reporting agencies under the original
creditor's name so as not to be confusing to account holders who
might not recognize the name of the servicer but would know the
name of the creditor with whom they had opened their accounts.

The plaintiff sued the servicer and the credit reporting agency
asserting class claims and individual claims alleging that they
violated the FCRA by failing to include the servicer's name in the
tradelines as the source of the information.

The trial court certified the class, and granted the plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment explaining that it was objectively
unreasonable to exclude the servicer's name from the tradeline.
The trial court denied the credit reporting agency's motion for
summary judgment reasoning that the FCRA created "a statutory
right to receive the sources of information for one's credit
report" so that if a source is not disclosed, the violated right
creates "a sufficient injury-in-fact for constitutional standing."
The parties stipulated to damages of $11.7 million for the class
and the credit reporting agency appealed.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit pointed out that the trial court
failed to analyze whether the injury was specific and concrete, as
Spokeo requires, but merely concluded that any violation of the
statute was sufficient to create an injury-in-fact.

The Appellate Court analyzed the holding in Spokeo explaining that
the injury-in-fact requirement is not automatically satisfied
where a statute grants a right and authorizes a person to
"vindicate that right" but the person does not have any concrete
harm. Put another way, a plaintiff cannot allege a "bare
procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm" and still
gain standing. The Appellate Court concluded, based on Spokeo,
that "a technical violation of the FCRA may not rise to the level
of an injury in fact for constitutional purposes."

The Fourth Circuit pointed out that this conclusion was in
agreement with the D.C. Circuit's conclusion that "a plaintiff
suffers a concrete informational injury where he is denied access
to information required to be disclosed by statute, and he
suffers, by being denied access to that information, the type of
harm Congress sought to prevent by requiring disclosure."

Applying the reasoning in Spokeo, the Fourth Circuit found that
the plaintiff had not suffered a cognizable and specific injury,
even an intangible "informational injury," where the credit
reporting agency did not report the name of the servicer for the
tradeline in addition to the creditor.

The Appellate Court also pointed out that the plaintiff had failed
to demonstrate how the exclusion of the servicer's name would have
made any difference in the fairness or accuracy of his credit
report or the efficiency of resolving his credit dispute, and
rejected the plaintiff's argument that there was value in "knowing
who it is you're dealing with" or that the servicer was hiding who
it really was.

Instead, the Fourth Circuit found that the servicer name missing
from the credit report did not have any practical effect on the
plaintiff. Thus, the Appellate Court concluded that the plaintiff
had merely alleged a statutory violation without concrete harm.

The Fourth Circuit held, contrary to the trial court's holding,
that "a statutory violation alone does not create a concrete
informational injury sufficient to support standing," rather, it
must create a "real harm with an adverse effect."

Therefore, the Appellate Court held that the plaintiff failed to
assert Article III standing, and the trial court's holding in
favor of the plaintiff was vacated and the case was remanded to
the trial court for dismissal. [GN]

The case is Dreher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al,
No. 3:2011cv00624 (E.D. Va. 2013).

ST. STEPHENS CEMETERY: Police Says Charges Coming in Soon
Julie Dolan, writing for WLKY, reports that desecrated graves,
double burials and missing headstones are just some of claims
against St. Stephens Cemetery, in Louisville.

Now, months after dozens of police reports were filed, Louisville
Metro Police Department Detective Nathan Blanford says charges
will be filed soon against the former caretaker.

"We have reports of headstones being moved, bodies being moved,
headstones that were paid for and supposedly ordered and never
arrived, vaults being ordered that never arrived. We also have
reports that when there was a burial, the family would come for
the funeral and she [former caretaker] would say, 'It's not ready.
You need to leave,' and when they would leave, there's no telling
what happened after that," Blanford says.

The first report was made last year when an excavation turned up
an empty plot. In March, a desecration of graves was discovered,
prompting more than 50 additional families to file police reports.

Blanford understands they want answers but says, "What all these
victims have to understand is that we can't work on this and solve
it in a week. This is going to be months, and honestly, probably
years. Not everyone even knows about this."

Blanford says LMPD is currently investigating the former caretaker
who's accused of mismanaging the grounds and finances. Blanford
says the estimated damage is in the tens of thousands of dollars.
He says it's a tough case due to the number of reports and
emotions involved.

"My mother is passed away, and if my mother was here, I'd be mad.
I was mad when I got it. It's not right," he said.

Blanford and his partner are working exclusively on this case, and
he wants victims to know they plan to move forward with charges
soon. Even then, he admits, it's hard to find justice and right
this wrong.

"I don't think you can right it. All you can do is help these
families have closure. Ultimately that'll be up to the grand jury.
For all the victims that are thinking nothing is happening, it is
happening. Just be patient. we're working on it constantly," said

A class-action lawsuit has been filed against the board of St.
Stephens Cemetery. Blanford says the Attorney General's Office is
handling the civil investigation.

WLKY reached out to the former caretaker's attorney, Scott C. Cox,
but was told he's not ready to comment on the case.

If you are a victim and have not filed a police report, you can
contact the department by called 502-574-LMPD. [GN]

SYNAGEVA BIOPHARMA: Faces "Lahiff" Suit in Texas State Court
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Synageva Biopharma
Corp. The case is captioned as Carol Lahiff, John Markow, and Paul
Nee, the Plaintiffs, v. Synageva Biopharma Corp., Case No. 429-
02180-2017 (Tex. Dist. Ct., 429th District, Collin County, May 9,

Synageva BioPharma is a publicly listed biopharmaceutical company
headquartered in Lexington, Massachusetts dedicated to
discovering, developing and delivering medicines for patients with
rare diseases and high unmet medical needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jamie J McKey, Esq.
          McKinney, Ste 700,
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744 3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          E-mail: jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

TARGET: Settles 2013 Data Breach with 47 States for $18.5MM
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that retail giant
Target has agreed to pay a total of $18.5 million in a settlement
with 47 states over a 2013 consumer data breach that resulted in
over 100 million pieces of credit card or personal information
being stolen by hackers.  California will receive more than $1.4
million from the settlement, the largest share of any state.

The May 23 settlement came after a multi-state investigation led
by the Connecticut and Illinois Attorneys General Offices.  That
investigation found that hackers accessed Target's gateway server
using credentials stolen from a third-party vendor, according to
statements from the participating states.

The hackers used those credentials to break into Target's system,
allowing them access to a customer service database, into which
they installed malware to capture data, including consumers'
personal and credit card data, as well as encrypted debit PINs.
The attackers made off with more than 41 million customer card
accounts nationwide and contact information for more than 60
million customers.

Jon Lambiras -- jlambiras@bm.net -- a securities and consumer
protection lawyer at Berger & Montague in Philadelphia who was not
involved in the Target litigation, said settlements of this nature
have historically been rare, but that could change now.

"It very well may foreshadow what could happen in the future,
especially since the settlement goes to the attorney generals'
budget to fund enforcement actions. It provides an incentive for
the AGs to get involved," Mr. Lambiras said.

Deterrence was a major theme brought up by many of the attorneys
general who released statements about the agreement.

The $18.5 million settlement with the states, coupled with the
approved $10 million consumer class action settlement, may seem
like a drop in the bucket for a retail juggernaut like Target, but
according to Mr. Lambiras, the deterrent effect lies in the
residual legal and public relations costs companies incur
following a data breach.

In a statement on May 23, Connecticut Attorney General George
Jepsen said the settlement should serve as a wake-up call to
companies to tighten their data security.  He also gave kudos to
Target for working with authorities after the breach.

"Target deserves credit for its actions in response to this
breach, including its cooperation with our investigation and
negotiations that led to this settlement," Mr. Jepsen said.  "I'm
also hopeful that this settlement will serve to inform other
companies as to what is expected of them in terms of the security
of their consumers' information."

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement
that the settlement "should send a strong message to other
companies: you are responsible for protecting your customers'
personal information.  Not just sometimes -- always."

The only states not participating in the settlement are Alabama,
Wisconsin and Wyoming.

According to the statement, the agreement also requires Target to
develop and maintain a comprehensive information security program
and employ an executive or officer responsible for overseeing it.
Target is required to hire an independent third-party to conduct a
security assessment of its system.

TESLA INC: Law Firms Vie for Derivative Case Lead Counsel Post
Tom McParland, writing for Law.com, reports that plaintiffs'
attorneys are setting up for a battle in Delaware federal court
over lead counsel status in derivative litigation challenging
Tesla Inc.'s $2.6 billion bid to acquire an allegedly failing
solar energy system installer SolarCity Corp.

On May 4, attorneys from Grant & Eisenhofer, Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd moved to consolidate and
appoint co-lead counsel in two cases in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware, each accusing Tesla CEO Elon Musk
and Tesla's officers of overpaying for the firm in a conflicted
deal that would allegedly benefit Musk and his family members.

The budding leadership fight mirrors a similar dispute that played
out late last year in the Delaware Court of Chancery, where the
firms beat out San Diego-based Bottini & Bottini in September to
be named co-lead counsel in consolidated litigation over the same

Bottini & Bottini is currently representing two Tesla shareholders
who sued in March on behalf of the company in Delaware federal
court.  The three rival firms followed with a separate derivative
suit on April 21, representing a slew of pension funds and other
"institutional plaintiffs" that had invested in Tesla.

Two weeks later, Robbins Geller and its allies moved for
consolidation and lead counsel status.  Though the firms' brief
was filed under seal, Robbins Geller attorney Randall J. Baron
said on May 8 that the firms wanted to ensure coordinated efforts
at both the state and federal level.

"Our fundamental point is to make sure that it is coordinated and
duplication of effort doesn't occur," Baron said.

Bottini & Bottini has not yet responded to the motion, but Baron
said he expected to see a filing in the coming weeks.

An attorney from Bottini & Bottini did not respond on May 8 to a
call seeking comment on the cases.

Like the Chancery Court case, both suits claim that Musk -- a 22.1
percent owner of Tesla stock who also owned a 21.9 percent stake
in SolarCity -- pushed for the merger, despite the fact that
SolarCity had accumulated more than $3 billion in debt. The
acquisition, they said in court filings, amounted to a bailout for
SolarCity and Musk's cousins, who founded the company in 2006.

According to court documents, Musk tried to hide the state of
SolarCity's finances from stockholders, who voted to approve the
merger in November. Meanwhile, Tesla's board never formed a
special committee of independent directors to evaluate the deal,
plaintiffs said.

"The acquisition benefitted Elon Musk, his brother, his cousins
and other Tesla insiders at the expense of Tesla and its minority
stockholders," the institutional plaintiffs said in their
April 21 complaint.  "Thus, the Tesla board's approval of the
acquisition constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and waste of
corporate assets, unjustly enriched Elon Musk and the other Tesla
board members who are SolarCity stockholders."

An attorney for the director defendants was not immediately
available to comment, and Tesla's press office did not respond on
May 8 to an email seeking comment for this story.

Mr. Musk, who has served as Tesla's CEO since 2008, is also the
company's largest shareholder.  In addition to Tesla and
SolarCity, he has also founded space-exploration company SpaceX.

Grant & Eisenhofer, Kessler Topaz and Robbins Geller all represent
plaintiffs in the case captioned Arkansas Teacher Retirement
System v. Musk.  Bottini & Bottini, along with the Wilmington-
based firm Cooch and Taylor, represent plaintiffs in the case
Freeman v. Musk.

The cases have not yet been assigned to a judge, though both have
been referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke of the
District of Delaware.

Garrett B. Moritz -- gmoritz@ramllp.com -- a partner with Ross
Aronstam & Moritz, is listed as defending Musk and the other
director defendants in the Freeman case.  He did not respond on
May 8 to a request for comment.

Meanwhile, the Chancery Court case, captioned In re: Tesla Motors
Stockholder Litigation, is assigned to Vice Chancellor Joseph R.
Slights III.

TEXAS: Austin Sues State Over Ban on 'Sanctuary Cities'
Philip Jankowski, writing for My Statesman, reports that in what
several experts characterized as a move to take the reins of legal
challenges against the "sanctuary cities" ban under Senate Bill 4,
the Austin City Council voted late May 18 to sue the state of

Austin now joins the city and county of El Paso as Texas urban
areas set to sue the state over the controversial immigration law.
The small border city of El Cenizo and Maverick County have
already sued the state. Dallas and San Antonio could authorize
legal action against the state.

Austin was already headed to court over the law after state
Attorney General Ken Paxton -- info@KenPaxton.com -- of Office of
the Attorney General, sued the city and each individual council
member in a lawsuit asking for a judge to declare the law
constitutional. Austin and Travis County have been targeted by
state lawmakers since Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez put in
place a policy declining to honor many jail detention requests
from federal immigration authorities.

But immigration law experts said a suit from Austin would allow
the city to better highlight issues that the city's legal team
might see as having the highest potential to overturn part or all
of the law. It also allows the city to tailor a suit to parts of
the law that apply most directly to Austin.

"It would allow them to have some ability to frame the legal issue
in a way that is clearer in terms of the reasons why the city of
Austin would be harmed by implementation of SB 4," said Denise
Gilman, a law professor and the director the Immigration Clinic at
the University of Texas.

UT professor and attorney Jim Harrington, founder of the Texas
Civil Rights Project, said preparing a suit would allow Austin to
have a head start in case Paxton's lawsuit is dismissed.

Faye M. Kolly, Esq. -- Faye@dmcausa.com -- of De Mott, McChesney,
Curtright and Armendariz, LLP, a local immigration attorney, said
it appears as though Austin is preparing to partner with other
cities in the legal fight. During May 18's meeting, Council Member
Greg Casar called Austin a part of a "broad coalition" challenging
SB 4.

That would increase the pool of resources and allow for a greater
range of courts to be used for filings.

Challenges over the law's constitutionality could take many forms.
Some might challenge the provision requiring cities to enforce
warrantless federal detention requests placed on people suspected
of illegal immigration. Others could challenge the vagueness of
what the law states are sanctuary policies. SB 4 could also be
seen as discriminatory because it might lead to racial profiling
of Hispanics.

"It also sounds like they are looking for some class action or
joint action," Kolly said. "They believe they have a better shot
if they want to join a wider class. They could cast a wider net,
as far as for discovery."

The vote came after an emotional plea from Council Member Sabino
"Pio" Renteria, who said that he has seen growing fear among the
immigrants in his district, which is made up of parts of East,
Southeast and South Austin.

"It's a sad time here in the state," Renteria said. "I'm very
disappointed because of all of this hard work I have done in my
life to fight for equality just seems like it is slowly
disappearing and the hate's coming back."

The resolution passed 10-1 with the council's lone conservative,
Ellen Troxclair, voting against.

"I have a specific responsibility to speak up on behalf of the
people that hold a different and equally important view of the
city of Austin being both welcoming and lawful," Troxclair said.
"In the midst of our affordability crisis, this is going to cost
the city an unspecified amount of money to do something that I've
had federal immigration officials tell me is making our city less
safe." [GN]

THREE J'S: Faces "Cavanaugh" Suit in California Superior Court
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Three J's
Distributing Inc. The case is captioned as Arthur Cavanaugh, all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
the Plaintiff, v. Does 1-100 and Three J's Distributing Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 34-2017-00212201-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento County, May 9, 2017).

Three J's is a food and beverages company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          7428 Trade St.
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          E-mail: info@turleylawfirm.com

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 11th Cir. Rejects Bid to Restart Wage Suit
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
appeals court on May 18 rejected a challenge to a Florida federal
judge's order that sent a proposed class action claiming Uber
Technologies Inc. misclassified drivers as independent contractors
to individual arbitration.

In a two-page per curiam ruling, a unanimous three-judge panel of
the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to consider the
drivers' arguments because they had not previously raised them at
the district court level.[GN]

UNION BANK: Proposed Suit Should Be Dismissed, Says Magistrate
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a proposed
class action challenging the Principal Stable Value Fund's fees
and performance should be dismissed because the lead plaintiff
stands to gain no money from a legal victory, a magistrate judge
recommended (Austin v. Union Bank & Trust Co., D. Or., No. 3:14-
cv-00706-YY, report and recommendation issued 5/17/17).

An earlier ruling had allowed portions of the case to move
forward, but a magistrate judge recommended May 17 that the
lawsuit be dismissed because the named plaintiff, Kerry D. Austin,
never had standing to bring his claims. Austin sold his investment
in the Principal Stable Value Fund shortly before filing the
lawsuit, and he had less than $1 invested in this fund during the
proposed class period, the judge said. Because Austin's potential
recovery in this case was less than 1 cent, the magistrate said
the case should be dismissed for lack of standing.

The lawsuit argues that the stable value fund drained workers'
retirement savings by charging excessive fees and using an unduly
conservative investment strategy that failed to keep pace with
inflation. A similar lawsuit targeting CVS Health's stable value
fund was dismissed last month. In March, a federal judge certified
a class action accusing JPMorgan of the inverse problem --
adopting an overly risky investment strategy for its fund.

Stable value funds -- which are meant to be conservative, low-risk
options that protect against interest rate volatility -- have
become a flash point in litigation under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act. Retirement plan sponsors including Anthem
Inc., Chevron Corp. and Insperity Inc. have been sued for failing
to include stable value funds in their investment lineups. None of
those claims succeeded. Other lawsuits have targeted the companies
that offer and manage stable value funds, with cases pending
against Fidelity Management Trust Co., Massachusetts Mutual Life
Insurance Co. and Prudential Retirement Insurance & Annuity Co.

In determining that Austin lacked standing, the magistrate judge
said the "miniscule amount Austin has at stake in this litigation"
is "problematic." Because he stood to recover less than 1 cent,
Austin failed to show that his alleged injury could be redressed
by a favorable decision, the magistrate judge said.

"In this court's view, whatever it means to have a palpable
economic injury, it means something more than a loss that rounds
to $0.00," the magistrate judge said.

This lack of standing wasn't remedied by a potential new plaintiff
who alleged damages of more than $700, the magistrate judge said.
That's because the "critical moment for examining standing" is
when a case is filed, the magistrate judge said.

Given this, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon recommended that the case be
dismissed. This recommendation can be accepted, rejected or
modified by the district judge hearing the case.

Austin is represented by Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter PC,
Keller Rohrback LLP, Schneider Wallace Cottrell & Konecky LLP,
Edgar Law Firm LLC and Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow LLP. The
Principal defendants -- Union Bank & Trust Co. and Morley Capital
Management -- were represented by Sidley Austin LLP and Kilmer
Voorhees & Laurick PC. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Faces Evideo Suit in Federal Claims Court
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the U.S. government.
individually and on behalf of a class of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. USA, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00663-LKG (Fed. Cl., May 22, 2017).  The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby.

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick R. Delaney, Esq.
          44 Canal Center Plaza
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 519 9951
          Facsimile: (703) 519 9958
          E-mail: pdelaney@dcpatent.com

UNITY NATIONAL: Account Holders' Suit v. Kase Lawal Terminated
The case captioned Dr. Julius J. Larry III, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated account-holders, depositors
and shareholders of Unity National Bank of Houston, Plaintiffs, v.
Kase Lawal, Dr. Lee P. Brown, Mustata Tameez, Carol Alvarado,
Kamora Lawal, Sharon Murphy, and Richard Leader, Board of
Directors, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01251 (S.D. Tex., April
21, 2017), was terminated on May 11, 2017, according to the case

Plaintiff had argued that Defendant Kase Lawal, allegedly the
majority shareholder at Unity Bank, seized power from the Board of
Directors and installed himself as chairman.  This Nigerian
defendant then "hired" a new unqualified white president for the
Black bank without a search or interviews.  Plaintiffs were
mortally afraid that defendant will squander the millions of
dollars of assets of Unity National Bank and transfer them to
Nigeria or his other business interests, to the detriment of all
of the account-holders, depositors and shareholders of Unity Bank.

Plaintiff sought to enjoin the Defendant and all those acting in
concert with him, from transferring any of the assets of Unity
National Bank, engaging in any conduct detrimental to Unity
National Bank, engaging in conduct that substantially interferes
with the proper administration of the day-to-day business of Unity
National Bank, and conducting board meetings regarding Unity
National Bank.

Kase Lawal is a Nigerian who owns CAMAC ENERGY and is reportedly
the majority shareholder at Unity Bank. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Julius J. Larry III, Esq.
     3730 Kirby Drive - Suite 1050
     Houston, TX 77098
     Phone: 832 384 6908
     Fax: 713 522 4746
     E-mail: dr.juliusjlarry@yahoo.com

VANTAGE TRAVEL: "Hebert" Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts
The class action lawsuit titled Ronald Hebert and Aime Denault,
On Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Vantage Travel Service, Inc., d/b/a Vantage Deluxe
World Travel and Vantage Adventures, the Defendant, Case No.
SUCV2017-0757-BLS2, was removed on May 19, 2017, from the Suffolk
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for District of
Massachusetts (Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:17-cv-10922-DJC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper.

Vantage Travel, doing business as Vantage Deluxe World Travel,
operates as a travel company. The company provides escorted
journeys, including river cruises, small ship cruises, land tours,
and ocean cruises to destinations worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. O'Connor, Jr., Esq.
          625 Main Street
          Fitchburg, MA 01420
          Telephone: (978) 342 4590
          Facsimile: (978) 343 6383
          E-mail: joconnor@npolegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rodney E. Gould, Esq.
          Robert C. Mueller, Esq.
          55 Old Bedford Road, Suite 300
          Lincoln, MA 01773-1125
          Telephone: (617) 228 4400
          Facsimile: (781) 259 1112
          E-mail: rgould@smithduggan.com

VISA INC: 9th Circ. Clamps Down on Those Who Dodge Jurisdiction
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Recorder, reports that class
action lawyers, take note: "Resident" is not the same thing as
"citizen." And trying to use the words interchangeably to avoid
federal jurisdiction won't get by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

Ruling 2-1 on May 18, the panel found that amending a complaint in
an antitrust class action against Visa Inc. to replace "resident"
with "citizen" after the case was removed to federal court was not
enough to avoid federal jurisdiction under an exception of the
U.S. Class Action Fairness Act. In so holding, the panel reversed
a lower court's remand order while attempting to clarify the scope
of its own 2015 decision, Benko v. Quality Loan Service Corp.,
which permits plaintiffs to amend their complaint in order to
clarify jurisdiction but had created uncertainty in the lower

"In this case plaintiffs have attempted to do what CAFA was
intended to prevent: an amendment changing the nature of the class
to divest the federal court of jurisdiction," wrote Judge Mary
Schroeder for the majority in Broadway Grill v. Visa. Benko
allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint to "provide some
amplification, for federal jurisdictional purposes," Schroeder
wrote, but did not "permit plaintiffs to amend their class
definition, add or remove defendant, or add or remove claims in
such a way that would alter the essential jurisdictional

The appeal revolves around CAFA's "local controversy" exception,
which applies when two-thirds of the class members and a
"significant" defendant are citizens of the state where the case
was filed. The exception allows plaintiffs to keep class actions
in state courts, which they consider to be more favorable to them
than federal courts. The CAFA exception has plagued several class
actions filed over the Flint, Michigan water crisis.

In the Ninth Circuit case, the majority turned to recent decisions
by the Seventh, Second, Fifth, Eighth and Tenth circuits in
holding that remand orders must be based on the pleadings at the
time the case is removed and not after it's been amended once

In a dissent, Judge Johnnie Rawlinson said the majority
"essentially engaged in a stealth reversal of Benko."

"The description of the class was defined more precisely without
in any way expanding or modifying the allegations underlying the
asserted cause of action," she wrote. "Our analysis in Benko
approves of just such an amendment."

Plaintiff's attorney Nancy Fineman, a principal at Cotchett, Pitre
& McCarthy in Burlingame, California, said the case always
intended to represent just California citizens and attributed the
original complaint's language to "an inadvertent mistake."
"But when we drafted the complaint, we weren't as precise as we
now will be in the future if this decision stands," she said.
She was not sure whether her client, the owner of a Burlingame
restaurant, would petition for a full panel to rehear the case.
But she acknowledged that courts could use some guidance in
attempting to follow Benko.

"This is a huge case with big implications, not just for us,"
Fineman said. "There's been at least, since Benko was decided, 10
or so cases that dealt with this issue."

A spokeswoman for Visa, declined to comment. The company is
represented in the appeal by Sharon Mayo, senior counsel in the
San Francisco office of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer.

Broadway Grill Inc. filed its case on July 12, 2016, in San Mateo
Superior Court in California, asserting that Visa conspired with
banks that issued its cards to fix the rates charged to merchants.
The original complaint was brought on behalf of "all California
individuals, businesses and other entities" that used Visa cards
since 2004.

Visa, which is based in Foster City, California, removed the case
to federal court, where Chief Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the
Northern District of California on Aug. 29 refused to grant a
remand motion since many of the class members might not be
California citizens.  But Hamilton allowed the plaintiff to amend
its complaint, citing the Benko decision, and on Sept. 27 granted
remand of the case.

On appeal of that remand order, the majority agreed that the
plaintiff had gone too far in its reliance on Benko.
"The amendment in this case," Schroeder wrote, "did not provide an
explanation of the allegations, but changed the definition of the
class itself."[GN]

VOESTALPINE USA: Faces "Chapman" Suit in S.D. Texas
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Voestalpine USA
Corp.  The case is titled as Blake Chapman, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Voestalpine USA Corp., Voestalpine Texas Holding, LLC, and
Voestalpine Texas, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00174
(S.D. Tex., May 22, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Nelva Gonzales Ramos.

Voestalpine USA is a metals service center located in Houston,

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
          Alan Cliffton Gordon, Esq.
          Austin W Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren Elizabeth 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

               - and -

          Kevin Warren Liles, Esq.
          Stuart Ryan White, Esq.
          Todd Ames Hunter, Jr., Esq.
          500 N. Water Street, Suite 800
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 826 0100
          Facsimile: (361) 826 0101
          E-mail: efiling@lileswhite.com

WAL-MART STORES: Settles First LGBT Class Action
Erin Mulvaney, writing for The National Law Journal reports that
Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s multimillion-dollar agreement to compensate
employees who were refused benefits for same-sex partners marks
one of the first class action settlements brought on behalf of
LGBT workers, and it comes at a time when the legal and corporate
landscapes are moving toward embracing equal protections.

A Boston federal judge approved the settlement on May 16  to end a
lawsuit that accused the retail giant of discriminating against
gay and lesbian employees in denying health insurance benefits to
same-sex spouses. Under the deal, Wal-Mart will set aside $7.5
million to compensate employees affected by the denial three years
before it changed its policy. It also covers legal fees and

This decision could represent the latest in a rapid shift toward
LGBT protections in the workplace, a move spurred not only by the
interest of companies that feel social pressure but also by the
courts, where a company's failure to offer equal protections could
become a liability.

"This class action settlement breaks new ground," the attorneys
for the plaintiffs said in court documents. "This is the first
class action brought on behalf of LGBTQ workers to be certified
and settled, and hopefully the settlement of this action will
inspire other LGBTQ workers to employ the class action device to
secure equal rights in the future."

Suzanne Goldberg, a Columbia Law School professor who leads the
school's Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, agreed that this was
the first such case and said as corporate norms are changing, the
courts are moving side by side to say sexual orientation
discrimination cannot be permitted.

"The decision to settle reflects a recognition that it is no
longer acceptable for major employers to discriminate against
their lesbian and gay employees," Goldberg said. "It recognizes
that discrimination is bad for business in many respects. It hurts
recruitment and retention and can hurt company in its sales and
marketing efforts."

The case -- Cote v. Wal-Mart Stores -- was filed before Wal-Mart
voluntarily made health insurance benefits available to same-sex
spouses in 2014. As part of the settlement, Wal-Mart committed to
continuing to do so in the future. The settlement will affect
several thousand current and former associates who did not receive
benefits between 2011 and 2013.

Attorneys for the chain did not respond to request for comment
about broader implications of the settlement.

Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq. -- prf@outtengolden.com -- an Outten &
Golden attorney in Washington who represented Cote, declined to
comment on the settlement. When asked broadly about the issues the
lawsuit raised, he said that most large companies are now giving
equal health and pension benefits to employees who have same-sex

"There certainly are companies out there that discriminate against
same-sex couples in the provision of benefits, but most employers
have taken the step of ensuring that they have equal benefits,"
Romer-Friedman said. He noted guidance from the U.S. Labor
Department in 2013 that required Employee Retirement Income
Security Act plans to extend benefits to same-sex couples.

"As a result, most big companies that have sophisticated counsel
are following that guidance," Romer-Friedman added. He also noted
federal courts are increasingly recognizing that LGBT workers are
protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits
employment discrimination based on sex.

A recent federal appeals court ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals
in the Seventh Circuit in Chicago said that discrimination against
employees on the basis of sexual orientation violates the Civil
Rights Act. It was hailed a landmark decision by gay rights
advocates. Other federal appeals courts, including the Eleventh
District, have ruled that the Civil Rights Act does not include
protections for gay or bisexual employees.

Yet, some observers say that public pressure has already pushed
many major companies toward equality for gay and lesbian workers.
The Human Rights Campaign, which provides an equality index to
examine whether employers protect LGBT workers, shows in its
annual reports that most Fortune 100 companies adopted policies to
provide equal protections for gay and lesbian workers. [GN]

WALTER INVESTMENT: "Elkin" Securities Suit Sent to E.D. Penn.
The securities class action captioned Courtney Elkin, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Walter
Investment Management, Corp., Denmar J. Dixon, George M. Awad,
Anthony N. Renzi, Gary L. Tillett, Case No. 1:17-cv-20997-UU,
(S.D. Fla., March 16, 2017) was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and assigned Case
No. 2:17-cv-02025-AB, according to a case docket dated May 3,

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence Matthew Rosen, Esq.
     275 Madison Avenue
     34th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-686-1060
     Fax: 202-3827
     Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     Edward Soto, Esq.
     1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: 305-577-3177
     Fax: 374-7159
     Email: edward.soto@weil.com

WILLIAMS & STROHM: "Boyd" Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
Kimberly Boyd and Terry Bacus, Jr., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Robin Strohm and
Williams & Strohm, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00320 (S.D.
Ohio, April 14, 2017) seeks redress for the unlawful, predatory
consumer debt collection practices of the Defendants in violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The complaint says the Defendants sent to each Plaintiff a
collection letter in an attempt to collect past due association
fees. However, the letter fails to identify the sender as a "debt
collector", a phrase which consumers recognize and associate with
consumer protection statutes such as the FDCPA. The omission of
such phrasing causes the consumer to question whether such rights
are available, says the complaint.

Defendant Williams & Strohm is a "debt collector".[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Matthew A. Schwartz, Esq.
   The Law Office of Matthew A. Schwartz
   230 Durand St.
   Pickerington, OH 43147
   Tel: (614) 949-9749
   Email: MSchwartzLaw@Gmail.com

        - and -

   Herbert Nelson Strayer, Jr., Esq.
   Strayer Legal
   7240 Muirfield Dr., Ste. 120
   Dublin, OH 43017
   Tel: 614-378-2262
   Fax: 614-372-8775
   Email: hstrayer@strayerlegal.com

YAHOO INC: Ad-free Email Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff Thomas Curtis subscribed to Yahoo's ad-free email
service. Though Yahoo promised ad-free email, it failed to
deliver. From September 2015 until July 2016, Curtis saw ads in
the right-hand panel of his account. The problem came to a head in
July 2016, when his inbox was also flooded with ads.

Believing that other subscribers had similar experiences, Curtis
filed a class action in the Superior Court of California, Santa
Clara County, on behalf of all users of Yahoo's ad-free email
service. He asserted causes of action under California's Unfair
Competition and False Advertising Laws. He also brought a claim
for breach of contract based on Yahoo's Terms of Service.
On May 18, 2017, in a well-reasoned decision, Judge Brian Walsh
held that those claims survived Yahoo's motion to dismiss. Curtis
will now move full speed ahead into discovery, continuing to press
his claims on behalf of the putative class.

Curtis is represented by Paul B. Maslo, Esq. and Andrew J.
Dressel, Esq. at Napoli Shkolnik PLLC. Yahoo is represented by
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

If you subscribe to Yahoo's ad-free email service and have
experienced a similar problem, we encourage you to call us at
(212) 397-1000.

                   About the firm

Napoli Shkolnik PLLC is a national litigation firm providing
representation to plaintiffs in class actions and complex
commercial litigation, as well as victims of environmental
contamination disasters, aviation accidents, defective
prescription drugs and medical devices, asbestos-related
illnesses, and other serious personal injury matters. The firm has
offices in California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas. [GN]

* Class Action Risks of Comparative Price Advertising
C. Brandon Wisoff, Esq., at Farella Braun + Martel LLP, in an
article for JD Supra, asked "Was that retail 'bargain' you
received really a bargain?"

That is the question being asked by a recent spate of lawsuits
filed against prominent retailers. Most of these actions have been
brought as private party class actions, but price discount claims
have also attracted renewed regulatory attention in recent years.
The facts and circumstances of these cases have varied. Some
actions have challenged as false a retailer's assertion that a
product is "on sale" or has been "discounted" from the retailer's
former or regular price. Others have challenged a retailer's
supposedly favorable price comparisons to prices of a competitor's
same products or to prices of other "similar" products that are
not actually of like grade and quality. Still others have
challenged a retailer's supposed "discount" from a list price or
MSRP at which the product has never sold. Despite these
differences, the gravamen of the claim in each instance is
typically the same: the retailer is allegedly misleading consumers
into believing they are receiving a bargain when they are in fact
paying the price at which the product normally sells.

While the majority of these cases have been brought in California
(with the benefit of California's liberal consumer protection
laws), cases are appearing nationwide and the publicity
surrounding them suggests their numbers will only grow. That is
especially true given the proliferation of internet price
searching tools and the resulting pressure that retailers feel to
compete on price and to respond to "bargains" being offered by
their competitors. The risk to retailer clients is substantial:
some of these claims have resulted in multimillion dollar
settlements and/or regulatory fines. Even where cases are
terminated early, defense costs can be significant.

In this article, I first summarize the historical background and
legal bases of these "false discounting" claims. I review how the
FTC, which had developed deceptive pricing guides and then
vigorously pursued such claims in the 1960's, had -- most likely
for policy reasons -- all but abandoned enforcement actions
related to pricing by the 1980's. I also mention generally various
state law deceptive pricing provisions, most of which derive from
the FTC model. I next discuss the recent resurgence of these
claims over the last few years, primarily via private class
actions, but also by regulatory (primarily state regulatory)
enforcement actions. After summarizing some of the cases and their
outcomes, I conclude by suggesting a few measures that retailers
can take to mitigate the risks.[GN]

* How 401(k) Advisers Can Bullet-Proof Against Litigation Risk
Greg Iacurci writing for Investment News reports tons of 401(k)
advisers will be prone to litigation come June, and advisers need
to know where the pitfalls lie and how best to protect themselves.

Many advisers who service 401(k) plans will, for the first time,
be considered fiduciaries with respect to their investment advice
when the Labor Department's conflict-of-interest rule comes into
force next month.

Along with that heightened standard comes litigation risk for
retirement plan advisers, as well as those advising 401(k)
participants on rollovers to individual retirement accounts.

"Under the rule, it's pretty hard not to be a fiduciary," said
Brian Graff, executive director of the National Association of
Plan Advisors. "Relative to today, after June 9 there's definitely
more litigation risk. For 401(k) plans it's not academic anymore.
It's very real."

To a certain degree, it's impossible for advisers to completely
bulletproof themselves against litigation. But knowing how to
mitigate risks, keeping stringent documentation and being aware of
major problem areas are keys to prevention.


Advisers may be wondering how exactly they'll be exposed to
litigation risk come June.

After all, many provisions of the fiduciary rule, which raises
investment-advice standards in retirement accounts, aren't
scheduled to kick in until the beginning of next year. One of
those provisions includes execution of a best-interest contract
that would allow retail investors to bring class-action lawsuits
if they feel they've been wronged.

Participants in 401(k) plans, though, have a 40-plus-year-old
mechanism available to them under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, which allows them to sue for fiduciary
breach. While this is by no means a new legal standard, the number
of advisers that will be exposed to it, beginning next month, will
climb exponentially.

"If today there are X number of fiduciaries across the land, on
June 9 there will probably be 10X," said Skip Schweiss, managing
director of adviser advocacy and industry affairs at TD Ameritrade

The 401(k) market has been fertile ground over the past decade for
class-action lawsuits brought by plan participants against
employers and some service providers, such as record keepers, for
breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA.

Such lawsuits have yielded some large monetary settlements,
typically from big corporations with massive retirement plans. For
example, Lockheed Martin paid a record $62 million in 2015; that
same year the Boeing Co. paid $57 million in a separate

Plan advisers and advisory firms have largely been kept out of the
suits. Proving an adviser is a fiduciary under the current
framework is difficult, according to observers.

Going forward, advisers and their firms could find themselves co-
defendants alongside plan sponsors facing allegations of fiduciary

To a lesser degree, there's also risk of the Labor Department
conducting an investigation into a fiduciary adviser's practices.
Depending on the outcome of such an audit, advisers may be subject
to excise taxes and restoration of any "ill-gotten gains" to
retirement plans, said Charles Humphrey, principal at an eponymous
law firm and a former DOL attorney.

However, the DOL tends to focus its energy on plan issues rather
than issues with specific advisers, said Mr. Humphrey, who doesn't
expect "really much [DOL] enforcement in this area" in the next

So how can advisers protect themselves?

While there's not much advisers can do to prevent being named in a
lawsuit, they should, as a practical matter, conduct a cost-
benefit analysis on fiduciary liability insurance ahead of June,
said Marcia Wagner, principal at The Wagner Law Group.

Depending on the policy, the insurance could cover legal fees and
damages, she said.

"[Brokers] get errors and omissions insurance, but that's not
covering ERISA fiduciary liability issues. In fact, most E&O
carves that stuff out. So these guys could be naked to a certain
degree," Ms. Wagner said.

Recommendation Fee

Principally, advisers can get in trouble for recommending
investments as well as other fiduciary services, such as other
fiduciary advisers, for some sort of fee.

Brokers and advisers receiving a fee for their investment
recommendations to 401(k) plans come June must adhere to the
impartial conduct standards to avoid running afoul of the
fiduciary rule and, therefore, ERISA.

Three factors are involved in the impartial conduct standards:
acting in a client's best interest, receiving reasonable
compensation for a recommendation and making no materially
misleading statements to clients.

Most broker-dealers, for example, have handled this in part by
moving to a level-compensation arrangement, whereby advisers
receive a flat fee, expressed as a dollar amount or a percentage
of plan assets, for investment advice on the fund menu, said Fred
Reish, partner at law firm Drinker Biddle & Reath. This eliminates
any variability in adviser compensation paid via investments, and
any consequential influence such variability would have on fund

And, for those advisers who aren't specialized in retirement-plan
business, some broker-dealers are mandating those non-specialists
can't provide the advice -- rather, they must use an outsourced
"platform adviser" such as Mesirow Financial to provide the

Interestingly, firms exercising more control, by allowing for less
individual decision-making on the part of plan advisers, open
themselves up to class-action litigation because there's more
uniformity of action, and therefore greater likelihood to certify
an affected class of participants, said Lawrence Cagney, partner
at Debevoise & Plimpton.

On the flip side, with more adviser control comes greater
likelihood for improper documentation or consideration of relevant
detail, he said.

"It's a very interesting conundrum, and I'm not sure there's a
great way to insulate oneself from liability other than creating a
record as best you can," Mr. Cagney said. "In the ERISA arena, if
you can't prove why you did something, it will be very hard to
prevail on that litigation."

Cost, Not Performance

But there are some subtle nuances advisers should heed when
advising clients.

Whereas advisers and plan sponsors focus most of their energy on
the quality of the investment management (e.g., fund performance),
that's not where the greatest litigation risk lies, Mr. Reish
said. Instead, advisers should be focusing on fund costs and share
class. A mutual fund expense ratio is a quantitative, rather than
qualitative, issue and is therefore easier to attack in a lawsuit,
he said.

In fact, excessive investment fees are where a large portion of
the lawsuits to date have centered.

And, perhaps counterintuitively, advisers should incorporate
record-keeper benchmarking into their service offerings as a way
to determine if fund fees are reasonable, especially if a plan
pays for record-keeping services through revenue-sharing fees like
12b-1 or sub-transfer-agency fees, he said.

If participants are paying too much money via revenue sharing to a
record keeper, it means the participants are paying too much for
investment management, Mr. Reish said. And to know if a record
keeper is receiving excessive compensation for its service, an
adviser needs to know how to evaluate record keepers.

"It's OK to pay revenue sharing to the record keeper. It's just
paying too much that's the problem," Mr. Reish said.

Further, even the recommendation of a record keeper could get
advisers in trouble, according to legal experts.

Appreciate The Nuance

"There are a lot of plan advisers that aren't appreciating the
nuance around the record-keeper recommendation," Mr. Graff said.
"It's not a previous mistake, but under the new rule the
recommendation of a record keeper will be considered, in most
cases, a fiduciary act."

While the recommendation of a non-fiduciary service provider such
as a record keeper, especially one whose platform is open-
architecture and offers hundreds or thousands of investment
choices, is not a fiduciary act, recommending a more limited
platform -- perhaps one with 20-30 investments -- could be
considered a fiduciary recommendation, Mr. Reish said.

As mentioned previously, another potential area for trip-ups is
adviser referrals. While some less-experienced plan advisers may
refer current or potential clients to more experienced advisers in
order to avoid fiduciary liability, the referral itself could be a
fiduciary act, whether the fee is explicit, such as a finder's
fee, or implicit.

Rollovers represent perhaps the most significant problem area,
experts said. While advice to IRA clients isn't subject to any
meaningful enforcement until the full scope of the rule comes into
force next year, advice on rollovers from a 401(k) plan to an IRA
are subject to litigation risk beginning in June.

That's because the recommendation is affecting money held in an
ERISA plan.

"I would caution any adviser to create the record that the best-
interest contract would have wanted them to create if it was fully
applicable," Mr. Cagney said.

That includes comparing a participant's 401(k) plan with an
individual retirement account (including investment options and
cost structure), weighing the benefits of both vehicles, and
documenting the process to prove a selection is ultimately in a
client's best interest, he explained.

Separate from the economics of the recommendation, a client's
specific desires may influence the decision -- in which case,
advisers may wish to have clients sign a document outlining those

Rollover recommendations, unlike those of 401(k) plan investments,
seem less prone to class-action litigation, observers said. The
same suite of 401(k) investments is available to participants, so
participants are more likely able to represent a class of
similarly situated individuals. But IRA recommendations are often
more individualized.[GN]

* Lawsuits Aim to Address Big Law Gender Equality Problem
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that Big Law
has a major gender equality problem, according to David Sanford,
the chairman of Sanford Heisler Sharp.

Mr. Sanford is in a position to know.  His firm is taking action
to address the disparities he sees -- it currently represents
about a dozen woman partners, and it is pursuing bias claims
against at least five firms in cases that are not yet public. He's
also handled many cases that ended in confidential settlements --
deals that when added together, he says, enabled female partners
to recover tens of millions of dollars.

"Certainly some firms are worse than others," Mr. Sanford said.
"But I think it's also fair to say that the legal industry has a
problem as an industry.  The numbers aren't good across the
country in Big Law."

As ALM publications have reported, Mr. Sanford is the lead
attorney in a trio of gender discrimination cases brought by
current and former female partners against Sedgwick, Chadbourne &
Parke and Proskauer Rose.  Those suits all seek millions of
dollars in damages, and generally allege that the firms gave
female partners short shrift on leadership opportunities and

The most recent suit, which Mr. Sanford filed May 12 against
Proskauer on behalf of an unnamed partner in the firm's
Washington, D.C., office, seeks at least $50 million.  In addition
to pay equity issues raised in the other suits, the Proskauer
partner alleges she's been subjected to inappropriate comments
from male colleagues.

Mr. Sanford's efforts to correct bias in the legal industry don't
stop with those three suits, however.

The Washington, D.C.-based lawyer is representing roughly a dozen
woman partners from "Big Law" firms in connection with allegations
of gender bias, and his firm is actively pursuing bias claims for
eight or nine partners -- all involving different law firms.  That
group includes the three suits already in court and others in pre-
lawsuit negotiations, he said.

While three recent suits have become public -- and Sanford expects
others may emerge in the coming months -- he said that "more often
than not" his clients have resolved disputes with their firms
outside of court.

"When that happens you never find out about it," he said.  "We're
obliged to keep those details confidential and even the fact of
that happening confidential."

Although mum on specifics regarding past confidential settlements,
Mr. Sanford did say that he has represented both individuals and
groups of partners in those mediations.  And taking all of those
confidential deals in total, the recoveries for female partners
are in the range of "tens of millions of dollars," he said.

While the legal sector has serious gender discrimination issues,
Sanford said that Big Law's problems are emblematic of those in
"virtually every other industry" his firm has examined.  In many
sectors, he said, women are more likely to be passed over for
promotions or receive lower pay than their male counterparts.
"So I don't think that the legal industry has a special problem,"
said Mr. Sanford.  "But I do think it has a representative

When it comes to large law firms, he added, gender disparities
tend to heighten as lawyers move up the ranks.  Although he's seen
instances of woman associates receiving lower bonuses than men,
the lockstep approach that most firms use to set the base salaries
for associates can put a check on differences in pay at that
level, Mr. Sanford explained.

But higher up the chain, employment conditions for lawyers often
depend heavily on decisions made at the top of the firm, Sanford
said.  Firm leaders, for instance, decide whether to make a
particular lawyer a partner.  And they have control over
compensation, deciding how bonuses are administered or which
partners receive credit for originating a matter.

"We see the differences arise at those key moments of
discretionary authority," Mr. Sanford said.  "And that discretion
is typically administered by males."

* Pharmaceutical Cos. Sued Over Opioid Drug Deceptive Advertising
Kristen Rasmussen, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that by
the end of the year, Paul Hanly Jr. -- phanly@simmonsfirm.com --
predicts he will have sued pharmaceutical companies in more than
half of New York's 62 counties, alleging the drug manufacturers
deceptively marketed opioid painkillers such as OxyContin and

Mr. Hanly, a shareholder in the New York office of national firm
Simmons Hanly Conroy, is part of a growing wave of plaintiffs
lawyers who are bringing cases against major pharmaceutical
companies at a time when the country is grappling with what many
health officials call a crisis of addiction to prescription
painkillers and heroin, which has been linked to opioid abuse by
the federal government.  While these lawsuits have been around for
a while -- Kentucky filed one back in 2007 that settled for $24
million in 2015 -- there has been a significant uptick in filings
in the past several months.

Plaintiffs lawyers in these recent cases across the United States
are teaming with state and local governments, suing Big Pharma
through contingency-fee agreements.  Mr. Hanly already has filed
four cases in New York state courts in Buffalo, Binghamton,
Central Islip and Goshen on behalf of Erie, Broome, Suffolk and
Orange counties, respectively, and he said he plans to bring suits
for several more municipalities in New York in the upcoming days.
The most recent suit against the pharmaceutical companies was
filed by Mr. Hanly on May 11 in Orange County.

The opioid cases mark the latest front against the pharmaceutical
industry for its alleged role in the prescription opioid and
heroin addiction epidemic gripping the nation.

The lawsuits in federal, state and county courts -- including New
York, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Chicago and two California
counties -- are alleging that several pharmaceutical companies
inundated the country with painkillers by deceiving doctors and
the public about their safety.  Many of the complaints filed in
the contingency-fee cases share similarly worded language.
The suits generally contend prescription opioid drugmakers
intentionally engaged in a targeted marketing campaign claiming
that their painkillers could be prescribed nonaddictively.
Instead, according to the suits, the marketing techniques led to
patients becoming addicted to the prescription opioid painkillers.
They allege the painkiller addictions also led to patients
becoming addicted to heroin, which some addicts turn to as a
substitute when the prescription meds are not available, with the
public health and law enforcement costs passed on to taxpayers.

The complaints against the companies generally do not specify how
much the plaintiff believes their allegedly deceptive practices
have cost taxpayers.  According to a September 2016 study by the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the total
economic burden of prescription opioid and heroin abuse in the
United States is an estimated $78.5 billion annually, nearly 25
percent of which is shouldered by public sources.

A Page From the Big Tobacco $248 Billion Playbook
The plaintiffs firms are taking a page from the Big Tobacco
litigation playbook, when many state attorneys general offices
allied with private firms to challenge the adverse health effects
of smoking, as well as the tobacco companies' claim that
cigarettes were not addictive.  Lawsuits by states seeking
reimbursement for public health costs caused by smoking were
largely settled in a $248 billion master settlement in 1998, in
which the states and the federal government received compensation
for taxpayers' tobacco-related costs.

"It's the responsibility of the municipality, if they can, to
pursue the wrongdoing that's resulted in this epidemic, but as a
practical matter, there's no county in the country that could
possibly afford this kind of litigation," Mr. Hanly says.  "There
will be no such litigation if the counties are prohibited from
hiring contingency-fee lawyers."

"The case where a law enforcement agency looks for assistance from
outside counsel is one where the purpose of the case has really
important policy implications for the state, but, for whatever
reason, there are not enough resources in-house to execute the
goals of the agency," said Betsy Miller --
bmiller@cohenmilstein.com -- co-head of the public client practice
at prominent plaintiffs firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.  Cohen
Milstein caps its recovery amount in contingency-fee cases to 15
to 20 percent-lower than in the private sector, Ms. Miller added.

These civil actions also have kicked up a significant amount of
defense work for Big Law firms: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius represents
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., maker of Actiq and Fentora, and
Cephalon Inc., now a unit of Teva based in Frazer, Pennsylvania;
O'Melveny & Myers and Sidley Austin represent Johnson & Johnson's
Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., which makes Duragesic and Nucynta,
in New Brunswick, New Jersey; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
and Wiggin and Dana represent OxyContin and Dilaudid maker Purdue
Pharma Inc. with corporate headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut;
Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer
represent Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., maker of Opana and Percocet,
of Newark,
New Jersey; and Foley & Lardner represents Kadian manufacturer

Lawyers for the pharmaceutical companies have challenged the
contingency-fee agreements with little success.  Mr. Hanly says no
court in New York has found this sort of arrangement improper.
"We share public officials' concerns about the opioid crisis and
we are committed to working collaboratively to find solutions,"
Purdue Pharma, maker of OxyContin, said in a May 11 email message
to Corporate Counsel.  "The delegation of law enforcement
authority to a private law firm with a financial interest in the
outcome of a case creates serious public policy concerns and
presents a clear conflict of interest."

More Plaintiffs Firms Seeking Out Contingency Work
Mr. Hanly is not the only player working on behalf of states and
municipalities against pharmaceutical companies.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll is one of several firms representing
the city of Chicago and California's Santa Clara County -- which
filed a joint action with Orange County -- and was hired by New
Hampshire Attorney General Joseph Foster in the respective
jurisdictions' separate litigation over how several pharmaceutical
companies marketed their prescription opioids.

The New Hampshire case is pending in the state Supreme Court, and
the Chicago one is in discovery in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  The California claims were stayed
by a state court judge, who determined in 2015 that the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration had primary jurisdiction over the labeling
and use of pharmaceutical drugs.  But a joint document filed in
the case last month says "the parties are still involved in
settlement discussions" and that the plaintiffs will file a fourth
amended complaint, presumably if no settlement is reached, by
early June.

Big plaintiffs firms are not alone in getting the work.
Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood hired John Davidson of the
two-lawyer firm Davidson Bowie in Flowood, Mississippi, to file
his December 2015 suit over the marketing of opioids.

"I have eight lawyers in my civil litigation division and zero
money to cover the cost of this litigation," Mr. Hood said in a
phone interview.  "If the other side saw my budget, they'd drag it
out. . . . Tell me another way to do this, how to recoup money
that is due to the state."  According to a December 2015 report by
the Mississippi State Department of Health, opioid-related
hospitalizations in the state were associated with an inpatient
cost of about $200 million for 2010 and 2011.
Hood says his office maintains a list of outside lawyers who
request to file a case on the state's behalf.

"If you're the first to present us with your idea, which is [your]
intellectual property, it's your case after we've scrubbed it and
decided it's a good case," he said.  But if the outside counsel
doesn't have "the horsepower and the financial ability, we'll tell
them to go associate some other lawyers."

In fact, Mr. Hood added, many of the state's larger contingency-
fee cases have been brought to him by solo practitioners, who then
have been required to associate with additional counsel who has
the resources to handle the litigation.

Mr. Hood said the amount an outside attorney can recover in a
contingency-fee case filed on behalf of Mississippi is capped by
state law at 25 percent.  In the pending opioid suit, Davidson and
his firm are entitled to the maximum 25 percent of any recovery of
up to $10 million, according to a retention agreement between
Messrs. Davidson and Hood.  If the state recovers more than $25
million, outside counsel will receive 5 percent of that amount,
under the agreement.

Victoria Nugent -- vnugent@cohenmilstein.com -- the other co-head
of Cohen Milstein's public client practice, says its fees often
are likewise graduated according to the size of the recovery such
that often, these are "not windfall cases in reality."

Pitching the government as Mr. Hood's outside lawyers do is not an
uncommon way to get the contingency-fee work.

A few months after Linda Singer, then-partner and lead attorney in
the Cohen Milstein suits, filed the first two cases in 2014, Ms.
Singer, who spent a year as Washington, D.C.'s attorney general in
2007, was a main focus of a New York Times report on private firms
that coax state attorneys general into action, often through their
former state AGs-turned-plaintiffs-lawyers who use their political
contacts to drum up contingency cases.

In February, Ms. Singer departed Cohen Milstein for rival
plaintiffs firm Motley Rice in an effort to bolster its public
client practice, which Ms. Singer headed at Cohen Milstein and now
leads at her new firm.   Motley Rice's group, like that of Cohen
Milstein's, focuses in part on partnering with state AGs and local
governments to pursue complex investigations and litigation.

Motley Rice's robust public client practice is expected to grow
under Ms. Singer's leadership and perhaps expand into the opioid-
litigation area.  In fact, according to recent filings in the
California and Chicago cases, Ms. Singer continues to work on
these cases at Motley Rice. (Whether she also still works on the
New Hampshire case could not immediately be learned.)

"The support, resources and experience at Motley Rice can be used
to enable government enforcers to level the playing field and take
on large-scale, complex investigations and litigation that they
wouldn't otherwise be able to, protecting the best interests of
their constituents," Ms. Singer said earlier this year in a

She declined to comment for this article, citing pending

New York lawyer Hanly's been at this a while.  Beginning about 14
years ago, he represented 5,000 individuals in a class-action
lawsuit against Purdue Pharma over the marketing of opioids.  A
few years ago, he says he was contacted by Singer in anticipation
of her groundbreaking suit against Chicago.

A couple years ago, Suffolk County officials got wind of the
contingency-fee opioid litigation occurring in other parts of the
country and reached out to r. Hanly because of his prior success.
Mr. Hanly said he has been contacted by numerous counties outside
New York.  His recovery amount in these contingency-fee cases
ranges from 10 to 40 percent, with the latter figure applying in
cases that go to a jury verdict or otherwise get resolved late in
the litigation, he added.

The vast majority of these cases follow the typical contingency-
fee agreement: The private firm fronts most of the costs of the
investigation and prosecution of the lawsuit and gets 10 to 40
percent -- usually depending on when the case is concluded and for
what amount -- of any recovery if the enforcement is successful.
The rest of the money goes to the state or local municipality.

It's too early to tell whether these contingency-fee bets will pay
off for the plaintiffs lawyers, but they may be encouraged by the
state of Kentucky's December 2015 settlement with Purdue Pharma
after nearly a decade of litigation over the company's marketing
claims about OxyContin.  The Kentucky AG's Office recently
confirmed this also was a contingency-fee agreement between the

Former Attorney General Greg Stumbo, who filed the suit, said the
lawsuit could have been worth up to $1 billion if it went to
trial.  Plaintiffs recovered nearly $450,000 in costs, according
to an AG's Office spokesperson, who did not provide details about
the contingency-fee agreement or the amount recovered by
plaintiffs lawyers.


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-

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *